Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1992-05-26 I I I ~.31 5-19-92/5-26-92 ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, May 26th, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 p.m. of the Approved: ~~ ~~ ~~/~- - ayo Attest: Seal Beach, California May 26, 1992 The regular adjourned City Council meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m. this date was cancelled due to the lack of Closed Session items for discussion. Jo ci T ~7M r MayJ1992. M. Yeo, City ~ of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California May 26, 1992 The city council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, city Manager Mr. Barrow, city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by Doane, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions an~that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after 5-26-92 reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS I Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, reported more than $600 in donations for repair of the pier were realized from a recent social gathering of the Seal Beach Citizens United Group, read the names of some of the donors, and urged other local groups to likewise hold fund raising events for this purpose. Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, commended the City Manager for having established a pier repair fund through the City, and suggested that the local organizations conduct their own fund raising efforts rather than establishing a separate committee specifically for that purpose. Mayor Forsythe noted that donation checks can be made payable to the City of Seal Beach Pier Fund. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. PRESENTATIONS RESOLUTION NUMBER 4144 - COMMENDING SEAL BEACH LIFEGUARDS Resolution Number 4144 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Forsythe entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING SEAL BEACH LIFEGUARDS GREG WEISBERG, CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, A. J. SUMMERS AND JEFF ALDINGER." Brown moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4144 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried I Mayor Forsythe presented the Resolution to each of the honored Lifeguards with appreciation. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4145 - COMMENDING SEAL BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Resolution Number 4145 was presented to council and read in full by Mayor Forsythe entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT." Hastings moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4145 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried The City Manager offered to present the Resolution to the Department'the following day. Mayor Forsythe expressed appreciation to the City Manager for his efforts during and subsequent to the recent pier fire. PROCLAMATION Mayor Forsythe proclaimed June 14th, 1992 as "Aids Walk Orange County Day" in the City of Seal Beach. I COUNCIL ITEMS Annointment - Beach Commission Councilman Brown stated his desire to meet with Mayor Forsythe and Councilmember Hastings to further define the purpose of the Beach Commission prior to maki~g a District Two appointment to fill the current vacancy, and requested that this item be held over until the next meeting. I -I I ~ 5-26-92 CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" throuah "G" Councilmember Brown requested that Item "F" be removed as it would be necessary for him to abstain from voting on approval of the minutes. Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "F", as presented. E. Approved regular demands numbered 87880 through 88029 in the amount of $614,810.02 and payroll demands numbered 50036 through 50219 in the amount of $206,022.95 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. G. Adopted Resolution Number 4146 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 AND THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF 1992 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES THEREFOR" and authorized execution of agreements with Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga as Financial Advisors, and Jones, Hall, Hill and White as Bond Counsel. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "F" - MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to approve the minutes of the May 11th, 1992 regular meeting and the May 19th, 1992 regular adjourned meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Brown Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ELEMENT / NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92-1 Mayor Forsythe declared the continued public hearing open to consider the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan. The city Clerk certified that notice of the continued public hearing had been posted as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this matter other than comments submitted directly to the Development Services Department relative to this matter. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, noted that the report from the Archaeological Committee had been accepted and referred to the Planning commission on March 11, 1991. The Director advised that certain revisions were made to the document subsequent to hearings before the Planning Commission as a result of a concern expressed by the Commission relating to the enforceability of the nondisclosure agreement, specifically an assurance that archaeological site information would remain confidential. He explained that the majority of the revisions proposed are the result of information received from the Native American Heritage Commission, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the UCLA Archaeological Information Center regarding the impact of the nondisclosure agreement in the Element itself. The Director noted that this General Plan Element sets forth the purpose and function of preserving archaeological resources and a specified mechanism for the preparation of future archaeological research reports in Seal Beach. He pointed out that currently there are no local procedures whereby archaeological consultants 5-26-92 are selected and retained by the City with the cost borne by the development applicant, rather the archaeologist has been selected by the developer, the Element would also allow the City the ability to approve the research design prepared by the archaeologist for a particular site. The Director again mentioned that although the Planning Commission had approved the Element basically as recommended by the Archaeological Committee, the City Attorney had been requested to review the nondisclosure agreement to ensure the confidentiality of archaeological site records, and the resulting memorandum concludes that even if an individual signs a nondisclosure agreement, at that point the document becomes a public document, subsequently another person could request the document without having to sign the nondisclosure statement, also their opinion that the nondisclosure agreement is a non-enforceable document and the records could be used for any purpose the requesting party desired. The Director reported a concern has likewise been expressed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Historic Preservation Office, and UCLA with regard to the availability of archaeological site records to the public, that concern possibly stemming from the inclusion of detailed archaeological site records in the Baseline Report prepared for the City by Dr. Stickel, therefore an amendment to the Element , has been prepared that would place the responsibility for distribution of those documents with UCLA, the archaeological record repository for Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties, and pursuant to the written criteria under which the information may be disseminated. The Director clarified that the intent of staff has been to identify any potential future impacts as a result of an action taken by the City, specifically negative impacts should archaeological site records become a public document in some manner and access to them could not be denied, the concern lying with the sanctity of sites that may be within the City. He reported receiving a letter this date from Mr. William Seidel, Coordinator of the California Archaeological Inventory, Office of Historic Preservation, copies of same distributed to the Council and the Archaeological Committee, the letter basically recommending that the services of UCLA be utilized and that the Element be amended to indicate same, also that the city return the archaeological site records in its possession to the Information Center and in turn utilize the Center's expertise in decision making processes. Dr. Lynn Gamble, UCLA Information Center, advised that UCLA is one of eleven regional offices under the Office of Historic Preservation, maintaining archaeological records and information for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura, interacting with State, county and city agencies in making recommendations on projects that may impact archaeological sites. She noted the Center is mandated to maintain these records, assigns archaeological site numbers, that archaeologists are supposed to file all reports and site information with the Center and those utilizing records at the Center are required to sign a confidentiality agreement, that access to and summaries of site information is provided to planners and Native Americans, that as much information as possible is provided to inquiring cities and counties, particularly when there is question as to whether an area needs to be surveyed or re-surveyed, the Center also cooperates with citizens and organizations in response to inquiries relating to specific sites, and in those cases they are encouraged to work through an archaeologist. Dr. Gamble complimented the quality of the Archaeological Element and the efforts of the Archaeological Task Force, suggested that it could be used as a model for other communities, spoke favorably of the city retaining the archaeologist rather than a potential developer, yet expressed concern with regard to the confidentiality of archaeological site records. In response to I I I I I I 5-26-92 Council, Dr. Gamble confirmed that the Center is a state agency under the Office of Historic Preservation, housed at and supported by UCLA, funded by Federal and state grants and from fees charged for use of the Center, also confirmed that she had read the original draft Element as well as the updated version reflecting proposed changes as a result of comments made to the Element. with regard to the Element considered by the Planning Commission, the Director confirmed that the Commission had considered the Element submitted by Ms. Hahn, Attachment 12 to the staff report the document with additions and deletions set forth as shaded text and strikeouts as a result of the Commission concern and in response to comments received with regard to the nondisclosure issue. In response to a question relating to methods of selection of an archaeologist, the Director mentioned that most recently the selection of an EIR consultant was accomplished through an interview process involving members of the Council and Planning Commission of those firms responding to the Request for Proposal, as opposed to past practice where consultants were chosen by the developer, noted also that some cities utilize a process of seeking proposals from a number of firms prior to any proposed development from which a list of consultants is established and the firms used on a rotating basis. He noted that at this point the Element only specifies that the Council will make the selection of the archaeologist, the method of that selection is not addressed, the Element also places the scope of work within the authority of the Council, the research design available for public review for a period of thirty days including review by the specific Native American tribe and the Archaeological Repository at UCLA, those comments and responses to be provided to the Council. In reference to the state access policy for archaeological information summaries, Mayor Forsythe inquired as to the definition of planners involved in process of preliminary project planning. Dr. Gamble explained that the guidelines are a state policy, and when that basic question was posed to Mr. Seidel of the state Historic Preservation Office the response was that such determination would be up to the coordinator of the Information Center, and noted her primary concern as a coordinator is that the person seeking summaries of information have valid reasons for obtaining the information and is not one that would loot or vandalize a site, also in the case of a group working on an Archaeological Element as an example, they should have the ability to obtain summary information, and confirmed that such information could likewise be available to a Councilor Planning Commission involved in the preliminary planning of a project. She added that such determination would need to be in ones best judqment, keeping in mind the prime concern of protecting the archaeological resources, that CEQA regulations are being followed as an example, and noted that cooperation is afforded interested citizens and amateur archaeologists who often keep a watchful eye over archaeological areas, however pointed out that summary rather than specific' site sensitive inf9rmation would be provided those persons. Dr. Gamble explained that the city Council, as a decision making body as an example, would have the ability to request information and recommendations from the Information Center, however it is likely that the hiring of a professional archaeologist would be suggested, particularly in a case where a parcel of property had not been previously surveyed. The Director clarified that the revisions to the Element propose that the archaeological site records would be on file at UCLA and would not be a public document, that it was his understanding that at the time summaries are provided to Native American groups or planners, those become public and may be provided to anyone, that the summary would indicate whether there are significant resources on the site where some additional action would need to be taken, specifically through the EIR, approval or denial process, further, it was his understanding that the document that 5-26-92 would not be available would be the archaeological site specific record. Dr. Gamble said there are two types of documents kept at the Information Center, site records showing the specific location, boundaries, and findings of a site, and reports that are not site specific therefore would not be considered to be confidential, and briefly mentioned the standards for written archaeological reports as set forth in the 1991 publication, Archaeological Resources Management Reports. Dr. Gamble stated whether a burial site was found, whether artifacts or only shells were found, would be typical of summary report information that could be provided, however again said the specific site location would not for the reason of protecting the site. with regard to how it would be known that an archaeologist is performing proper work, the Director explained that although the expense associated with the archaeological services is paid to the city by the developer, the City actually pays the consultant, and unless the work product is felt to be sufficient the archaeologist would not be paid, and pointed out that the summary report addressing what is found on the site, the importance of the finds, etc. is then submitted to the City Council, this process substantially different in that the Council has the authority to select the most qualified person or firm to perform the work. with regard to developer access to site location records, Dr. Gamble advised they would only be available if the developer was also the property owner, or if the developer were to retain their own archaeologist. Councilmember Hastings commented that it appeared that a coordinator has considerable discretion with regard to providing archaeological information, and that a city Council could be at a disadvantage in making land use decisions unless all information, including site specific data, is available to that body, and made specific reference to archaeological research that had been improperly done on the Hellman land in recent years. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:18 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. I I Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Mark Hotchkiss, Seal Beach, expressed his reasons in support of adoption of an Archaeological Element, that jurisdiction of archaeology should be local, that other agencies do not have the staff or expertise to review archaeological reports, that archaeology should be left to scientists rather than allowing the worth of sites to be diminished when developer paid archaeologists are involved, that each local government within the coastal zone is required to prepare an archaeological element in conjunction with the Local Coastal Program for identification and preservation of archaeological resources, and that it is State policy that local governments be paid for costs associated with the adoption and certification of Local Coastal Programs. He spoke in favor of the Element as originally presented by the Committee, noted there are penalties for individuals who would vandalize a site yet none for a developer who would do so, and although protection of a I site is left to the Native American monitors, they do not have access to the site locations. Ms. Moira Hahn, member of the Archaeological Task Force, read prepared comments to staff concerns relating to the confidentiality issue, in part stated that the confidentiality of archaeological sites in the City of Seal Beach is preserved, to the extent practicable, by proposed Resolution Number 4138, which represents a balancing of development objectives with provisions for independent confirmation of the underlying data, advised the City Council to disregard all contrary recommendations and adopt the current . version of the proposed Archaeological and Historical Element I. I I .'. 5-26-92 received from the Planning Commission, not the Element in the Council packet. Ms. Hahn read her responses to various state and Federal statutes cited in an April 27th staff report, which she deemed were inapplicable. with regard to the staff revisions to the Element based on comments received from the Native American Heritage Commission and information provided by the Archaeological Information Center at UCLA, Ms. Hahn recommended the following: Archaeological Element Sections, Item 5, Appendix B, "CUltural Resources Records Search Quick Check Form" be deleted and "Nondisclosure Agreement" be restored; Section 1.C.1, the words "Archaeological Information Center" be accepted; Section 1.C.1.1., restore the word "all" and delete the new wording, and restore deleted language of footnote 6; delete the following language of the "Note" and Section 1. C. 1. 2 in entirety, delete the new wording of Section 1.C.2 and footnote 7; Section 1.C.4, Research Design, line 2, restore the word "scientific", delete the word "a" to read "...which presents precise and well- defined strategy...", the same change to the third sentence, and retain the remaining new language of that paragraph, second paragraph, retain the wording "the Archaeological Information Center at UCLA", accept the new word "There" in the third sentence, retain the new wording of the fourth sentence commencing with "and shall..." and concluding with "...and organizations", that the words "representative" and "tribe" be plural, and "with staff responses" be deleted; Section 4.B.1, accept the new wording; the following Appendices, Appendix B, restore the words "Nondisclosure Agreement" and delete the new language; the following Appendix A, Definition 10, Concerned Party, restore all deleted words, Definition 40, UCLA, delete the new wording, add a new Definition 42, "South Central Coastal Archaeological Information Center"; the following Nondisclosure Agreement, reinstate the language in entirety; delete Appendix B, Cultural Resources Records Search QuiCk Check Form and Appendix C, Research Methods; and following Appendix D, Federal, State, and Tribal Guidelines Concerning Archaeological and Historical Resources, add forty-three pages of laws from the original draft. The Director confirmed that the referenced laws would be part of the final document. with regard to the Nondisclosure Agreement, Ms. Hahn suggested that legal penalty language could be included similar to that contained in the Mendocino Element. Ms. Hahn mentioned that had there not been a site map in the 1980 ponderosa project EIR it would not have been known that the more recent archaeological research was incorrect, thus cited the importance for the City and the Native Americans to have complete information. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, made reference to positive comments to the draft Archaeological Element from Dr. C. R. Berger, Chairman of the Interdepartmental Graduate Program at UCLA, Dr. E. G. stickel, a Southern California Archaeology specialist, writer, and a member of UCLA faculty, Dr. Charles Schwartz, an independent professional archaeologist with expertise in Southern California and a UCLA lecturer, and of David Belardes, member of the Native American Coalition and Chief of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. Dr. Gary stickel noted his past involvement with this issue and preparation of the Baseline Study, and clarified that he is not a member of the UCLA faculty, however currently teaches a public archaeological class at that facility and has used this Element as an example. Dr. stickel made reference to a letter received from the Office of Historic Preservation wherein a staff person indicated criticism of him for having provided the city with certain archaeological records and urging that they be returned to the Information Center, to which Dr. Stickel stated the author did not want the information to be available to city planners yet he himself is a planner, and if the site information is not available he questioned how the City could address their legally mandated responsibilities to preserve the sites. He said this arbitrary State policy, which he said he had not been aware of, would not 5-26-92 only deny City planners such information but also Native Americans, the primary site information being Native American culture, and would place all professional archaeologists in conflict with their code of ethics with regard to sensitivity to concerns of groups whose culture histories are the subject of archaeological investigations, and voiced his belief that site information should not be denied any Native American. Dr. I stickel praised the quality of the Element and suggested it may become a model for other jurisdictions. With regard to Councilman Brown's concern that once site specific information is released that information then becomes available to the public in general, Dr. Stickel disagreed, stating the Native Americans that would be in possession of such information would treat it with respect and likewise the Nondisclosure Agreement would circumvent disclosure. Based upon the discussion, the city Attorney said there appeared to be four groups of persons that would like to receive the subject information, the archaeologists, who have the ability to obtain the information from UCLA, the Council, who has access to the information from the archaeologist retained by the city, the Native Americans, who quite likely should receive any information pursuant to state rather than local policy, and interested citizens, which is questionable at this point, and made reference to their opinion from a legal standpoint that if the City releases such information to one it would have to be released to anyone. Dr. Stickel said he was not certain that vandals would be seeking such information, that from his experience those persons have more site information than the archaeologists, and asked that the Native Americans not be deprived of any primary information, noting that under State guidelines, not being law, the Native Americans can be denied information. Mr. David Belardes, tribal chairman of the Juaneno Band Mission Indians and member of the Southern California I Coalition, said even with current laws and regulations the Native Americans are still often left out of the archaeological research process, to which he made reference to a burial ground in San Juan Capistrano that has been known for many years, yet problems relating to that site continue. Mr. Belardes offered his support of the Element as amended by Ms. Hahn, and read a letter of March, 1991 from the Native American Coalition endorsing the Archaeological and Historical Element as originally proposed, basically for the reasons that the Element would provide protection beyond Federal, State and County laws and that Native Americans would be required to participate and be represented in cultural matters within the city. Mr. Charles Schwartz, Beverly Hills, said he has been an archaeologist for many years, spoke in favor of the Element, seemingly setting a style for Elements in other areas and possibly a basis for improved archaeological reports of cultural resource excavations. He offered his understanding that there is approximately three percent remaining open space in Seal Beach, all privately owned, therefore the nondisclosure would be moot because it would be illegal for anyone to trespass, that disclosure would be an issue if it were public land. Mr. Schwartz also indicated concern with summaries being prepared from an archaeological report where one's bias or secondary interpretation may become a factor, thus the need for a full factual report. Mr. John Nakagawa, Seal Beach, questioned I how many sites and artifacts have been destroyed by looters versus archaeologist consultants for developers, how many more such instances.would occur if the information were made available, and stated anyone could obtain such information from UCLA if they chose to do so. He spoke for adoption of the Element as amended by Ms. Hahn. Dr. Gamble said she did not believe nondisclosure is the issue nor will it resolve the problems of unethical practices and decisions of archaeologists or of developers destroying sites, and suggested a group of archaeologists as a peer review of documents to determine their adequacy. She noted her question as to why Native Americans are I I I 5-26-92 not provided site information and the response was that it can be obtained from the Native American Heritage commission, yet said if the Commission is not providing information to the Native Americans a problem does exist, also mentioned that the comment that the Native American Heritage Commission will no longer exist was incorrect. There was some discussion of Dr. Gamble's reference to an archaeology student seeking information by means of a letter from his professor. Dr. Gamble stated to disclose certain site specific information to the public may result in misuse of that information in the future, thus the suggestion for a peer review system, involving Native Americans as well, on an on-going basis, and offered her opinion that information disclosure by the city and non-compliance with state and Federal laws could pose problems. Mr. Nakagawa suggested that Dr. Gamble submit her suggestions in writing for consideration, and spoke for adoption of the Element as amended with the Nondisclosure provision. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, spoke in favor of adoption of an Archaeological Element of the General Plan, noted that the EIR for the Hellman property did not contain reference to archaeological data contained in previous EIR documents for that site, rather the archaeologist that had been associated with UCLA maintained there were no burials on the site until the Redwine report and locations were brought to their attention, and the Council had not been provided information that was somehow obtained from the UCLA repository. He offered his opinion that if the city receives information at a cost to the City the information should be maintained as city records, even if confidential, rather than the information being transferred to UCLA, and should it be the policy of UCLA or the state agency to maintain closed information then it should be incumbent upon them to cooperate. with the cities, review every EIR document for archaeological accuracy, make comments thereto in writing, take responsibility for their comments, and assume the associated costs. He said he believed the Native American issue could possibly be solved if an archaeologist, in a scientific capacity, is hired to do the work with the Native Americans acting as observers while the research is in progress. Mr. Antos stated his view that most of the valuable artifacts and burials no longer exist in the City with possibly the exception of sites on the Federal property. Ms. Beverly Casares referred to the comment of Dr. Gamble that her agency is partly funded by fees from use of the Center, thus the desire of that agency to house the complete documents. She stated the sites on the Hellman property are already public information, known for years, discussed in conjunction with the Housing Element, yet the Hellman and Bixby properties are now fenced therefore there is no nondisclosure issue, the nondisclosure would merely mean that those sites are protected. She noted that archaeological information was not made available when the police Department and City Yard were built, stated citizens, hobbyists and amateur archaeologists should have access to such information, and suggested that the Mendocino nondisclosure agreement be given consideration. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:48 p.m. The council reconvened at 10:00 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. Councilman Doane commended all persons for their efforts and input into the Archaeological Element, and indicated his support for revised Element submitted by staff. councilman Brown expressed his feeling that archaeological site information should be available to Native Americans, yet not necessarily to the public at large, and possibly the scope of Work could require that there be a representative of the Native Americans. He too indicated support for the Element as submitted by staff. with 5-26-92 regard to vacant lands in the City that would be subject to the Element, the Director mentioned the Hellman, state Lands, and Department of Water and Power properties, parcels located at Pacific Coast Highway and 12th street, and vacant Rockwell property, also noted that an archaeological review will be conducted on the Bixby property as part of the EIR process. Councilman Laszlo questioned applicability of the Element to the DWP site since there has been excavation activity, asbestos removal, etc. on that property. The Director reported the referenced Mendocino regulation provides that any violation of that ordinance is a misdemeanor, subject to a fine of up to $500, which is a general provision of state law, however another section specifically relates to unauthorized disclosure of archaeological information prepared or maintained under the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma state University, a counterpart to UCLA, the process of the two communities similar with regard to selection of an archaeologist and the dissemination of information as proposed. Councilman Laszlo mentioned the Berger, Stickel and Schwartz communications expressing some disagreement with confidentiality agreements, and stated the availability of information to Native Americans should be remedied if they in fact do not receive it. Councilmember Hastings indicated her preference for the Element with the amendments mentioned by Ms. Hahn, stated she believed however that the Nondisclosure clause could be dealt with in another manner, possibly via a separate ordinance, however when the Council is directly involved in land use decisions all information should be available to that body, likewise some means to ensure that the Native Americans are provided the information they need. She expressed appreciation to Ms. Hahn and Mr. Whittenberg for their efforts, and encouraged staff to prepare an ordinance to safeguard nondisclosure. Doane moved, second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4138 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92-1 AND ADOPTING THE 'ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ELEMENT' OF THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN (GPA 92-1)" as revised by staff and presented in the Council packet. Councilman Laszlo moved a substitute motion to adopt Resolution Number 4138, Negative Declaration 92-1, and the Archaeological and Historical Element as amended to include the changes proposed by Ms. Hahn. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. In response to Council, the City Attorney explained that the two versions of the Element are basically the same, however under the substitute motion if the City releases information to any individual that information then becomes available to anyone. Mayor Forsythe noted the listing of parties that would have access to information, as set forth in Section 1.C.1.1, that includes the City Council and Planning Commission, and inquired if the category of "any other concerned party" could be deleted. The City Attorney stated in that case the information would be available to archaeologists, that the Request for Proposal could call for retention of one or two archaeologists and require that the Native Americans are consulted and be participants in the process, thus have access to the information in that manner or through the State offices, and the confidential information would be available to the City Council/Planning Department/Commission through the archaeologist that is retained by the City. Mayor Forsythe inquired further if there was a legal means to simply limit the availability of the information to the archaeologists, representatives of the affected Native American group, Native American monitors, the City Council, the Planning Department/Commission, and the landowner. The City Attorney replied in the negative, that it would be inconsistent with State policy, as an example the State may decline to provide I I I I I I 5-26-92 information to the City because it is felt the information might be distributed by the City to anyone requesting it, the other reason being that if the information is released it can not be done on a selective basis, the key guideline being the source of the information, another fact being that the City will now retain its own archaeologist, who in turn will provide the City with the confidential site specific information. Councilmember Hastings inquired if an archaeologist can legally disseminate site specific information once it has been obtained. Dr. Gamble confirmed that if the City retains the archaeologist, the information is then forthcoming to the city. It was further clarified that the fact that the archaeologist is retained and paid by the City would have no effect on the City receiving the site information, even though the associated costs would be reimbursed to the city by the developer/applicant. It was noted that should a second archaeologist be retained, that cost would likewise be required to be paid by the applicant. Dr. stickel alleged that the policy of the state is to deny site specific information to Native Americans. The city Attorney clarified that either version of the Element could be adopted without violation of any law, however the public amended version would be in conflict with state policy and disclosure of specific information at the discretion of the City, yet the city would not have such discretion, once information is released it would need to be available to anyone. Should the Council choose to adopt the Element presented by staff, modified and including the language relative to UCLA, etc., the city Manager inquired if there could then be an ordinance prepared prescribing that any Request for Proposal for the purpose of archaeology or archaeological element of an Environmental Impact Report must contain at minimum certain requirements such as retaining a second archaeologist, possibly someone that the National Counsel may approve, inclusion of Native Americans in the monitoring process, yet still allow the information to be obtained by the Council from their archaeologist without full public disclosure. The City Attorney confirmed that could be accomplished by ordinance. The City Attorney advised Councilman Laszlo that his substitute motion could be amended to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to require Native American participation in the Request for Proposals, mandating that the City Council be provided with all information by their archaeologist, allow the city the option to retain a second archaeologist at the expense of the developer, in conjunction with the Element proposed by staff. Councilman Laszlo inquired if the intent was to delete Items 3 and 7 from Section 1.C.1.1, the Native American monitor(s) and any other concerned party. with regard to that Section, relating to the Baseline Report, the Director explained that the exclusion of attachments 4, 5 and 6, the site specific archaeological records and archaeological reports provided as part of the Baseline Study to the City from information at UCLA, the other portions of the report are a public document, available for review by anyone, and that the concern of staff was how to handle the site specific information and reports. Discussion continued relative to the differences between the two versions of the Element, means of dealing with the nondisclosure issue, a second archaeologist, involvement of Native Americans, etc. Ms. Hahn said if the staff proposed Element is adopted the Council would have to abide by the State and UCLA policies, alleging those involve more than a nondisclosure agreement, and with regard to deleting "any other concerned party" from those parties having privilege to specific information, asked what makes a developer not a member of the public, if the developer has access then how do others, also if UCLA will not disclose full site information to the Native Americans, asked how an archaeologist would be able to disclose site information to them. The City Attorney again explained that 5-26-92 the source of information is the key and the city would not have the discretion to provide such information to one person and not another, yet archaeologists have the opportunity to obtain research information from the repository. Dr. Gamble responded that the Center requests that an archaeologist sign a confidentiality agreement and provide a resume, and stated she felt there was a misunderstanding of the Quick Check Form, that the information provided is a recommendation rather than just a summary, and a city retained archaeologist would have the ability to obtain necessary information and provide same to the city Council. Mayor Forsythe restated the indicated intent of the Council that the City Council and Planning Department/Commission should be provided all information relating to an archaeological site, yet concerns remain with the general public having access to such information, and requested that certain revisions proposed by Ms. Hahn be considered, that an ordinance be prepared to clarify and strengthen the intent of the Council for consideration at a future meeting. The primary and substitute motions were withdrawn with consent of the seconds. Noting that the public hearing had been closed, Councilmember Hastings requested that if desired, Ms. Hahn be allowed to comment on this matter when it is again before the Council. Ms. Hahn requested the opportunity to review the forthcoming documents/language at the earliest possible time. The city Attorney encouraged Ms. Hahn to place her comments in writing, and advised that the focus of changes would likely be with Section 1.C.1.1, of the staff proposed Element, and possibly an ordinance proposing a nondisclosure statement. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to continue this matter for approximately one month. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES~~ None Motion carried PUBLIC ~~ING - ZO~G TEXT AMENDMENT 92-1 - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1154 - -SITE HAZ OUS WASTE FACILITIES Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 92-1 relating to off-site hazardous waste facilities. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report relating to ZTA 92-1 to allow for off-site hazardous waste facilities in the M-1 Zone subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and specified approval process in compliance with AB 2948 (Tanner). He noted the only properties having an M-1 designation in the City are Rockwell International, the GTE switching location adjacent to the Leisure World Library, and a portion of the developed Bixby Office Park, that such a facility would be required to be located at least two thousand feet from any residential facility or used land, and the proposed Ordinance is felt to more strictly regulate the requirements under which such use would need to comply with. The Director reported this matter was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission with a minor change to the notification requirements to also include the two thousand foot buffer area. In response to Council, the Director explained that no such facility could be located within the City if there were no appropriate site, that the M-1 Zone was specified since there is no M-2 designation in Seal Beach, that the two thousand foot criteria was based on the County model ordinance and would exclude the previously mentioned properties with the exception of an approximate thirty foot wide strip of the Rockwell property adjacent to Lopez Drive. A suggestion was made that a three thousand foot buffer be considered, that an overlay of the two thousand feet be made on the Bixby property in the vicinity of the golf course, and a I I I I I I 5-26-92 concern was expressed that a property could be rezoned M-1 in the future that may allow such use. staff pointed out that although the Council would have the authority to change zoning, in this case there would be other substantial environmental criteria that would need to be taken into account in doing so. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Bob Carlton, 8th street, noted his twenty year involvement in the environmental field, suggested that decisions such as this be made on factual environmental assessment and risk, and the appropriate distance for a hazardous waste management site is unknown. Mr. Bill Olszewsky, Seal Beach, congratulated Mayor Forsythe on her selection as Mayor, also spoke in opposition to placing a hazardous waste facility in Seal Beach or similar cities, citing the water table as his reason. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1a5~- OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES In response to an inquiry relating to the permit issued to the Naval Weapons station, the Director explained that to be a different type of permit issued by CAL EPA and the California Department of Health Services for the storage and some treatment of hazardous waste materials from their own facilities as opposed to the proposed Ordinance that sets forth guidelines for the collection of hazardous waste materials from other generators, noting also that regulations relating to ground water, leaching, etc. are provided within the Ordinance. The Director suggested that the Ordinance be introduced, and if deemed appropriate the buffer area could be adjusted at the time of second reading. Hastings moved, second by Brown, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1'54 as written entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 92-1 RELATING TO 'OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES', AND ADDING SECTION 28- 1500(12) AND ARTICLE 33, SECTIONS 28-3300 THROUGH 28-3312 TO THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH" and that it be passed to second reading. Full reading of Ordinance Number 1154 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 11:15 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:25 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARING - GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT - GENERAL PLAN - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92-2 - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4147 Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explaining that the Element is the result of requirements of the voter approved Measure M that established a one-half cent sales and use tax to be used throughout the County for funding critical road improvements and to help mitigate traffic impacts generated from existing and proposed development. The Director noted the proposed ~lement was prepared in accordance with the guidelines provided by the County, provides that no permits for a development proposal may be granted unless a level of service "D" is shown to be achievable, the intent of the City to also work with adjacent jurisdictions to resolve problem areas, the proposed Element also strengthening the city's position to justify and implement development impact fees. 5-26-92 There being no comments from the audience, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed; In response to Council, the Director explained that the method of attaining level of service "D" would be a determination of the Council at the time an RFP for a traffic study for a particular development is considered, also confirmed that this document is one of several components that is required to be submitted to the County by June 30th to I qualify to receive Measure M funding. He advised that as the General Plan Elements are revised or adopted there will be a consistency to maintain the criteria of level of service "D" throughout those documents. with regard to the residential development proposed for the Bolsa Chica area, he explained that the City will receive a draft of the EIR, will have the opportunity to comment as to the affect on this city, and noted the city of Huntington Beach likewise must comply with the provisions of Measure M. Councilmember Hastings reported mentioning this specific development at a recent Growth Management Zone Six meeting where she expressed concern regarding traffic and air quality impacts on Seal Beach., Laszlo moved, second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4147 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 92-2 AND ADOPTING A 'GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT I TO THE SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN." Full reading of Resolution Number 4147 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN Mayor Forsythe declared the pUblic hearing open to consider a proposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The City Clerk I certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The City Manager reported the Plan is a requirement of State law to enable the City to be eligible for State assistance in the event of future drought years. There being no comments from the audience, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4148 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN." Full reading of Resolution Number 4148 was waived. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORT The City Manager reported the municipal pier was reopened as of Friday afternoon, the restaurant and sport fishing are operational, that a special rebuilding fund has been established to receive direct donations, tax deductible pursuant to Internal Revenue Service regulations, and that a plaque naming those who donate $100 or more is planned. He stated the structural engineer has been evaluating the pier damage and temporary repairs, that authorization to bid for permanent repairs will be forthcoming to the Council in the near future, and the insurance company has indicated that current expehditures will be applicable to the City'S deductible. The Manager commended the cooperation of all those involved in the recent pier fire, particularly city personnel who view the pier as a point of pr~de and reacted accordingly. He expressed appreciation for the resolutions commending City staff. Councilman Brown commended whomever was responsible for hanging the sign announcing the reopening of Ruby's, and Mayor Forsythe expressed appreciation for the efforts of the City Manager. II I I I I 5-26-92/6-8-92 COUNCIL CONCERNS In response to an inquiry of Councilmember Hastings, the city Manager reported a preliminary report relating to groin repairs is anticipated from Moffat , Nichol in approximately two weeks. Councilmember Hastings commended Mayor Forsythe's mayoral conduct. Councilman Laszlo noted a suggestion that the municipal pier be designated as a historical monument, and a question as to the degree of destruction as a result of the recent fire. Councilman Brown mentioned that the city will be looking further into noise complaints near the theatre in the Rossmoor Center, as recently discussed by the Planning commission. Mayor Forsythe announced the upcoming Environmental Quality Control Board meeting at which a tree policy will an item of discussion. with regard to the meeting to be held in Council Chambers the following evening relating to the hazardous waste permit for the Naval Weapons Station, the city Attorney advised that the members of the Council may attend as general public without conflict. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, June 8, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:46 p.m. of the lerk and ex-off of Seal Beach Approved: ~-/~~ - May r Attest: Seal Beach, California June 8, 1992 The regular adjourned Seal Beach City Council meeting for 6:00 p.m. was cancelled due to the lack of Closed items for discussion. scheduled Session D THIS 9n If JU/i e ~eo, Cit~ of Seal Beach 1992.