Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-10-09 10-09-89 Seal Beach, California October 9, 1989 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:04 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Risner Absent: Councilmembers Laszlo, Wilson Hunt moved, -second by Risner, to excuse the absence of Councilmembers Laszlo and Wilson from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk AGENDA AMENDED Risner moved, second by Hunt, to consider agenda item nln, Resolution Number 3888, out of order at this time. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3888 - NORTH WEST GROUP - JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT Resolution Number 3888 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, AS A CONSORTIUM, WITH DESIGNATED MEMBER CITIES OF THE NORTH WEST GROUP FOR DESIGNATION AS AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE DELIVERY AREA FOR JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3888 was waived. The City Manager explained that the North West Group is a consortium of cities committed to address specific employment and training needs of the unemployed disadvantaged population. He reported that a recent action of the County with regard to the job training program may exclude cities from further participation, however there is an opportunity to continue participation in the policy area of the Jobs Training Program by joining the North West Group as a service area. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3888 as presented. In response to the Council, Ms. Linda Dotters, City of La Habra North West Group, explained that their programs in Los Alamitos and the School District relate to the handicapped, high risk, and economically disadvantaged youth population as well as the senior population, that they also provide summer youth programs that include handicapped and high risk groups due to a special education or gang involvement status. Ms. Dotters stated she develops plans for the program, that there is a representative of the Group in Los Alamitos, that there are several out-stations at which application for the program can be made, and there are recruiters at the schools. 10-09~89 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Grgas proclaimed the week of October 8th through October 14th, 1989 as nB'nai B'rith Week. The Mayor proclaimed October 2nd through October 6th, 1989 as HRideshare Week.n I The month of October, 1989 was proclaimed as nNational AIDS Awareness Monthn by Mayor Grgas. The Mayor proclaimed October, 1989 as nEscrow Month.n Mayor Grgas proclaimed October 22nd through October 29th, 1989 as nRed Ribbon Weekn and encouraged all citizens nto pledge no use of illegal drugs and no illegal use of legal drugs.n The Mayor proclaimed October 16th, 1989 as nWorld Food Dayn and October 15th through October 21st as nOrange County Hunger Week.n CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT - MOLA DEVELOPMENT Mayor Grgas declared the continued public hearing open to consider -the proposed Development Agreement for the Hellman Ranch Project -between the City of Seal Beach and Mola Development Corporation. The City Clerk reported a notice of the continued hearing had been posted as required by law, and that there were no-communications received either for or I against this item. The City Attorney responded to questions that had been posed by Councilmember Risner relating to Sections 12.5, 12.6 and 12.9 of the Development Agreement. He explained that although Section 12.5, Mello-Roos Communities Facilities District, is consistent with State law and it was felt the language of 12.5 provided that the City would retain discretion with regard to the issuance of Mello-Roos bonds, there was question as to whether or not the City would be bound to issue bonds should the developer request same and in an amount so requested, therefore it was felt to be advisable to provide further clarification at this time to avoid a -possible misinterpretation at some future date. He suggested the addition of language to read nprovided that City shall have the sole discretion to determine whether such bonds shall be issued and if so, upon what terms.n Mr. Stepanicich explained that such wording would make it clear that the City reserves the right to determine if bonds are to be issued and the amount thereof. He recommended that Ordinance Number 1292 again be considered for first reading if this amendment is approved by the Council. -He noted the developer's desire that this project be scheduled for consideration-by the Coastal Commission at the earliest possible date, and although the Commission indicated that if the Agreement is approved by I the end of this month it would not delay their process, the developer felt it was the desire of the Commission to have the approved, signed-Agreement at the time of their scheduled meeting the following Monday. Mr. Stepanicich advised that it would be within the discretion of the Council to consider the second reading and adoption of Ordinance Number 1292 at an adjourned meeting to accommodate this time frame. Councilman Hunt stated he felt that for anything-outside of the scope of 'acquisition and construction of certain public facilities which are - necessary to meet increased demands placed on the City', as 10-09-89 I stated in Section 12.5, the developer could not justify a Mello-Roos, and if the City were to object to a Mello-Roos, it would be directed only to those improvements outside of the scope of demands placed on the City because of the development, therefore it would appear that the City has the necessary protection under Section 12.5 as written. The City Attorney acknowledged that Councilman Hunt's point was well taken, however suggested that if it were assumed there were bonds for public improvements, even through most of the improvements will be private, there could be question as to the terms for issuance of such bonds, the amount, maturity dates, interest rates, etc., therefore the amendment would clarify that those decisions -are solely at the discretion of the City. He said that although under the existing language it is felt that the City is protected, the concern is whether there could be any ambiguity of the language or how it would be interpreted in the future. He also stated he felt it unlikely that there would be a Mello-Roos on this project. Discussion followed. With regard to Section 12.6 relating to the $150,OOO contribution for the restoration and improvement of Gum Grove Park, the City Attorney pointed out that the intent of the existing wording was that there be a $150,000 cash contribution or in-kind improvements of a like amount, however suggested language could be added for clarification purposes to read nAdditionally developer shall contribute to City the sum of $150,000 for restoration and improvement of Gum Grove Park which shall be in the form of either cash or labor and materials as determined by the City.n Discussion followed. I The City Attorney noted the request that reference to the Wetlands Mitigation Program, Section 12.9, be amended in each instance to read nWetlands Mitigation/Restoration Program,n placing emphasis on the restoration aspect of the wetlands which is part of the mitigation. Councilmember Risner moved to approve the changes to Sections 12.5, 12.6 and 12.9 as stated and that they be incorporated into the Development Agreement. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion for discussion. The City Attorney clarified that the motion was to consider approval of the amendments to the Agreement as stated, and if approved, Ordinance Number 1292 would again be considered for first reading. In response to Councilmember Risner, the City Attorney advised it would not be necessary to amend Section 3.1(b) to reflect the wording of Section 12.6 relating to the $150,000 for Gum Grove Park improvements. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried I Mayor Grgas 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. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said he felt entering into agreement at a later date for the park improvements was inappropriate given the fact that the parkland, satisfying the Quimby requirements, is a substantial consideration of the agreement. He said he felt the Development Agreement should address exactly what improvements the developer will make since the developer had previously stated they would merely grade the area and turn it over to the City. Mr. Stark said it was his understanding that the developer proposed to offset the costs to the City for this project by providing a police car, three shifts of police personnel, drill water wells and 10-09-89 provide a reservoir, and other contributions such as fire schools, libraries, etc. He stated the staff report set forth the benefits to the City and the developer, yet did not address the drawbacks, such as the City's costs associated with the items he mentioned. Mr. Stark said the Planning Commission had requested assurance that the $1 million would be reserved for the purchase of land for ball diamonds, and he felt the use of those monies should be I addressed at this time rather than allowing possible expenditure for other uses in support of the development. Councilman Hunt responded that the Planning Commission did not ask for assurance that the $1 million would be spent for ball diamonds, and that there has been discussion indicating that those monies will not be used for that purpose or for recreation activities. Councilman Hunt stated the $1 million and will most likely be placed in the General Fund, yet the ball diamonds will be realized, probably through the use of tax increment. He also stated that in addition to tax increment, the annual revenue that the project generates will cover the expenses that will be required to be provided by the City, an exception being a potential shortfall of $50,000 as a worst case scenario as noted in an early report, and if that were a reality, the shortfall would be covered by the approximate $600,000 annual tax increment and the $1 million. With regard to the park improvements, Councilman Hunt pointed out that the developer has agreed to provide the City $1 million cash, an $800,000 commitment for park maintenance, $150,000 for improvements to Gum Grove Park, and in addition they are giving the City twenty-six acres of land, twenty acres more than Quimby requirements, and have committed to $1.1 million for improvements to the community park. Councilmember Risner clarified that the I request of the Planning Commission had been that there be some form of guarantee that the property will be made available for baseball diamonds, and noted that the City has not as yet made a definite decision as to the use of the $l million. Mayor Grgas expressed his feeling that the $l million should not be spent, that it should be placed in General-Fund Reserves and only the resulting interest used, noting that it is seldom the City realizes such significant lump sum of money. He recalled the deficit operating budget of some years past, that situation eased somewhat as the result of the advance received against the cable television franchise, which has been a benefit to the City. He spoke for the use of alternative resources, such as tax increment, for any improvements that can be justified for the use of those monies. Mr. Carl San Filippo, Avalon Avenue, restated his requests as he had at a previous meeting, that barbecues not be allowed, that only gas rather than wood burning fireplaces be allowed, that there be no outside speakers or leaf blowers, and no swimming pools be allowed for the homes proposed adjacent to the existing hill residences, also that those dwellings be limited to one story. He asked what means is proposed for protection of the wildlife that will be removed from the Hellman property, how soil problems resulting from oil production will be addressed, and cited liquefaction and the water table as potential problems. Mr. I San Filippo asked that his requests and concerns be given consideration, that action to approve the Development Agreement not be rushed, and questioned why Redevelopment monies are not placed in the General Fund. Mayor Grgas explained that tax increment monies generated from a Redevelopment Project Area can only be used for specific purposes as opposed to the use of General Fund monies, and cited examples of projects that have been accomplished through the use of tax increment to the benefit of the community over the years. With regard to the additional five acres of Hellman land, the City Manager reported staff 10-09-89 I has been in negotiation with the general partners for the Hellman estate, noted a telephone communication this date to clarify the City's counter offer for that acreage, and stated he felt a response from Hellman would be forthcoming in the near future. The City Attorney explained that a change to the Development Agreement at the last meeting requires that prior to approval of the final map an agreement between Hellman Properties and the City for acquisition of the five acres would be required, substantially in the terms that were set forth by the September 7th letter from the City. The Mayor noted that the specific improvements for the community park will be set forth by separate agreement with the developer, that agreement also required prior to approval of the final map. The City Attorney explained that the separate agreement was felt to be an additional protection for the City and to insure that there would be sufficient opportunity for input from the community and review by the Parks and Recreation Commission as to the improvements that are desired. With regard to the issues raised by Mr. San Filippo, the City Attorney advised it was not the purpose of the Development Agreement to establish new regulations on the manner in which the property is to be developed, explaining that the Vesting Tentative Map established the various conditions attached to the project, most of which were based upon the environmental review and the mitigation measures required, and noted specifically that any soils prOblems would be subject to the requirements of the Division of Oil and Gas, also that there were conditions of the Tentative Tract Map that provided that wildlife would be handled in a manner acceptable to a humane society. Councilmember Risner added that it is the intent of the Air Quality Management Plan to prohibit the use of barbecue lighter fluids, that the conditions of approval established the hours for construction, addressed the removal of wildlife, and abandonment of pipelines, also recalled that the Bridgeport development experienced problems as the result of the water table and required additional soil compaction. Brief discussion continued. I There being no further comments, Mayor Grgas declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1292 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT - MOLA DEVELOPMENT Ordinance Number 1292, as amended, was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1292 was waived. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1292 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:23 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:36 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. There was unanimous agreement of the members of the Council to meet in adjourned session on Saturday, October 14th, at 3:30 p.m. to consider second reading and adoption of Ordinance Number 1292. 10-09-89 ORDINANCE NUMBER 1291 - ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE Ordinance Number 1291 was presented to Council for second reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS AND TO AMEND THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1291 was waived. The City Manager reported that five firms have I expressed interest in the Request For Proposal for consulting -services relating to the development impact fees, the responses due October 15th. Mayor Grgas and Councilmember Risner confi~med for the record that they had reviewed the tape of the September 25th Council meeting which included the public hearings regarding the Development Agreement and the Development Impact Fee. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Ordinance Number 1291 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3883 - DESIGNATING ENFORCEMENT AGENCY - SOLID WASTE CONTROL ACT OF 1976 Resolution Number 3883 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DESIGNATING ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY AS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR THE PROVISION OF THE Z'BERG-KAPILOFF SOLID WASTE CONTROL ACT OF 1976.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3883 was waived. The City Manager asked that this item be held over until the November 27th meeting I as requested by the League, explaining that further study by the Orange County League has brought forth a number of other options that may be available to the cities as opposed to what has been proposed by the County. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to hold this item over until November 27th. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3889 - OPPOSING NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES POSITION - HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION Resolution Number 3889 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO POSITION OF NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES ON THE HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTIONS.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3889 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3889 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS nK" thru nNn I Mayor Grgas -reported the City Clerk had requested that Item nLn, minutes of the September 25th meeting, be held over until the November 13th meeting. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item nL", as presented. K. Approved regular demands numbered 76277 through 76466 in the amount of $988,471.47 and payroll demands numbered 37078 through 37254 in the amount of $191,711.20 as 10-09-89 I approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. L. Minutes of September 25th City Council meeting held over until November 13th. M. Granted the firm of Diehl, Evans & Company an extension for filing of the annual audit until November 30, 1989. N. Approved the request for rate increase for transportation of passengers by the Yellow Cab Company. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried I REQUEST - ROSSMOOR CENTER - FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS The City Manager reported the request of Rossmoor Center is for the City's financial assistance of an unspecified amount for annual holiday decorations on one-half mile of Seal Beach Boulevard. He stated that the City has not provided financial assistance for this purpose in recent years, however it is understood that approximately fifteen years ago the City did make a contribution for holiday lights on Main Street, and current practice is that the City installs and maintains those lights, and the electricity is provided by the individual businesses adjacent to the lighted trees. Mr. Nelson stated he would not recommend that the City Council appropriate funds for such purpose at this time to a specific shopping area given the lack of precedent and the anticipation of similar requests from other shopping areas. Councilman Hunt requested that this item be held over and that the City Manager attempt to determine the actual City costs for the Main Street area. Councilmember Risner agreed that it is not customa~y for a City to-participate financially for decorations in a private shopping center, noting that Main Street is a publiC street and a somewhat different situation, and that the participation requested would establish a precedent. Councilman Hunt suggested that a comparison of Main Street and Seal Beach Boulevard could be made, however he felt that the costs associated with Main Street are very slight. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to hold this item over until all members of the Council are present. Brief discussion followed. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION Councilmembe~ Risner requested that the District Three appointment to the Planning Commission be held over. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING TIME LIMIT Councilmember Risner requested that the discussion of a time limit for City Council meetings be held over. OCTOBER 23rd MEETING CANCELLATION . The City Attorney noted that with the cancellation of the October 23rd Council meeting, the Redevelopment Agency would also not meet. He recalled that at the September 25th meeting the Agency approved a Subordination Agreement relating to the Zoeter site development as required by the Coastal Commission, and that an additional agreement is 10-09-89 required by the Commission under which the Agency agrees that the Coastal Permit will apply to the property and run with the land. Mr. Stepanicich asked that consideration be given to calling a meeting of the Agency on or before the 30th day of October for the purpose of considering the Agreement to be Bound. After brief discussion, the Council determined to consider a date for a Redevelopment Agency meeting at the adjourned session on October 14th. Risner moved, second-by Hunt, to cancel the regular City Council meeting of October 23rd. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Grgas, Hunt, Risner None Laszlo, Wilson Motion carried CITY COUNCIL-ITEMS Councilman Hunt inquired as to the status of his request to consider increasing the compensation of the members of the Planning Commission and some type of remuneration for other City boards and commissions. The City Manager advised that the request is-being worked on. Councilmember Risner asked the status of the Parks and Recreation Commission review of the park plan for tpe Mola development, and if the Commission had been provided copies of the Council and Planning Commission minutes that would reflect the comments and desires of the Council and the public regarding the park improvements. The Development Services Director reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission has held two meetings to consider the park plans for the Mola development, however he was uncertain as to the outcome of those meetings. The City Clerk advised that the Recreation I Department and Commission receives copies of the City Council minutes, and it is presumed they also receive the minutes of the Planning Commission. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications from the audience. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss real property negotiations regarding the five acre Hellman site and a personnel matter. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously announced. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous consensus of the members of the Council present to adjourn the meeting until Saturday, October 14th at 3:30 p.m. Mayor Grgas adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. with consent of the Council. I Attest: