Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-05-10 5-7-90/5-10-90 Commission has a law whereby if one digs more than two hundred meters of earth there is a special archeological permit required, that Indian people are allowed public input to that permit, and that there is also concern that the developer is proceeding with archeology before the Army Corps of Engineers permit is obtained for wetlands restoration. She asked that all work be concluded until the 1- Indian concerns are addressed, stating that the Indian people came to the Council to have some impact on this and future development, and that it is known that there are human remains on the site. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, said no matter the differences, a common ground should be found so that future issues can be dealt with. She voiced appreciation for the efforts of Mrs. Risner and Mr. Grgas. Ms. Watson urged that all citizens vote in the upcoming election. There being no further comments, Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned until May lOth at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m. clerk of the ~ty Approved: -ffi!1 I- ..ff:fr. ( I -.... I I .~, j) \ 1/ . / / '- ~/t6w'L/ I) #,0 " . City ~e // (/ I Attest: Seal Beach, California May 10, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL C)lT.T, Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. stepanicich, city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. curtis, Administrative Aide/Planning Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 5-10-90 I WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Risner, to waiver the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson Laszlo Motion Carried Given the less than unanimous vote on the motion for waiver of reading, it was determined that all ordinances and resolutions proposed at this meeting would be read in full. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Wetlands Restoration society versus City of Seal Beach, also pursuant to subsection (b). It was the unanimous consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 7:06 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:25 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the item previously announced. I PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mayor Grgas announced this to be the time to hold a public hearing to consider the proposed Housing Element update. The Director of Development Services reported the Planning Commission conducted four public hearings on the draft Housing Element, that a public workshop had been held, and that the Commission recommended the Housing Element be approved in the form as presented to the council. The Director noted a copy of the letter from the attorney for the Wetlands Restoration Society regarding the adequacy of the document was included in the Council packet, as well as a memorandum from staff in response to those comments. He reported the Planning Commission had reviewed the initial study and negative declaration and also recommended approval to the Council. The Director reviewed in detail the additions and deletions to the draft document dated May 4th that were made based upon public and Commission input, specifically that: page one, the words tlAs provided in Government Code Section 65583,tI be added to the beginning of the last paragraph; the Planning Commission determined that the text of pages two and three remain in the document with a minor change for clarification purposes to the second paragraph of subsection (b) deleting the words tlIt is recognized" and replaced with "State law recognizes"; the text of the last paragraph commencing on page eighteen and continuing to page nineteen added based upon the comments of the Wetlands Society attorney, with a correction to line three to read "Long Beach" rather than tlSeal Beachtl, and an additional sentence recommended at the end of the paragraph to read tlAssuming that it is appropriate to extrapolate the study's numbers to Seal Beach, there would be, according to the study, an estimated total of fifty-four homeless persons within the city of Seal Beach"; four additional public service agencies added to the top of page twenty in response to the Wetlands attorney; in response to comments of the Wetlands attorney a paragraph was added to page twenty-five setting forth a calculation of overcrowded units in Seal Beach based upon U. S. Census standards; new tables added to pages thirty-three and thirty-four based upon comments of the Wetlands Restoration Society attorney that relate to housing assistance needs for elderly, small and large I 5-10-90 families, as well as female and minority headed households, and noted that since the County no longer provides such information, the estimated projection was based upon 1980 census figures and numbers from the 1982 Housing Element and computed on the percentage proportion of the population of those categories from the 1980 census with the same percentage projected to the current 1989 population I estimates from the Department of Finance; an additional footnote on page thirty-eight regarding the existing remaining oil extraction area on the Hellman site, clarifying that the area is currently oil extraction and when that use terminates, it may be appropriate for residential use; additional sites included in the vacant site analysis set forth on pages thirty-nine and forty as well as a footnote clarifying that the Department of Water and Power and state Lands sites are not appropriate for residential use; additional language on page forty-three and forty-four in response to comments from the Wetlands attorney relating to land prices in Seal Beach and adjacent cities; additional language at the bottom of page forty- seven clarifying that the land use designations on Table 19 are net allowable densities of acreages as opposed to Table 16 which is gross acreages; the two programs relating to future consideration of the DWP and state Lands sites for future housing deleted from pages sixty-seven and sixty- eight based upon the Commission determination that those sites would not be considered for such use; additional wording of Section 6.2, page ninety-nine, in response to comments of the Wetland's attorney, indicating that within the community over the last five year period there have been one hundred two new units of housing construction approved I within the coastal zone with eighty-two units demolished within the same period for a net gain of twenty housing units, and a new paragraph added to read "with respect to more substantial housing developments, the city shall require a developer to comply with Section 65590. For instance, in connection with the Hellman/Mola parcel proposed development (program 5.2.1.2.a), the only substantial housing development proposed for the coastal zone since 1982, the developer will be required to provide thirty-three housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income, off-site.tI The Director stated that with the changes of the Planning Commission it is felt the docU1llent is acceptable under the provisions of State law, responds to the concerns expressed to the City by the state Department of Housing and Community Development, many of the concerns of the citizens, and the concerns of the attorney for the Wetlands Society. Councilman Hunt said he had no changes to propose to the Element at this time, however indicated his preference for the original draft of the Element plus the comments to the concerns received from the state. Councilman Laszlo questioned the need for this adjourned meeting. Mayor Grgas stated that the Council has dealt with the Hellman property issue for four and one-half years with a more recent action I taken to adopt a development plan that was believed to be the best plan and acceptable to the community, however was halted from going forward by a lawsuit on the issue of Whether the Housing Element was valid. He noted the Element has been brought before the Council in accordance with State law and the court order, and he believed the present Council should be afforded the opportunity to present their views on the issues of both the Housing Element and the Hellman property development. Mayor Grgas stated it was his 5-10-90 I intention, after receiving public testimony, to vote on the items before the Council and to then seek a motion to place these items before the new Council at a time certain after May 15th to take further action. councilmember Risner stated she felt that the intent of the lawsuit was not directed to the fact that the Housing Element had not been updated in a timely manner, a situation of most California cities, but to the rejection of the Mola development of the Hellman property. She also spoke of the lengthy process and public testimony under which the development plan was adopted, and reviewed the adoption process of the prior Housing Elements. Councilman Hunt noted that the Housing Element has been an obscure, seldomly used document, however is a requirement of state law and its absence is causing inconvenience in the community. He spoke in support of the call for this adjourned meeting and urged prompt action to adopt the Housing Element. Councilman Laszlo indicated concern with certain aspects of the Housing Element and with pending legislation that may require implementation of its provisions, noting that once the Element is approved the Mola development of the Hellman property would be considered. He said it was his understanding that if the ordinances relating to the Hellman property receive second reading prior to the seating of the new council, subsequently a motion could be made by the prevailing vote to reconsider the second reading. The City Attorney clarified that should the ordinances relating to the Hellman property development be adopted by the present council they would not take effect for a period of thirty days, therefore the new Council would have the opportunity to propose a motion for reconsideration, which would again bring the matter before the Council as if the documents had never been adopted. He noted that at the conclusion of the public hearing it would be within the discretion of the Council to either take action on the documents under consideration or to continue the matter. councilmember Risner made reference to the pending legislation that had been mentioned, recommended that the City take action to oppose that legislation, and stated that a strong opposition is expected by the League of Cities. Discussion continued. Councilman Laszlo noted that the Housing Element proposes that the Bixby property be considered for high to low cost residential housing, however the recent AICUZ study, which applies to the Armed Forces Reserve center, shows that the residential units would be located within the area of the runways and accident potential zones, and suggested the provision of the Housing Element relating to housing on the Bixby property be deleted. He also suggested that if housing were placed in that area it is likely the Reserve Center would be opened to general aviation, pointing out also that the Center is a disaster support area for the Southern California region. The Development services Director stated the AICUZ study had not been disregarded, and read in full the footnote contained on page forty of the Housing Element relating specifically to that study, the Armed Forces Reserve center, and the Bixby property. In response to a question of the Mayor, the City Attorney noted that the City has few vacant parcels of land remaining and it is difficult for communities that are reaching full development to address the requirement for low and moderate income housing policies of the state, therefore it is felt important that the Housing Element address all vacant parcels where there is a possibility of use for residential purposes even though after further study it could be I I 5-10-90 determined that the parcel is not appropriate, therefore the language of the footnote was meant to clarify that environmental and safety considerations would need to be taken into account before any residential use could be allowed on that property. He concurred that there would be greater potential for challenge if the remaining vacant 1_ parcels of land were not included in the Element in order to comply with state guidelines, yet the final policy determination of use for a specific property would be left open. He also explained that under applicable law the provisions of the AICUZ study would become law upon adoption as part of the Airport Land Use Plan. Mayor Grgas made reference to lawsuits against cities for not meeting their low and moderate housing requirements filed by housing advocacy groups, and the city Attorney confirmed there have been a number of cases challenging Housing Elements on that basis, specifically cities with relatively high property costs, thus the importance of having a Housing Element that meets state requirements to avoid such challenge. Discussion continued. Councilman Laszlo stated his primary concern is the Bixby property, however acknowledged that there must be low income housing somewhere in the City, a possible site being behind the Mobile station on Seal Beach Boulevard which would be outside the accident potential zones. He said his concern is with stating that residential use may be allowed within the APZ, and the possibility that the state could mandate such use. Councilman Laszlo moved that, given the Defense Department report, the portion of the Bixby property that is in accident potential zone one should not be considered for residential use in the Housing Element. councilmember I Risner seconded the motion. Councilman Laszlo said he believed the area he had made reference to was approximately six acres. The city Attorney was requested to prepare language that would accomplish the intent of the motion. with the consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at 8:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:30 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney introduced Mr. Colantuono, who he said has worked on the airport and other issues of the Housing Element. Mr. Stepanicich said they had prepared language specific to the Bixby property to delineate that those portions of the property that are in the clear zones and accident potential zone one are not to be included for any future considerations of low or moderate income housing, which would leave approximately ten to thirteen acres outside of those zones that could be considered for residential development, however language has been retained that would make the remaining property, if considered for residential use, subject to further safety and environmental evaluation. Councilman Laszlo asked if land that currently has structures on it, such as a tennis club or tennis courts, would be considered as developable land, possibly I with a potential for housing use. The Development Services Director responded that the analysis for the Bixby property only included areas that are presently vacant, and has not included any land that has a present use whether it be golf course, tennis facilities, etc., the vacant land being along Seal Beach Boulevard north of the golf course, and the area adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson where the service station was recently removed. The city Attorney stated the revised language would be incorporated on page 5-10-90 I forty, paragraph two, and would also necessitate changes to certain tables within the document, the fourth sentence revised to read "While the study has not been formally adopted by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission at the present time...", the fifth sentence revised to read "It is possible that the City may determine at that time, that the Bixby property is not appropriate for residential development...tI, and the last sentence revised to read "Nonetheless, at the present time, the City has identified the portion of such property outside of the area identified as clear zone, CZ, or accident potential zone one, APZ1, as a potential site for residential development, and it is the city's goal and objective to have residential development constructed there, environmental and safety constraints permitting (see p.64)." He added that Table 17 on page thirty-nine would be revised to reflect the actual acreage of somewhere between ten to thirteen acres outside of the clear zone or accident potential zone one rather than the seventy-two acres presently set forth, that the program for the conduct of public hearings, page sixty-four under anticipated impact, the possible redesignation of sixty- seven acres for residential use would be reduced to the precisely determined acreage somewhere between ten" to thirteen acres, the reference to two hundred fifty units would be deleted to read tlto permit the development of low density residential housing...tI, that the redesignation of five acres to high density residential would also be the ten to thirteen acres rather than seventy-two, and reflect twenty units per acre rather than twenty-five, that the following sentence would reflect twenty rather than twenty- five very low income, forty rather than fifty low income, and forty rather than fifty moderate income housing units. with regard to retargeting the reduction of units, the Development Services Director explained that if all of the programs identified in the document were implemented, the goals would be over-achieved, therefore there is some flexibility given the assumption that not all of the projects will be completed within the five year time period. The City Attorney stated Table 23, Quantified Objective, on page eighty-five would also be revised, program 5.2.1.2.(C), uwith regard to the Bixby property, to reflect very low housing of twenty rather than twenty-five, low of forty rather than fifty, moderate of forty rather than fifty, and the respective totals changed to one hundred sixteen, one hundred eighty-eight, and one hundred eighty-three. __I I Laszlo moved, second by Risner, to amend the Housing Element as stated by the City Attorney, page thirty-nine, Table 17, amended to reflect the reduction in the acreage outside the clear zone and accident potential zone one, page forty amended to reflect the changes read into the record that clarifies that the study has not yet been adopted formally by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, and that the property under future consideration would be the area outside the area identified as clear zone or accident potential zone one, page sixty-four revised to reflect the appropriate acreage, and page eighty-five, Table 23, the acreage for program for 5.2.1.2.(C) revised to reflect the appropriate units. Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried Councilman Laszlo inquired if the Housing Element, if adopted, could be changed within the next few months if so 5-10-90 desired. The City Attorney responded that it could be amended, however an amendment would require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. staff noted that state law allows four amendments per year per element of the General Plan. There was brief discussion with regard to the reading of I ordinances and resolutions in full. Wilson moved, second by - Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried Councilmember Risner referred to governmental constraints on page forty-six, stated the constraints on the state Lands site is that the property is owned by state Lands, and is restricted to commerce, navigation, and fisheries, that housing does not qualify for that parcel, and requested that be added as a governmental constraint. Staff recommended that such wording be added as a footnote to Table 17 which is set forth on pages thirty-nine and forty. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to add the footnote to Table 17 pursuant to the language recommended to the City Attorney to read "S'ince the State Lands property is owned by the state Lands commission, the use of such property is limited to commerce, navigation, and fisheries." AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried I In response to Council, the Development Services Director noted that all of the programs proposed for the state Lands property and the Department of Water and Power property were stricken by the Planning Commission. Mayor Grgas declared the pUblic hearing open to consider the proposed updated Housing Element of the General Plan. The City Clerk certified that the notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. 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. Laird Mueller, 235 - 8th street, inquired as to the procedures for adoption of the Housing Element and Hellman property documents, the rights that Mola Development may realize if the documents are approved, and the time frame involved to allow the new Council to consider these matters. The City Attorney explained that the Housing Element Resolution would be adopted by one motion and would become effective upon such I_- adoption and has no entitlement effect for any property in the City, that the Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map is subject to a number of conditions, subject to the approval of the development agreement, adopted by Ordinance, and subject to adoption of the amended Hellman Specific Plan, also enacted by Ordinance. He clarified that if the Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map were adopted, it would still be subject to approval of the development agreement and amended Specific Plan by adoption 5-10-90 I of those specific Ordinances before it could become a Vested Tentative Map upon which a Final Map could be recorded. He noted that if the first reading of the Ordinances did not occur at this meeting and were continued until the following Monday, no further action could be taken on those Ordinances on Tuesday, thus the new Council would be required to take the final actions, and if action were taken at this meeting it would only be the first reading of the Ordinances. Mayor Grgas reiterated his intent to allow the new Council to take the final action on the proposed Ordinances after the seating of the Council on May 15th. Mr. Charles Antos made reference to the minimal public input to the previously adopted Housing Elements as mentioned by councilmember Risner. He said the philosophy of the state is that the Housing Element is preeminent over the other elements of the General Plan, and even though the Southern California Association of ~overnments is recognized as establishing housing needs, there is nothing that requires a city to meet all of their programs, and that the state should be advised that the City can not meet those goals. He noted that Seal Beach had been removed from a prior lawsuit when it was determined the City had nearly fifty percent of housing that met low income housing requirements at that time. Mr. Antos suggested that the analysis of sites in the Housing Element show that the City can not meet the housing numbers set forth by SCAG, that the state and SCAG will have to accept that fact, or they will need to make the determination as to where low cost housing is to be located, therefore charging the resolution of the issue to the property owner and the state agencies rather than the city. Mr. Antos spoke regarding the additional five acres that is to be obtained for recreation purposes in conjunction with the Mola development, suggesting that it should be tested for toxics prior to acceptance of the parcel, that the adjacent forty acres proposed for future housing is presently an oil producing, toxic parcel, and based upon present technology it may not be possible to make that site suitable for housing, therefore that possibility should be noted in the Element. In response to Council, the city Attorney pointed out that the current oil production activity on the Hellman property is revealed in the footnote on page forty-two of the Element, and that Program B on page sixty-two makes reference to the possible redesignation of the property for residential or other appropriate uses at some future time. Ms. Laurie Clausen, 4532 Fir Avenue, said she was speaking on behalf of ACCORD, the Area Coalition On Responsible Development, that she recognized the necessity of having a Housing Element however did not feel it should be considered or adopted at this meeting, and inquired if the new Council could rescind the Housing Element if adopted. The city Attorney explained that if adopted the Housing Element could not be rescinded, however if changes were desired those would be required to go through the public hearing process before the Planning commission and City Council. Mr. Ron Kluwe, 141 Dolphin Avenue, said his understanding of a statement made before the Planning Commission was that the larger lots in Old Town may be considered to meet the requirements of the Housing Element through higher density zoning, where currently if a dwelling is torn down in Old Town it must be replaced with a single family house, and noted Seal Beach has one of the highest average housing costs in the County. Mr. Kluwe said he did not want low income housing in Seal Beach, that he felt the Element implies to the state that the Old Town area is available for higher density, and suggested that the document be modified I I 5-10-90 to reflect that Old Town will not be considered for higher density, where in fact the community is attempting to move toward a lower density. The Development Services Director responded that the Housing Element reflects the current development standards that exist in Old Town, that staff has been requested to restudy existing development standards to further encourage the construction of only single family I" dwellings, and if that should occur the Element would need to be revised to reflect the lower density numbers. He referred to Table 19 on page forty-seven, setting forth the current land use categories as provided by the General Plan, and explained there are 84.5 acres currently zoned medium density residential in the Old Town area, one unit for every 2500 square feet of land area, which is a density of 17.4 units per acre, allowing a maximum potential of 1470 housing units on the medium density areas, including existing units, that current high density zoning allows one house per every 2178 square feet of land area, a density of 20 units per acre, or a maximum potential of 3720 units on the 186 acres of high density zoned properties, including existing units. He noted current zoning patterns would allow a maximum of approximately 5100 housing units, however it is felt that number of units is more than is appropriate for the Old Town area, thus the reason for proposing changes to the current development standards to reduce those densities. Mr. Whittenberg explained that State law recognizes that all elements of the General Plan can change, and that he did not feel the City would face any liability at the state level in reflecting the various constraints that may occur should there be more than 5000 housing units in the Old Town area. Mayor Grgas quoted a portion of the petition of the Wetlands Society filed against the City with regard to the failure of 'I the city to provide housing for low and moderate income households. Ms. Norma Strohmeier, Seal Beach, expressed her objection to the attitude that has been taken regarding low income persons. with unanimous consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at 11:00 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:24 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, also inquired about vested rights of the developer should the Resolution for the Vesting Map be approved. The city Attorney stated a condition would be included at the time of approval that would provide that the Map was subject to the approval of the amended Specific Plan and development agreement ordinances, therefore there would be no vested rights until those ordinances are adopted and effective. Mr. stark commented on the low income housing and Housing Element issues, charged that the Wetlands lawsuit was brought because the City did not comply with the law. Mayor Grgas recalled that when the original project was proposed, members of the Council made the argument that at least a portion of the condominium units would fulfill the low and moderate housing requirements under the then valid Housing I Element, yet due to public reaction to the condominiums, they were eventually excluded from the project. Mr. Stark said he believed that Seal Beach has adequate evidence to ' show that there is no land suitable for housing, the Bixby property in a crash zone, the Hellman property unsuitable for various reasons, the State Lands and DWP sites under a Specific Plan, and that should be reflected in the proposed Housing Element. With regard to property rights, Mr. Stark said that the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that a city has the right to control its zoning, and that there is no requirement for the owner of a property to be able to use the property to the maximum use and 5-10-90 I economic benefit. He commented on pending legislation that relates to Housing Elements, and charged that the City owns nine acres of parkland plus approximately two acres at the Zoeter site as oppcsed to the 72.2 acres reflected in Table 13 of the Element, where the City should have 135 acres. Discussion continued. In response to Councilmember Risner, the staff advised that if the Housing Element is determined to be inadequate there would not be a valid General Plan, therefore there could be no approval of residential use or improvement in the City, any discretionary approvals such as a site plan, conditional use permit, or removal that would be required to be consistent with the General Plan. With regard to the state comments to the draft Housing Element, the Development Services Director reported the comments indicated they did not feel the probabilities of certain actions occurring within the time frame were achievable. The Director said be helieved that the number of low/moderate housing required by the 1982 Element was approximately eleven hundred, and that only the two hundred units on the Navy property responded to the 1982 programs. In response to Mr. Walt Wright, consultant for the Wetlands Society, the procedure to amend a Housing Element, once adopted, was again explained. Mr. Wright said that the Housing document will not be forwarded to the state, that it will only go to the court if requested by the petitioner. The City Attorney clarified that whether it is forwarded to the State depends somewhat on the State administration, that at one time the State was quite aggressive with regard to enforcement of Housing Elements, and that the Department of Housing Community/Development does have enforcement powers with respect to non-compliance with the guidelines. Mr. Wright noted that the court decision has not been handed down as yet, and once it is there is one hundred twenty days to take an action. He said that had the causes of action not been taken by the Wetlands Society, there would likely be a committed Mola project, that the Society has looked towards wetlands on the site from the beginning, that they have made statements as to the adequacy of the site for housing given the number of constraints on that property, and that they still feel it is not a buildable site. He made reference to a connotation that the Wetlands Society was attempting to reinstate condominiums on the site, and said he did not believe that had ever been mentioned. Mr. Wright commented on various provisions of the Element, the future consideration of the use of vacant parcels, lands suitable for residential development, the identification of environmental concerns, and the environmental checklist, and said that the document should reflect that the vacant sites are not buildable given the constraints of each property, and that each element of the General Plan should be consistent. I With the consent of the Council, the Mayor recessed the public hearing regarding the proposed draft Housing Element at 12:08 a.m. I PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to open the public hearing to consider the amendment to the Hellma~ Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment 1a-90, Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment 1b-90, Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element, Tentative Parcel Map 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198, and a Development Agreement for the Hellman Ranch Project, and to continue said hearing until Monday, May 14th at 7:00 p.m. 5-10-91 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to reopen the public hearing regarding the proposed draft Housing Element. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 catalina Avenue, recalled discussion at the Planning Commission that the Department of Water and Power site would be unsuitable for residential development due to asbestos, as well as its Specific Plan status, and based upon comments of Dr. Winchell regarding the Hellman property, questioned how one could consider building homes on an area with liquefaction. She said an inquiry was made of the Hill residents with regard to construction of condominiums, and even though the most recent plan was felt to be an improvement, she said she hoped something better could be achieved. Lisa Lang, 113 Dolphin Avenue, asked that the Council vote for the desires of the citizens, stated she would be willing to obtain as many petition signatures as necessary to prove that the Mola project is not wanted, that there is no more land to develop houses, and charged that the Zoeter site was given away. Members of the Council responded that the School District forced the sale of the Zoeter property, that a bond issue for purchase of the site was denied by the voters, thereafter a plan was developed to obtain the site for the City. Discussion continued. I with the consent of the Council, Mayor Grgas declared a recess at 12:25 a.m. The Council reconvened at 12:45 a.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. Mr. John Nakagawa, 320 - 12th Street, asked that this meeting be concluded, that the items under consideration be carried forwarded for action by the new Council, inquired as to the time frame for the new Council to reconsider the items if they are approved, and if there would be any liability for holding the Housing Element over for another week. The staff indicated that if the items before the Council are acted upon, it may take up to two months to reconsider the items, that it is at the discretion of the Council to either take action or postpone the items, and that there would be no legal significance with regard to taking an action at this meeting or postponing same. Mr. Nakagawa stated he felt postponing action would effect a more efficient, smooth transition of the Council. Mr. Mario Voce, Catalina Avenue, asked that the Council take no action and continue the Housing Element item. Mr. Voce inquired as to how the building and zoning codes relate to the Housing Element, if the Housing Element sets the parameters of those codes, and whether it would be appropriate to establish height limits, setbacks, etc. in the Element. The Development Services Director explained that the Housing Element is part of the General Plan, the General Plan serving as a long range policy document for future development, the zoning and building codes serving as the tools to achieve the goals, the Housing Element, in particular, establishes a procedure and mechanism to allow the city to consider potential areas for residential development, and at such time as a proposal is submitted it must go through the public hearing process as established by the zoning ordinance, meet building and development standards, the impacts of the development proposal and environmental issues to be considered at such time as a proposal is submitted to the City. with regard to specific development standards, the Director responded that certain I I - , - . 5-10-90 I information is included in the Element since provisions of state law requires the City to evaluate its existing development and building standards to determine if those standards act as a constraint for housing construction. Mr. Voce asked if it would be appropriate to include provisions within the Housing Element to govern the type of dwelling that may be constructed when replacing a unit that has been demolished, guidelines that would retain the existing atmosphere of the community. Mr. Whittenberg likened Mr. Voce's reference to an urban design and suitability analysis for residential areas, stating that type of issue could be dealt with outside the Housing Element as a development standard under the zoning code. with regard to other environmental issues, the Director reported there are new requirements that are being placed on cities for additional elements of General Plans, such as waste management, which will address recycling, air quality, etc., and there are a number of other elements that cities can adopt over the seven elements that are mandated by state law. Mr. Chi Kredell, 1633 Seal Way, stated he felt the Council should be more receptive to persons who address the Council, that he felt the contaminated soil on the Hellman property should be mentioned in the Housing Element, and expressed objection to any consideration of placing three to four units on a twenty-five foot lot in Old Town. Mr. Kredell questioned the results of a survey that had been mentioned with regard to development of the Hellman land, and asked that no action be taken on the Element or Mola and that it be continued for consideration by the new Council. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 1:28 a.m. The Council reconvened at 1:38 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Ms. Jane McCloud, 700 Balboa Drive, indicated her desire to address the Council, however due to the hour, asked that this item be continued until the following Monday. Mr. Cameron Briggs, 637 Island View Drive, spoke against building on the Hellman site, stating Gum Grove and the Hellman property are the only undeveloped properties in the City, and recalled playing and riding bikes in the area as a child. He asked that the Council delay taking an action. Ms. Beverly Casares, Marvista Avenue, said she has been informed that the Housing Element, if adopted, will be filed and does not require further review by the state, also that there is nothing in Housing Element law that provides enforcement powers for H/CD, and suggested that the Council and public be provided copies of the pending legislation authored by Green and Bergeson, before adoption of the Housing Element, which may impact that document. Ms. Casares said the draft Element being considered by the Council contains wording that was not before the Planning Commission, therefore the document should be read in full. She asked the city Attorney to provide an interpretation of Government Code Section 65590. Ms. Casares said she had mentioned at the Commission meeting that she was proud of Mola development, and even though she still felt the project was beautiful, it appears the political will of persons residing on the Hill has changed. She stated she felt this issue should be put aside, the timing of the considerations inappropriate, charged that the negative declaration was inadequate and that an environmental impact report should have been prepared, noting also that the Planning Commission included language from the 1982 Housing Element update that stated the city was ninety-seven percent developed at that time. Ms. Casares made reference to and made comments on a publication of the Department of Housing and Community I I 5-10-90 Development setting forth various questions and answers with regard to the preparation of housing elements. The Development Services Director stated he had read verbatim the changes to the draft Housing Element that were recommended based upon the responses to the letter from the attorney for the Wetlands Restoration Society, also the changes that the Planning Commission made at their meeting of last evening. He noted that the goals and objectives of the proposed Element are basically the same as those set forth in the 1982 document, and that housing rehabilitation objectives are set forth on tables twenty-four and twenty- five, page eighty-six. Ms. Casares suggested that during the next review of the Element that rehabilitation objectives be increased which would decrease new construction objectives. Mr. Whittenberg stated it is felt the document reflects achievable goals for housing rehabilitation with the funding sources available to the city for assistance. Ms. Casares stated there is no requirement that the City maximize its programs under the SCAG numbers. Mr. Whittenberg quoted a specific reference on page forty with regard to the Bixby property, and explained that it is clearly indicated in the document that if any of the programs are not achievable, that would not mandate that the city reach the goals set forth. The City Attorney noted page eighty-seven likewise sets forth such statement. The Director explained that the SCAG numbers are determined pursuant to State law, those numbers determined and disseminated to all of the cities within the state, the cities then having a ninety day period in which to challenge the numbers, the most recent challenge period being 1988 and during that period approximately forty Southern California cities challenged the numbers of which five were revised. He noted there is no further opportunity to challenge the numbers until a new set of numbers is developed by SCAG, that period expected to be late 1992 or early 1993. Again with regard to housing rehabilitation, Mr. Whittenberg said he felt those programs were addressed in the document with certain priorities added by the Commission, and that there are a number of goals and policies which relate to providing mechanisms for preserving existing housing stock and allowing current units to be rehabilitated, and noted that the mechanisms for those programs are very restrictive, those programs listed on pages seventy-seven through eighty- two. The Director reported the program goals and accomplishments between 1982 and the draft document are set forth on pages eighty-nine through ninety-nine, that the housing needs analysis uses the SCAG numbers and is required by State law, current and future needs set forth on pages thirty-two through thirty-six, and that the information in the document is based upon 1980 U. S. census information, the 1989 Department of Finance population estimates, and that the 1990 census information is anticipated to be received late 1992 or early 1993. He noted that the issue of overcrowding is addressed in the docU1llent, that a substandard unit does not necessarily mean it is illegal, however is being used for something other than its intended use, substandard being a structure that is deteriorated to a state that it does not comply with normal maintenance pursuant to the Building Code. The Director explained that the use of the term redevelopment in the Housing Element guidelines is different from the meaning contained in the Health and Safety Code, the use of the term in this instance means the recycling of an existing use and does not involve the use of a Redevelopment Agency. He pointed out that the twenty percent housing set aside funds could be expended, after the Redevelopment Agency determines whatever process is appropriate, for a specific project, that there are no I I I . .. .~, ;. 5-10-90 I specific projects designated in the Housing Element, however one of the programs provide that the funds could be utilized for loans to residents to upgrade their properties provided they meet a certain income category. Mr. Whittenberg stated the programs in the document do not mandate the city to change any zoning or to approve any development project, but does require the city to consider provision for housing as part of a development project at such time as the proposal is considered. He noted the City could make a determination that an area is not appropriate for housing, after an analysis and support of evidence. Ms. Casares said the intent should be that all of the elements of the General Plan be consistent, and consistent with zoning, prior to adoption of the Housing Element. At the request of Council, the city Attorney explained that the General plan, specifically the Housing Element, does not change the zoning of any parcel, which is recognized through the language of the Element and only contemplates where potential housing could be placed, which is a future determination. Ms. Casares stated she felt the document implies that the City will be giving up parkland or open space. In response to a specific concern, the city Attorney confirmed that there would be a requirement to change the Land Use Plan and zoning of the Bixby property before housing could be considered for that site. The Director quoted the language contained on page sixty-four. The council noted that a General Plan amendment would effect amendment of all applicable elements. Ms. Casares stated her preference that each element of the General Plan that may be subject to amendment for a specific project should be set forth, that she had been informed by experts that the infrastructure of Seal Beach is sufficient, suggested that the densities of the various residential areas be shown in any future Element update, also asked that the park acreages be verified. Mr. Whittenberg noted that densities, by area, are set forth on Table 19. page forty-seven, and that the park acreages indicate existing facilities that are utilized for park purposes, whether they are owned by the City or are leased areas. Ms. Casares suggested that the definition of an accident potential zone be included, that staff should undertake a project to update various provisions of the Municipal Code, and asked if state law requires that a developer be given concessions. The City Attorney explained that there is provision of State law, when low/mOderate income housing is offered, for the city to provide financial incentives for such housing. MS. Casares asked if there is a definitive explanation of the requirements on a developer for new substantial development, or changing or upgrading existing structures, and inquired about non-governmental constraints, specifically subsidizing a developer for the cost of land. Mr. Whittenberg stated there is provision that developers need to comply with existing building and zoning code requirements, which is quite definitive, that there is no provision for subsidizing a developer for land costs, and explained that non-governmental constraints are physical constraints, the price of land, cost of construction, the availability and cost of construction financing, also that current building code estimates are used for the estimated cost of construction on a square foot basis. With regard to a question regarding developer fees, incentives, etc., other than the twenty percent set aside, Mr. Whittenberg stated there are provisions of state law that require density bonus provisions be considered at the time a low/moderate housing development is proposed, if requested by the developer, and further that there are no provisions in the Housing document that provide for payment of land costs in Leisure World. He again clarified that I I 5-10-90 census data is available every ten years, that the state provides a yearly estimate of population, however the estimate is not broken down into specific housing categories. with regard to the estimate of homeless, he said the Police Department was requested to survey the community, that information as well as a projection from a federal document, based on a certain ratio of homeless I persons within the community, has been included, however it ' is felt that information is more applicable to a larger urban community, and explained that the Housing Element law requires that the need be analyzed, and if the need is sufficient, there be an attempt to develop programs to meet that need, the analysis showing that there may be between thirty to fifty homeless persons in this community at a specific time. The Director pointed out that energy conservation has been addressed on page fifty-one of the Element, and in addition many of the programs, particularly the rehabilitation, include energy saving programs. He also responded that be believed there is an annual review of the income levels of those persons residing in the Trailer Park. Mr. Whittenberq noted that new construction programs are addressed on pages sixty-two through sixty-six of the Element, with a requirement for public hearings to determine if a project is acceptable to the community, that the new construction programs are basically unchanged with the exception of discussion of the Rockwell, Department of Water and Power, and state Lands, and a Leisure World property, as requested by the Planning commission, and that the document does not require expenditure of City funds other than the normal processing costs involved when an application is submitted. He acknowledged that the twenty percent set - aside funds could possibly be designated for a congregate I care area, if such determination were made by the Redevelopment Agency that it was an appropriate use of those funds, also that additional language was included in the document to clarify the use of twenty percent set aside funds only to the extent that they were available. In response to Ms. Casares, the City Attorney explained the Housing Element has identified the vacant larger parcels of land that may have a potential for residential development. The Director clarified that the greenbelt is classified as an open space area. Ms. Casares asked by what means the greenbelt could be permanently designated as open space, also stated her desire that the Redevelopment Agency pay for the maintenance of that area. The City Attorney noted that an ordinance setting forth a land use designation, could likewise be amended in the future, however as a legislative act would be subject to referendum. Councilmember Risner stated her intent to request that the greenbelt be placed under the jurisdiction of the City, yet remain within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Grgas suggested that such action should be looked at in terms of the effect on expenditure of Agency funds, and noted that the law prohibits the use of Agency funds for basic maintenance, however there are projects for which findings can be made to justify the use of Agency funds for the I benefit of the project area, the one time expenditure for a portion of the Zoeter property as an example, and that tax increment that may be realized from the Mola development could be used for sand replenishment or extension of the pier groin. The City Attorney offered to research how the intent of the Council with regard to the greenbelt could be accomplished. Ms. Casares requested that the City Attorney determine the date of the Supreme Court case that a citizen has made a number of references to as it relates to the date of return of the Leisure World condominium Quimby Act funds. The Director noted program C on page seventy-three discusses . ~. 5-10-90 I land writedowns, and had been included on page thirty-seven of the 1982 Element. Ms. Casares asked if it were possible to have a general finding in the Element that would allow the City to be more exclusive with regard to restricting writedowns or incentives for developers. Mr. Stepanicich noted that the purpose of the Housing Element is to provide goals, policies and objectives, therefore it would be more appropriate to address each development on a case by case basis. With regard to Ms. Casares' reference to Government Code Section 65913.4 regarding concessions or incentives, the Mayor explained if a developer chooses to construct twenty percent or more units for low income housing, the city would be required by law to provide concessions, and the city Attorney noted that there is a time frame underwhich the developer must make a request for concessions, and that the statute is general with regard to the type of assistance that would be required to be given. The Development Services Director explained that given the programs proposed for the vacant sites, and if residential uses were ultimately approved for those locations, there would most likely be a need for a change of zone for residential use, however the Housing document does not mandate that the City make such changes, merely review a proposal in the usual manner. Ms. Casares made reference to the Hellman land and asked if it were determined that that property were to be wetlands only, would that not downzone the property to the degree that it would be necessary to stop all construction in the City. The Mayor responded such action would only impact the subject property, and with regard to the Wetlands Society lawsuit, stated that adoption of the Housing Element is necessary to satisfy that issue. With regard to development agreements, the City Attorney stated an ordinance is proposed to approve a development agreement with respect to the Mola project which specifies the additional contributions that the developer would be required to make. With regard to requirement that affordable housing be built, he responded that the law requires that a City deal with the issue of providing low/moderate income housing and programs for attempting to accomplish those goals, however again stated that there is no mandatory requirement that any particular piece of property be developed with low/moderate income housing, yet a purpose of the Housing Element is to address that need. Mr. stepanicich stated he felt the Housing Element complies with the State requirements. Mayor Grgas made reference to whether a beach community should be expected to subsidize construction of affordable units given land costs, etc., and even though it is not difficult to support the development of safe and sanitary housing, the language in the document states the City will try to comply with State law and on the other hand indicates the City does not think it is the best policy for this community, and stated his preference would be to delete the applicable language on page forty-seven of the document, and henceforth pursue changes to State law. Ms. Casares referred to an eleemosynary institute in the general vicinity of Seal Beach that purchases houses for the benefit of homeless families, and asked if it would be possible to designate the twenty percent set aside funds to an organization such as that and meet the legal requirements under the Housing Element. Mayor Grgas said he felt that would need to be a determination of the Redevelopment Agency, and the City Attorney offered that the particular program would need to be looked into to determine if the funds could be used in that manner. I I It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 5-10-90 3:30 a.m. The Council reconvened at 3:43 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. It was the consensus of the Council to continue public input for approximately thirty-five minutes. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, expressed objection to continuing the I hearings, charging this meeting to be an abuse of constituents and employees alike, and requested that the Council look at the issues from the citizens point of view. Ms. Barbara Antoci, 1502 Ocean Avenue, stated she wished to expressed her objection to adoption of the Housing Element, citing that homes should not be built in an aircraft zone, on a toxic site, on earthquake faults, or liquefaction zones, that the City is fully developed, and said the Ports need the Seal Beach wetlands for credit to go forward with their project and they do have the necessary monies. Ms. Antoci objected to the attitude of the Council, charged that the Housing Element is a false document and there should be no action to effect its adoption by this Council. Ms. Moira Hahn, 1515-1/2 Ocean Avenue, said that information that is available to the Council should likewise be readily available for public review. The Council noted that the agenda packets are available from City Hall and at the libraries. Ms. Hahn noted that many of the statistics in the Element are based on 1970 and 1980 data which makes the document invalid because economic and social conditions have changed since that time. She suggested that the Council conclude the meeting and be respectful of their constituency. Ms. Patti Campbell, 4433 Ironwood Avenue, said it appeared to be the objective of the Council to take an action at this meeting, yet it is the responsibility of the Council to listen to the people, and charged that the I city and the members of the Council will be held liable in the event of damages resulting from seismic activity on the Hellman property or an air crash in the vicinity of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard. She asked that the Council conclude the meeting and continue the matter under discussion. Mr. Mark Hotchkiss, 1515-1/2 Ocean Avenue, said an important issue is that the Housing Element withstand legal challenge, yet it is inconsistent with the General Plan, spoke in support of low income housing, however asked how and where it will be provided. He said he did not feel the document should reflect that housing could possibly be placed on questionable properties. Mr. Mark Soukup, 310 - 16th street, made reference to certain psychological theories and tendencies. He asked if the legislation pending in the Senate would have a material effect on the Housing Element decision. Mayor Grgas responded the legislation may effect the implementation of the Element however would not effect what is presently contained in the document, that he felt the document is legally defensible and reasonably meets the needs of the community. Mr. Soukup recalled a statement that the Element was superfluous, and asked if a more concise writing would in effect make it clearer to the Council. Councilman Hunt said he believed his statement was that some of the revisions were I superfluous. Mr. Soukup asked if the appearance of improprieties in the last days of office, or integrity, or the approach of systematic change of the Housing Element versus attacking the process of preparing the Element have a material effect on the Council. He made reference to statements of the City Attorney, and said he did not think that the issue was brought up to try to make the Housing Element a better reflection of the community in an honest effort to comply with State law. Mr. Soukup referred to the Wetlands lawsuit, suggested that the Hellman property may become wetlands, and if it can be demonstrated that this 5-10-90 I will be the next housing project in Seal Beach for the next twenty years, the only buildable land that is known at this time is that tract, then the Society has a good argument for their concerns since the wetlands are within that parcel. He referred to the Mola issue as wrought with sensationalism, ancient burial grounds, wetlands, earthquakes, the ability to place housing on or near fault lines, due process issues, etc. Ms. Norma Strohmeier said it had not been mentioned that the proposed housing project would be directly across the street from the Naval Weapons Station, will result in complaints and possibly the closing of the Station. Mr. Anton Dahlman, 1724 Crestview Avenue, said he had addressed the Council in January, 1987 and at that time suggested that placing some low income housing on the project was most likely a good idea, however he had been informed that was not necessary as the Housing Element had not been revised. He said he still believed that was not a bad idea, and had it been included in the proposed development he did not believe the resulting problem of proposing residential development on other properties would have occurred. Mayor Grgas said he did not believe that the City would have escaped any of the issues or elements that are currently being addressed even if the Housing Element had been updated in 1987, and that certain members of the Council had felt that some of the condominium units would have satisfied the affordable requirement of the Housing Element. He referred to the discussion at the Planning Commission where it was pointed out that Mola will be required to produce thirty-three units of affordable housing somewhere in the City or within a three mile area, and in his opinion it would be unfair to burden one piece of property with the majority of the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Dahlman mentioned that a point made at the Commission was how the City could accommodate more than one hundred percent development, and that there should be an EIR if development is going to exceed one hundred percent. The Development Services Director explained that the comparison was between two different categories, the Housing Element indicating that ninety-seven percent of the land area of the City is currently under some type of use, the comments at the Commission meeting were to an increase of population that is currently in the Land Use Element of the General Plan that would allow a population increase from a current 27,350 to approximately 30,000, that the additional five percent would not require five percent of the total land area to reside on, where the current 27,350 population resides on twenty percent of the land area, noting that it is not possible to occupy one hundred five percent of the land area. Mr. Dahlman said it is confusing for the Mola project to provide no low income housing yet the Housing Element is required to address that issue, as the issues are related. Mr. Keim, 4292 Dogwood Avenue, objected to the conduct of the meeting and the Council. Mr. Lionell Okin, resident of Leisure World, stated his concern with traffic impacts, which was most likely a concern with the condominium units that were the subject of objection, with similar concerns now being expressed with regard to the Bixby project. He agreed that housing should not be placed within air flight patterns, also said it is his impression that it is not mandatory to adopt a Housing Element that specifies low cost housing where there is no land available. Mr. Okin suggested that the a Council action be postponed. Mayor Grgas declared the public hearing closed at 4:35 a.m. Councilmember Risner noted mention of wetlands funding by the Ports of Long Beach, which she said she felt the Council would welcome. She noted her communication to the Ports I I 5-10-90 inquiring, in part, if the one hundred acre wetlands restoration project on the Hellman Ranch property was financially feasible or possible, and quoted an excerpt from the April 12th, 1990 answer received from the Port of Long Beach which read "...surely you can understand that when it comes to preservation of wetlands we try to achieve the maximum habitat value of our dollar. We would not consider the investment of $28 million in so small a wetland restoration a financially feasible project. In addition, the $28 million cost does not include the cost of acquisition and relocation of utilities. Even without acquisition costs the project is not economically feasible for the Port of Long Beach.tI Ms. Antoci stated her reference had been to the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles. Councilmember Risner made reference to her October 30th Coastal Commission letter regarding the feasibility of a one hundred plus acre project, the answer being tI...also have tried to explain to commission staff that in some cases the pairing of a development project with a restoration project may be what is necessary to make the restoration financially feasible. II In response to her questions with regard to the manner in which the Port earns credit for restoration, what is the credit, and what if the Port buys land for restoration, she quoted IIport mitigation credits are based upon habitat value units accrued as a result of the restoration....we do not obtain any credit for property acquisition for acquisition itself does nothing to increase habitat value..." and with regard to a question as to what types of restoration does the Port receive credit, she quoted the response as "...we receive our primary credit through the creation of shallow, subtidal embayment, we receive little or no credit for high marsh or vegetated areas, therefore in a hundred plus acre restoration project the Port would likely not be eligible for credit for the entire restoration, only those portions that are subtida1." Councilman Hunt moved adoption of the Housing Element of the General Plan of the city of Seal Beach dated May 9, 1990 including the revisions and the changes that were agreed to by the City Council at this meeting. Mayor Grgas again asked that the last four paragraphs on page forty-eight be deleted. Councilman Laszlo stated his preference that action be postponed until May 14th so that a revised copy of the Element would be available. With regard to the Mayor's request, the city Attorney stated that based upon the discussion at the Planning commission meeting, he would recommend that the four paragraphs on page forty-eight be deleted. The Council indicated agreement to delete the subject paragraphs. The City Attorney again clarified that if the Housing EleMent is adopted, it may be reconsidered, however amendments to the document would be required to go through the public hearing process. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, by the adoption of Resolution Number 3933 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3933 was waived. I I Vote on the motion to approve Resolution Number 3933: I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson Laszlo Motion Carried The Mayor again noted that the items relating to the Hellman property development were continued until Monday, May 14th. The city Attorney stated their staff would research the , <, 5-10-90/5-14-90 matter relating to jurisdiction of the greenbelt and provide a report to the Council. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember wilson inquired about a recycling program. The city Manager stated a detailed report will be forthcoming to the Council. Councilman Hunt noted that if the new Council wishes to review the Housing Element further, that process could commence in the near future. For the information of the audience, Councilmember Risner pointed out that the procedure of Council meetings provides for city Council items prior to oral communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Beverly Casares, Marvista Avenue, stated Mr. Roberts of Mola Development, said he will make a statement to the Council on Monday evening, and expressed her disappointment with the action taken at this meeting. Mr. Mario Voce objected to the actions of the Council and the length of the meeting. There being no further comments, Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 4:48 a.m. I of the C1 Ci Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California May 14, 1990 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None .-1 Also present: Mr. Nelson, city Manager. . Mr. Stepanicich, city Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Chief Stearns, Police Department Officer Papp, Police Department Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk