Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-05-14 , <, 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 5-14-90 WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Risner, 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 I PRESENTATIONS Miss Seal Beach and Court Mr. Mike Osborne, newly elected Chairman of the Seal Beach Pageant Committee, recognized the members of the Pageant Committee present, and introduced Miss Seal Beach, Jamie Stogsdill. Ms. Valentina Dibbi introduced herself as the first runner-up, as did the second runner-up, Ms. Amber Oliger. The Mayor presented Miss Seal Beach with a pendant donated by Something Fine. The council extended congratulations to Miss Seal Beach and her court, all of the participants, and the Pageant Committee. Los Alamitos School District Ms. Elaine Hamada, Coordinator of Special Projects for the School District, noted the District's participation in a Drug Education and Alcohol Abuse Program and a Tobacco Program, and expressed appreciation for the Police Department choosing to pilot a program this year targeting 4th Grade students which she said dovetails the other programs. Ms. Jill Conneth Mills was introduced and read a letter from Mr. Mike Miller, Superintendent of Schools, commending the City Council for continuing the substance abuse program at McGaugh School, the evaluation by staff, students, and parents being overwhelmingly positive, and acknowledging and applauding Chief Stearns for his support and involvement in the program and Officer Papp for his excellent instruction of the students and collaboration with the PTA to produce public service announcements. Mr. John Blaydes, Principal, Mc Gaugh school, added his appreciation for the efforts of Chief Stearns and Officer Papp, their leadership, support of the program and interaction with the students. Mr. Blaydes presented a Sea Lion Award to Chief Stearns, a Sea Lion Award and a McGaugh School sweatshirt to Officer Papp. Ms. Kathy O'Brien, PTA President, said it was a pleasure to work with the Chief and Officer RiCk, and with their assistance five public service announcements were produced through the cooperation of the Police Department and the McGaugh student body. She announced that the videos received acclaim when shown at the State PTA Convention. Ms. O'Brien reported Officer Papp had been presented with a National PTA Honorary Award earlier this year for his contribution to children. Chief Stearns and Officer Papp expressed appreciation for the recognition of their participation in the drug abuse programs, and thanked all others who had coop~rated and supported the effort. I PROCLAMATION Mayor Grgas proclaimed the month of May, 1990 as "National Physical Fitness and Sports Month." I With unanimous consent of the Council, Items "Q" and "S" were withdrawn from this agenda, Item "QtI, the 75th Anniversary Committee request for funding to be considered in conjunction with the budget workshop sessions, and Item 5-14-90 tiS", the covered roof access matter, to be continued to a future meeting. I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - VARIANCE 8-89 - 101 MAIN STREET - WATSON Risner moved, second by Hunt, to declare the public hearing open regarding the appeal of Variance 8-89 and continued same until the May 29th meeting. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried AGEN:DA AMENDED Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to consider Item "KtI, the preliminary exploratory area, out of order at this time. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3938 - PRELIMINARY EXPLORATORY AREA - REDRILL WELL NUMBER 23 - ALAMITOS LEASE Resolution Number 3938 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A 'PRELIMINARY EXPLORATORY AREA' PERMIT TO REDRILL OIL WELL NUMBER 23 OF THE ALAMITOS LEASE (BREITBURN).tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3938 was waived. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report. Mr. W. P. Blair, attorney for the applicant, Breitburn Energy Corporation, spoke for approval of the request. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3938 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, LaSZlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion Carried I CLOSED SESSION It was the consensus of the Council to meet in Closed Session at this time. The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and also pursuant to subsection (b). Councilman Laszlo was advised that it would not be appropriate for the newly elected members of the Council to participate in the Closed Session until such time as they are sworn into office. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:13 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matter previously announced. Mayor Grgas presented a statement which, in part, set forth the intent of the Council to allow the new Council to take final action on the Mola development of the Hellman property, however allow the present Council the opportunity to present its views on the project given the length of time that it has been before the present Council, and to possibly take initial action(s). He requested that the meeting be conducted in a businesslike, respectful manner. PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Grgas declared the public hearing open to consider amendment of the Hellman Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment 1.a-90, Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment 1.b-90, Open Space/Conservation/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13198, Precise Plan 1-90, and the Development Agreement for the Hellman Ranch. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as 5-14-90 required by law, and reported receipt of six letters and various communications containing the signatures of twelve persons, all of which indicate support of the development plan. The Director of Development Services reported this to be basically the same project that was considered and approved by the Planning Commission, and adopted by the City Council in August, 1989, and the Development Agreement I adopted in October, 1989. He noted the changes to the plan to be the reduction of residential lots from three hundred fifty-five to three hundred twenty-nine, which was a condition of approval of the Coastal Commission, and as a result of that change the area of wetlands to be restored increased to 41.4 acres, a proposed reduction of the total right-of-way of Hellman Ranch Road from eighty to fifty-six feet, the LSA Traffic study indicating that to be an appropriate width given the reduced number of units, and lastly an increase of the total public park area, which includes Gum Grove, from 24.7 to 26.0 acres, the increase due to the right-of-way reduction of Hellman Ranch Road. The Director pointed out that all of the previous commission and Council staff reports and minutes thereof were provided as part of the background reference for the project. Councilman Laszlo expressed some concern with the reduction of the Road right-of-way since he believed that development of housing may be considered for the remainder of the Hellman Ranch at some point in the future. The Director explained that the Traffic Analysis indicated the proposed roadway width would be sufficient to accommodate up to fifteen thousand vehicles per day, that the proposed traffic volume for this project and future development at Rockwell, of the Department of Water and Power and State Lands sites, is estimated at approximately five thousand one hundred I trips per day, therefore, given the reduction of units from seven hundred seventy-three, where the eighty foot roadway was proposed, to a little more than three hundred units, it is felt the fifty-six feet is adequate under standard roadway design criteria. The Mayor noted that if it were felt necessary, future projects could be charged with the responsibility of widening Hellman Ranch Road. The city Clerk read written communications from Dennis Courtemarche, James and LouAnn Dunn, Libby Applegate, Larry and Jody Weir, Mary o. Pitt, and Lee Risner, each supporting the project. With regard to a question as to what effect new information would have on the Environmental Impact Report, the City Attorney explained that there is presently a certified EIR for the project, however if there were changes made to the project that would raise new, significant effects of which there had not been previous environmental study, there would be a necessity for further environmental review of those effects. The city Clerk continued and read brief comments in support of the project from Muriel Smith, Cecelia Southall, Elise Coury, Margaret Benkert, Birdie E. Christie, Charles and Marie Scalamhins, Sally and Albert Jehl, Eldred E. Ashby, and Carl and Dagne Johnson. Mr. Tim Roberts, Director of Operations and Finance, Mola I Development Corporation, extended an apology to the Council and Seal Beach citizens on behalf of Mola Development for having to bring this development back before the City Council. He stated Dr. Bruce Clark, President of Leighton and Associates, the firm that performed the geotechnical and soils studies on the property, was present to address those issues. Mr. Roberts read a statement for the record, 'that because of the recent series of delays with the entitlements for this project, their corporate position with the option agreement with the Hellman family is in serious jeopardy by 5-14-90 I June 1st,' and requested that be taken into consideration when taking action on this previously approved project. Mr. Roberts reviewed the background of the project, in 1987 there were seven hundred seventy-three units approved for the property with wetlands mitigated off-site, in 1988 that plan was revised to mitigate twenty acres of wetlands on- site, and at that time environmental and citizen concerns surfaced relating to the product types proposed for the property, such as the stacked condominiums, and the amount and location of wetlands. He stated in 1988 the Council agreed to allow submittal of alternative plans, hence the B- 1 plan which converted the property from a golf course/condominium/zero lot line project to a low density/high wetland restoration/public benefit project. Mr. Roberts noted that numerous meetings were held with local groups, such as the Gum Grove Park Group, over a period of three months to develop a plan that would be acceptable to the community, the meetings resulting in a collective agreement on the B-1 plan, where cUl-de-sacs, trail systems, etc. were generated by the citizens. He noted that on June 22nd, 1989 the council voted to approve a B-2 plan, a modification of the B-1 plan, a reduction of eighty-four townhomes, agreement to fund $1 million to the City, and agreement that the development company provide an additional five acres to the city to satisfy a need for baseball fields. Mr. Roberts pointed out that the current project has a further reduction of twenty-six units, 41.4 acres of environmental habitat that is presently in a degraded state, however with a commitment by the developer that it will be brought back as an environmentally valuable habitat. He added that in discussions with banking institutions regarding the financing of this project, there has been amazement at what this City will receive, yet it has been realized that from a design, community benefit, and economic standpoint it is a good project. Mr. Roberts introduced Dr. Clark, stated his firm conducted many studies of the subject property during the past four years, worked with the Coastal Commission regarding the geotechnical aspects, and would present current opinions with regard to seismology and soil conditions on the property. Dr. Clark stated he has been a practicing engineering geologist in California for thirteen years, previously a professor with the University of Michigan. Dr. Clark said he felt most questions would deal with the location of the Newport/Inglewood fault, the issue of liquefaction, as well as the potential for settlement of dwellings on the softer soils on the subject site, and noted it is the responsibility of their firm to develop procedures for mitigating those problems through ground modification techniques. He pointed out that there is potential for liquefaction in this portion of north Orange County as well as south and west Los Angeles County, and that there are entire cities in the Los Angeles basin that are built on liquefiable soils. He explained that the degree of hazard from liquefaction depends on the condition of the soil, liquefiable soil being fine, cleanly washed sand that does not compact well, and noted that type of sand layer lies under this parcel as it does under most of this area of Orange County. Dr. Clark stated it is proposed that those sands be stabilized by surcharging the site with a fill which will cause compaction of the finer grain materials and drive water out of the sediment, resulting in the reduction liquefaction hazards. He noted that the liquefaction hazard never reaches zero whether there be a soft or fairly firm sediment, that liquefaction takes place some distance from I I 5-14-90 the actual location of the fault, citing as an example the recent San Francisco earthquake where liquefaction occurred approximately sixty miles from the epicenter of the fault. Dr. Clark explained that their objective with regard to the Hellman property is to drive the liquefaction to a very low level, a level considerably lower than the remainder of this city, forcing compaction of the materials, therefore 1- reducing the potential for liquefaction to occur. In response to the Council, Dr. Clark stated it is felt the subject site would be safer than other areas in the community, that the techniques for development and construction of the units are in compliance with state law, specifically the Uniform Building Code and the Alquist Priola Act, and that the Coastal Commission staff geologist reviewed the project, recommended certain changes that have been incorporated. He said the reduction of the twenty-six lots could most likely be attributed to the Commission and Leighton and Associates, given the identification of that particular area as having a high liquefaction potential, and stated the Coastal Commission, by law, is required to review the seismology and geology of a project. He explained that the Alquist Priola fault setbacks are usually reviewed by the California Division of Mines and Geology, that they have a group of experts that review reports relating to Alquist Priola zones, and since he has not heard from that body he said he could not report the status of their review. Dr. Clark confirmed that a rating system does exist that quantifies the degree of liquefaction, that system described in one of the Leighton reports reviewed by the Coastal Commission, and is based on a factor of safety. He said he did not believe that studies have been conducted throughout I the community to determine the degree of liquefaction of other specific areas, which would require considerable subsurface investigation, however given the experience with the Hellman property and a projection of the same type of conditions throughout similar geologic regions of Seal Beach, there could be indication that unless substantial ground modification had taken place at the time those areas were constructed, that the liquefaction potential at the Hellman site, after modification, would be considerably less given the level of mitigation that is proposed for that location. Dr. Clark advised there are considerable improvements in building techniques, particularly for wood frame housing, where specific technology has resulted from past earthquakes. He pointed out that the technique they have proposed would not eliminate all of the subsurface water, however would strengthen the soils to the degree where there would be less area surrounding the grains thus less area for water, therefore making it more difficult for the water to activate during during the occasion of earthquake. Dr. Clark stated the issue is primarily related to fault break age of a building close to a fault at ground surface, that buildings constructed across a fault would most likely be destroyed, that the purpose of the Alquist Priola "Act is to locate areas where surface breaks have occurred or are likely to occur, and avoid building on those I specific areas. He said at this location of the Newport/Inglewood fault, the only trenching that has shown breaks near the ground surface is in relatively older ' material at the base of Landing Hill, where materials on the flatter lands have not been offset by recent movements of the fault, including the 1933 Long Beach quake. He explained that the purpose of setting back is to not build across large breaks, and at this location and many other places along the fault you can no longer see the trace of the fault because buildings have been constructed along the fault both north and south of Seal Beach, and that ground .. ',: t 5-14-90 I breakage has not been demonstrated in the last several thousand years. With regard to the impact of potential creeping and subsidence on dwellings, Dr. Clark offered that it would depend on the nature of the creeping and subsidence, the nature of offsets of California faults, like this fault, are usually along very narrow zones, therefore the types of setbacks that are effective are those that take construction out of the narrow zone where the displacements are taking place. He stated that where areas near the fault are subsiding or Changing, that is most likely not be related to fault movement, and such secondary problems may or may not exist close to the trace of the fault. with regard to changes of the fault elevation over the past ten years, Dr. Clark confirmed that there are a series of elevation changes from Long Beach to Huntington Beach and even north Newport Beach that are more likely related to withdrawal from oil fields, that the series of fields in these areas align with the fault, an example being an area in Wilmington that has settled approximately twenty-five feet over the past fifty to seventy-five years. Dr. Clark again confirmed his opinion that with the ground modification it would be feasible to construct residential units on the Hellman land. In response to council, Dr. Clark stated he did not feel he could make a meaningful comparison of the Hellman land, Belmont Shore, and the Marina/Naples area, however in general, all of the lowland areas in the vicinity of the coast that are underlain by similar kinds of soils and are in the vicinity of the Newport/Inglewood fault most likely have a similar level of hazard, particularly if there has been no ground modification efforts. with regard to whether provisions are being made to accommodate liquefaction and construction techniques are being used to compensate soils problems in northern Orange county, Dr. Clark confirmed his knowledge of the use of such technology specifically for commercial and industrial development, however said he was not familiar with the extent of use for residential projects at this point. Dr. Clark acknowledged that waste petroleum products is an issue that will be addressed prior to construction, and that he would anticipate having significant input to that problem. He also confirmed that the greatest damage resulting from the San Francisco quake occurred to pre-1960 constructed buildings, where more recently constructed buildings received considerably less damage. 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. Ms. Nancy Davis, 811 Avalon Drive, said she resides adjacent to the project and enthusiastically supports the Mola development of the Hellman property, a project where everyone wins. She said McGaugh School currently enrolls children from outside the area to maintain their enrollment level, and this project will provide needed recreation facilities. Ms. Davis stated many individuals have worked hard to satisfy the wants and needs of the community, that it is now time to trust the experts and move forward. She added that 60.5 percent of the voters in District Three recently elected their council representative, and presently support the project. Mr. Carl SanFilippo, 801 Avalon Drive, stated his only concern with the project is the impact on his view, which he felt could be mitigated, that he wanted the buffer area to be just that and not a greenbelt or path allowing access behind the homes. In response to a question of Council, Mr. Roberts stated they would be willing to reduce the height of the structures from thirty-two to thirty-feet, and he did not I I 5-14-90 feel such adjustment would damage the architectural integrity of the housing design. Mr. Dan Campbell, 220 Coastline Drive, said he was present to represent approximately two hundred tennis players, and that their support of the project was based to some degree on the expectation of tennis facilities. He stated he was offended I__ by the impression that anyone who favors the project is not sensitive to the environment, also voiced support of organized facilities for athletics. Mr. Campbell said he felt this is a good project and asked for Council approval. Mr. Ken Kropf, 1005 Crestview Avenue, said the Hellman property has been subject of discussion for at least eight years, that all aspects of development have been discussed and debated, and environmental issues addressed. He offered that members of the Council are elected to vote the will of their constituents and make reasoned decisions based upon on the best information available. Mr. Kropf stated that after more than four years, Mola, Hellman, the City, and the citizens implore that a decision be made, and that the benefits of this project for so many speak in favor of adoption, this being one reason for his support of the election of the new councilperson. Mr. Gary Johnson, 120 - 3rd street, expressed support for the project, and said it provides for very low density of approximately 2.2 dwelling units per acre or 4.4 dwelling units for the overall project as compared to the Hill density of approximately 6 dwelling units per acre. He spoke of this plan being an opportunity to provide much needed, usable parkland for the community, and urged approval of the project. Ms. Ella Rowe, Surfs ide , voiced her support for the project as proposed and asked that it be adopted. Mr. I Darrel stoskoff, 1630 Crestview Avenue, stated his support of the current development plan and said he felt the compromises were appropriate for both parties. He added that his forthcoming Council representative received his vote on the premise that she also supported this plan. Ms. Buffy Ellis, 15th street, stated she felt the plan represents a fair development on the Hellman site, that she will use the various recreation facilities and enhancements, which are a benefit to the entire community. She said she has worked a number of environmental issues over the years including wetlands and open space, and this plan brings the tangible benefits that many residents will utilize. Mr. Norm Schutzberger, 228 - 13th street, said that during the Save Zoeter School movement, with which he was involved, he learned of individual agendas as well as the city's financial capabilities. He noted the Council has shown that they have carefully studied all of the issues and negotiated with the developer to the benefit of the city. Mr. Schutzberger offered that those who brought forth environmental concerns and lobbied for Gum Grove Park should be commended, and the present plan addresses all of those interests. He pointed out that the subject property does not belong to the city, as was the case with Zoeter, that negotiation has accomplished the best for all, that he did not believe further concessions are in the offing by the I developer, and urged that the new Council confer with the present Council on this complex issue. Mr. James Watson, 101 Main street, said many of the statements in favor of the project were not unlike his views. He stated that as a result of this project the City will acquire parkland, the maintenance thereof, Gum Grove Park, tennis courts, significant tax increment on a yearly basis, and very low density. Mr. Watson concluded by stating his support for the project and its approval. Mr. Ron Jessner, Bayou Way, said having been on the Planning Commission he was very familiar with the plan, noted the numerous hours spent -,.. . 5-14-90 I resolvinq the issues and concerns, and he felt what has evolved is a good project that should be approved. Council discussion followed with regard to whether the intent of the Council had been to expedite approval of this project or to pass final approval on to the new Council. Ms. Sally Hirsch, 1325 Crestview Avenue, expressed her support for the project as proposed, and stated Gum Grove Park is in need of restoration, maintenance, and planting, that the plan provides a trail system and recreation areas, and wetlands restoration will be accomplished. She offered that this project provides a means to accomplish these needs. Ms. Miriam Kelly, 1125 Catalina Avenue, noted the original plan called for too many homes, and with the efforts of many persons that number has been reduced, that this modified plan provides parks, tennis courts, open space, and tot lots, different facilities for many people. She said she did not want the City to make a mistake, that the city should go forward, that she did not want to lose what has been gained, or have another developer propose to only build on the upper land. Ms. Kelly made reference to conflicting information from different sources and suggested that an outside party be asked to review this project and make a determination as to whether this property is or is not suitable for development. She expressed appreciation to the Council for what they have tried to do for the City. Mr. Chris Verhultz, 224 - 14th Street, also thanked the Council for the time they have devoted towards this project. He said he felt it is appropriate that this Council vote on this matter, also that it appears the community has come together with a bona fide project, accomplishing goals for forty-two acres of wetlands, over twenty acres of park, and three hundred twenty-nine homes. Ms. Dorothy Cherney, 297 Corsair Way, said she has waited a long time to see the Hellman property developed, that she felt this to be a good plan which addresses everyones needs. She said as a resident of Bridgeport she would not be residing there unless someone had worked hard to resolve the prOblems of that particular property. Ms. Cherney said most of her neighbors also support the project, and she requested a favorable vote by the Council. Ms. Bobbie Williams, 209 - 15th Street, expressed her support for this project on the Hellman property, stating she felt it was a great development. Ms. Nancy Grgas, 211 - 15th street, said she has viewed the process on this project for nearly five years, and that many people support the project for reasons similar to her own, for the children. Mr. James Curlett, 1015 Crestview Avenue, stated his support of the project, a basic reason being property rights, which is a fundamental right. Mr. Warren Morton, 13th street, said he felt the Mola development will be okay for the City, that the open space, park, and traffic flow are okay, however said he was not certain about the fifty-six foot street. He said the many people that had input into this project should be thanked considering that the developer accepted the terms. Mr. Morton stated that with today's technology the liquefaction problem can be alleviated, that the wetlands are okay, however if they were smaller it would reduce the mosquitos. He concluded that if he were the Hellmans and the project is held up again, he would fence Gum Grove and keep everyone out. Mr. Tom Blackman, 421 Beryl Cove Way, spoke regarding the lengthy process this project has undergone, and recognized the position of the Council in an often hostile environment, noting it is often necessary for a Council to take action on controversial matters. He pointed out the many people who have worked towards the plan as it presently exists, having the interest of the community at heart, however also pointed out the rights of the I I 5-14-90 property owner. Mr. Blackman urged that the Council act on this issue, stated the new Council will have the opportunity to take the final action, and although he felt it would be a shame after the effort that has gone into this project, they could vote to not approve the development. He added that if the project is approved there will be an opportunity to provide certain benefits that the City has been unable to I provide in the past. Mr. Blackman expressed appreciation - for the time and efforts of the Council. Mr. Laird Mueller, 235 - 8th street, also made reference to the lengthy process, numerous meetings, public input, and questioned the need to act hastily, suggesting that the Mola development of the Hellman property be left for the new Council to consider and act upon. It was -the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:24 p.m. The Council reconvened,at 10:50 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Ms. Mary Newton, 705 Carmel Avenue, said she too was in favor of the Mola development, particularly for her children, that she wanted them to have the advantage of ball fields and tennis courts. Mr. Harold Rothman, 300 Ocean Avenue, said he felt there were some good things about the project, and one of the reasons the city will realize the number of benefits is due to the fact that Mola is paying $19 million for the property, where if Hellman were to decide in the future that they wanted $40 million, the city would not realize the things the developer is now providing. Mr. Scott Whyte, 4416 Candleberry Avenue, made reference to Government Code section 66474(c) which he said states that a legislative body shall deny a tentative map if a site is not I suitable for development, and claimed the staff had - responded that the section did not apply because the mitigation measures in the EIR address the appropriateness of the site for development. He said he felt the mitigation measures were inadequate, and asked what magnitude earthquake the mitigation measures were measured against given the Newport/Inglewood fault has a potential for a magnitude of seven, also if the effect of oil extraction on ground stability was addressed in the EIR. He charged that the mitigation measures of the EIR can be reconsidered if there is substantial evidence to support a change, also that he did not feel the EIR contained detailed analysis. Mr. Whyte quoted provisions of State law, CEQA guidelines, and various case laws. Mr. Whyte referred to the use of compacted fill on the property, yet it was his understanding from previous testimony that such fill would actually exacerbate seismic primary and secondary destructive waves, and asked if provisions of AB 3180, regarding a mitigation monitoring program, had been complied with. The Development Services Director responded that a mitigation monitoring program was adopted by the Council as part of the June, 1989 approvals. Mr. Whyte read Government Code Section 66474.9(a) and (b) regarding limitations for indemnity, and stated the only way to provide full indemnification past I ninety days is through a contractual offer and resolution. The city Attorney noted this issue came up regarding the Bixby project as well as this project, and their advice had been that there are questions as to a public agency's ability to be indemnified from discretionary approvals even though there are immunities, however assuming the immunities did not apply there is question as to whether the indemnity would fully protect the city. He pointed out that the provisions that were quoted were from the Subdivision Map Act and the indemnity in this case was applied as part of the development agreement, and it is felt that the same 5-14-90 I limitation would not apply to a negotiated development agreement, which is a contractual arrangement for benefits and burdens under that agreement, and that development agreements fall under a separate statutory authority from the SUbdivision Map Act. He reiterated that they were not advising the city that the indemnity agreement would absolutely withstand scrutiny if challenged at a future time. He noted, however, that the Coastal Commission has routinely required indemnity agreements for a number of years and it is understood that as yet such agreements have not been set aside, and that the Commission would not be any more insulated from claim than would the city. The city Attorney explained further that in the case of a lawsuit against the City arising from the approval of a project, the position would be that the City has immunity under the Government Code, and assuming that the immunity did not apply there would then be an issue as to whether the indemnity agreement would apply, and noted the law in that particular area is not entirely clear. Dr. Clark stated the earthquake magnitude was based on a probabilistic analysis which includes the likelihood of a large earthquake occurring along the Newport/Inglewood fault and a series of other faults in the Los Angeles basin and assumes a .28 times the acceleration due to gravity occurring at the site within a one hundred year period, which he said is a very aggressive approach toward analysis of this type of liquefaction potential, however offered that if a magnitude eight earthquake occurred immediately underneath the site that would produce a larger than .28 acceleration, and the likelihood of that occurring is very low. Dr. Clark said the analysis assumed a magnitude of seven on the Newport/lnglewood fault. with regard to the compaction concern, Dr. Clark stated the compacted soil blanket allows a very high frequency of seismic waves to pass through the ground with less attenuation with distance, that the problem lies with the level at which the large seismic waves occur, which are very high frequency, therefore the compacted fill is safer for buildings to be built upon than uncompacted fill. The Development Services Director stated all of the geology and soils reports received by the city were based upon a magnitude of seven on the Newport/Inglewood fault. Dr. Clark offered that there is little probability of magnitude of eight quake on the Newport/Inglewood fault, that the largest magnitude that is considered to be the maximum credible quake on this fault is seven, where a 8.3 or 8.5 would be projected for the San Andreas fault, noting that a magnitude of eight on the San Andreas would produce some shaking however would not effect the activity level on the Newport/Inglewood. with regard to city liability, the city Attorney explained that the state statutes are clear at the present time and provide an immunity to Cities for discretionary actions, the reason for that is to allow cities to make good faith decisions without intimidation of potential liability, yet it is unknown what the State legislature may do in the future. He said previous comments were based upon a hypothetical situation where it could be found that the immunity would not apply in a particular case, and then whether or not the indemnity agreement would apply in that situation. He again stated that there is question as to whether an indemnity agreement between a city and property owner or developer would be fully enforceable, and that there is insufficient case law to make that unqualified judqment. Mr. Stepanicich stated that as the law has evolved over time it would be difficult to predict what type of liabilities could be applied against a public agency, therefore one can only look at how existing statutory law applies. In response to Council, he confirmed, I I 5-14-90 that the property owner could realize a liability to the purchasers of homes on the property, and the City should not have a liability, yet cautioned that that conclusion is based on the fact that this is a discretionary decision and that the City follows all obligations under state law and its own building code with respect to enforcement of seismic I" safety requirements, noting that there could be a liability if, under mandatory duty, the City did not follow all applicable building codes. with regard to a question concerning legal actions as a result of occurrences in San Clemente and Pacific Palisades, the city Attorney advised that what typically happens in landslide cases, liability is determined by the fact that the city made some type of improvement in the area, such as storm drains, water mains, roadways, etc., that in some manner contributed to the movement of the soils in those particular cases. He again stated that the law is constantly in flux therefore it is difficult to provide unequivocal answers, that their advice is based upon the law as is presently exists. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney said a previous statement was not meant to imply that the Council could not consider new information that may be relevant to the project, and given that the project proponent presented geologic information earlier in the meeting, another person would be allowed to present an opposing viewpoint. He did confirm that the EIR is a final document and under state law there are limited grounds upon which state law would require that a new EIR be prepared, such as if there are changes to the project that create new environmental effects, that there is also a provision for new information, information that was not or could not have been available at the time of adoption I of the EIR. with regard to whether liability is greater in this case than any other area of the city, the city Attorney explained that if there was a project elsewhere in the City and in the instance of an earthquake the building suffered substantial damages, the property owner could possibly claim that the city was negligent in approving the project, which would be the same issue as for the project under consideration, and even though each property is unique, the earthquake safety issue would apply to nUlllerous properties in the Southern California area. He added that it is unlikely that the legislature would make a statute retroactive, yet over time the courts have narrowed the scope of immunities for cities. Mr. Bruce stark, Seal Beach, spoke for requiring the developer to post a bond to indemnify the city from possible future litigation, and suggested that this hearing be adjourned to allow the new Council to take the action on the project. The City Attorney advised that it is difficult to maintain bonds over a long period of time, that bonds are usually for short term obligations and in the case of development projects bonds are customarily used to insure the completion of improvements. He stated he was unaware of a case requiring a bond to indemnify the city over a long period of time. The City Attorney offered to look into the I issue of bonding and provide a report to the new Council. Mr. Stark said that this project is constantly in a state of flux, charged that the $1 million will be used for the purchase of the additional five acres, questioned whether tennis courts and ball diamonds will actually be developed, and although it has been stated the project will bring revenue to the City, there has been no discussion of the cost to the city, that housing does not produce revenue therefore the citizens will realize a tax increase to support this project. He said if the city wanted to produce revenue there should be commercial development along Seal . s.'. 5-14-90 I Beach Boulevard and the remainder of the site restored as wetlands, park and open space, and suggested the Wetlands society plan should have been given consideration. Mr. Stark recalled comment that money is not available to purchase the wetlands, to which he said is dependent upon the zoning. Mr. Stark spoke of water usage, water rationing, questioned mitigation of traffic, air, and noise proble1llS, and the use of Mello-Roos to aid a private developer. Mr. Stark said no matter what the vote may be, the City will face the possibility of legal action, noting that Mola would most likely not prevail since they own nothing, and Hellman has no reason to pursue the issue since their land continues to be used for oil extraction. He also commented on the Wetlands lawsuit, charged that the public hearings were inadequate, and said the Housing Element is not sufficient. Mr. Stark concluded that the proposed project will do nothing for the City except cost the citizens money and ruin the quality of life. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration Society, referred to the alternate plan proposed by the Wetlands Society, stated he supports property rights, that Hellman has rights of ownership, but Mola does not because he does not own the property. He noted previous zoning was oil extraction and there is no requirement to upzone that site, and suggested that it be zoned hazardous which would allow restoration of the wetlands, and that a cultural center could be created in recognition of the Indian burial grounds on the property. He said it is not acceptable to destroy the environment for special interest groups. Mr. Ambrose said even though a few people met with MOla, that did not represent the entire city. Mr. John Nakagawa, 320 - 12th Street, spoke in favor of requiring an indemnity bond, expressed concern regarding the liquefaction issue, and given the deletion of twenty-six lots he would request an increase of the wetlands and Gum Grove acreage, that the thirty-foot buffer be included, that the oil wells be electrified, that the Indian issue be further addressed, and requested a copy of a confidential document referred to earlier in the meeting. With regard to Indian artifacts, the Development Services Director explained that issue is addressed as a prior to grading city condition of the vesting tentative map, requiring a certified archeologist to perform a subsurface test level investigation and surface collection, that the resulting report should evaluate the site, include items of significance, final mitigation recommendations and cost estimates. He read the archeological mitigation plan that was imposed as a condition by the Coastal commission as part of their approval of the project. Mr. Nakagawa said the Coastal Commission geologist had described to him the varying degrees of liquefaction and various techniques of construction on high liquefaction areas, one such method being the use of pilings, and it was his understanding that there are twenty-six homes in the plan that will require such advanced technology for construction. Ms. Anna Christensen, Secretary for the Native American Coalition, 259 Termino Avenue, Long Beach, stated there is also a federal process which requires the developer to apply for an Army Corps of Engineers permit, and once the test phase of the property is completed further archeology will not be allowed without tribal and corps review, and if burial grounds are found the Native American Heritage commission will be involved. She read portions of the State Interpretive Guidelines concerning arCheological resources. Ms. Christensen said that the Guidelines state that if more than two square meters of surface area is to be excavated in a test phase, a permit is required, and prior to such application three qualified archaeologists are required to I I 5-14-90 review the research design, review and consultation also required by native American groups, and since it is felt the developer has not followed the guidelines, a complaint has been filed with the Coastal Commission by the Coalition. Ms. Vera Rocha, 3451 Ravena Avenue, Baldwin Park, asked that her ancestors be spared, and said although the development is nice, it does not fit with wetlands, the burial grounds, I or the City. She said she had spoken to representatives of Mola however it was not until today that an American Native monitor was on the site. Ms. Rocha supported development of a cultural center on the property. Mr. Rick Ramiriz, Pomona, member of the Gabrielano Band, stated restoration of the wetlands would be nice but they want no development on any of their sites, those sites having religious and sacred significance to them. He said if the project is approved he would pack the streets with Indian people daily. Ms. Christensen once again addressed the Council, stated there seems to be question as to whether the site is a burial ground, said she had spoken to Mr. John Wilson, the person who had returned certain tribal remains and artifacts to the Coalition, and he reported finding the items along Seal Beach Boulevard at the high point of the land from the Police station south. She said the items were obtained about 1938 and are currently being analyzed, and that the coroner is also involved. Mr. Ambrose added that Mr. Wilson had informed him of removing skulls from the Hellman site. Ms. Barbara Antoci, 1502 Ocean Avenue, stated she felt the Charter had been violated with regard to holding meetings at reasonable hours, as well as policy to conclude meetings at midnight, and that late meetings are not in the interest of the citizens. She asked why proposed projects are referred 'I'. to as Ponderosa or Mola when it is actually a Hellman family project, therefore they should make the application, build the homes, and live in them. She said she had asked if Mola owned the failing savings and loan in Newport Beach, and has found that he does, also that she had obtained copies of a number of lawsuits stemming from other Mola developments. Ms. Antoci stated the Hellman land has been charged with being wetlands, is geologically unsafe for homes, earthquake zones, faults, liquefaction, and parts are totally toxic. She objected to the open space/wetlands plan not having been given consideration. Ms. Antoci asked that the Charter be complied with, that a reasonable time limit be placed on meetings, that they be held at regularly scheduled times. Dr. Robert Winchell, Professor of Geology, Cal State University, Long Beach, stated the Council was provided packets of information during the past weekend, which represents information previously provided and prior statements. He restated his opinion that the subject area is an example of one of the most hazardous for development, and since that issue has not been disputed, he said he would rest his case based upon the information submitted previously. Dr. Winchell stated he had felt the developer would have his consultant present this evening, presuming that to either be an engineer or engineering geologist, I- therefore he wished to change his focus to engineering considerations. He said to preface that, he wanted to point out that as far as he could determine, was aware of and believed, Dr. Clark has indicated to the Council what appears to be current accepted practice in trying to mitigate for seismic problems associated with sites like the Hellman property, using Coastal commission, his own knowledge, and studies of the recent San Francisco earthquake as input. Dr. Winchell stated the significance of the subject site is that it has all of the problems that could be associated with a coastal site, not only the '" 5-14-90 I materials, but the fault problems, that fault running basically through the center of this project. He said he felt the Council was attempting to determine if the site could be mitigated for the seismic problems, and since there is no experience with this site one must look at other sites that have behaved in a similar manner, one aspect being whether the site can be mitigated to the point of assuring that proper protection will be provided persons occupying the site. Dr. Winchell cited examples of engineering approaches and knowledge of geological problems, in a case of flooding he made reference to the st. Francis dam near Saugus which was built across an obvious fault and where the materials only had to be placed in water to disintegrate, the Bluebird slide area in Laguna where materials were moved from the top of the mountain and compacted according to accepted engineering practices and considered to be safe despite geological warnings, and the San Fernando earthquake where structures were built to Code at that time and considered to be stable. He said engineers often believe they can mitigate and build in areas that are geologically hazardous areas, and even if the state of the art is practiced, what the associated problems are going to be or whether they can be mitigated to the point of protecting lives and property. He noted a disturbing factor to him is that the actual width of the fault zone is unknown. He referred to a map and the key thereto, which was provided to the Council, and noted that according to the key even structures that have been engineered to withstand earthquakes and seismic prOblems can be expected to be damaged. He said the key also shows the fault traces, including Seal Beach, and that the map, which shows dashed lines on the outside of the zone, means deformation, and to a geologist that means the area could shear, warp, flow, or a number of forms of deformations, and according to the scale is five thousand feet wide. He offered that proper planning would indicate that it is up to someone who wishes to develop that property to show what the risk is conclusively before development is commenced. Dr. Winchell quoted from another document provided to the Council, that the experience with these techniques, for instance putting in wells to pump water, etc., attempting to densify in order to reduce liquefaction potential, is fairly limited, laboratory and theoreticals suggest they should work, but they have not been subjected to earthquakes under field conditions, another quote doubted whether the proposed techniques could account for every type of damage to a house which could occur during liquefaction. He asked to what degree the liquefaction proposed to be reduced in this case, and what would be determined an acceptable loss of property and life. He again stated the area is subject to fault offset, a zone of deformation that is not known, liquefaction, and other kinds of shaking effects different from liquefaction. Dr. Winchell quoted a comment from a governor's fact finding commission of 1928 relating to the st. Francis dam failure, tlthat this disaster emphasizes the fact that while benefits accrue to the builders of such projects, the failure brings disaster to others who have no control over the design, construction, and maintenance of the work,tI and he asked that the Council consider that statement and its validity of application to a site like the Hellman property. In response to Council, Dr. Winchell confirmed his belief that there is a strong probability for serious damages from an earthquake even if there is mitigation of the site, that seven is considered an average magnitude for the Newport/Inglewood fault yet considered to be one of the most dangerous given the density of the population in the area. He noted that it is quite probable I I 5-14-90 that the remainder of this City has the same type of soil problems, however it would not be appropriate to subject others to such risks and dangers; he also confirmed that a magnitude seven earthquake is a realistic expectation in terms of current knowledge, and that he did not know the probable time period of a quake, however would most likely be within the lifetime of the structures. With regard to I whether Dr. Winchell was being compensated by the Wetlands Society for his attendance at the various meetings, the Doctor responded that he was not, that he accepts no remuneration, that his employment is with the California state University at Long Beach, and his purpose is to inform the Council and citizens of his feelings from a professional standpoint and as a civic duty. Dr. Winchell advised he teaches in the Geology Department for both majors and non- majors, that he has a broad geological background to the masters level and specializes in the area known as mineralogy. He said he had not reviewed the most recent soils reports, and has indicated to the new councilmembers that he felt this to be irrelevant. He said he was willing to accept the soils work that Dr. Clark and Leighton and Associates prepared, having the knowledge that they are a reputable organization, however it is simply his opinion that, in the terms of the information provided, there is not enough known about these areas. Dr. Winchell stated the definition of mitigation is to try to ameliorate the problems that are associated with a particular area, to offset or reduce them to a point were they no longer exist, that there are cases where you can not fully mitigate, and with regard to this particular project it would be a reduction of risk and even the state of the art technology would not be appropriate for this area. With regard to I rebuilding a structure that may be destroyed by some means in another area of the City and presumably having the same type of liquefaction problem, Dr. Winchell said it would be his opinion there should not be construction in those areas, and that detailed geological studies should be made to determine the conditions prior to approval. It was noted that neither of the geologists had mentioned that buildings shOUld be restricted from a certain number of feet from the fault line. In response to a question as to the significance of the proximity of liquefaction to the fault, or the liquefaction level, Dr. Winchell advised that there is some problem with the proximity to the fault, however is not specifically known, and in this particular case shaking is one of the worst effects, yet liquefaction has been the focused problem, and in turn said it is not necessarily true to say that bedrock areas do not suffer damage. Dr. Winchell encouraged the Council to obtain the advice of as many independent experts as possible, stated he did not dispute Dr. Clark's opinion and felt he was attempting to provide the state of the art. He said he did not believe the position has been reached to determine that the problems can be mitigated or reduced to an acceptable risk level. In response to Council, Dr. Clark stated he lives on a property that has a potential for liquefaction, within four miles of I the Newport/Inglewood fault and close to what is referred to as the golf course fault in Huntington Beach, that if his home were destroyed he would want to rebuild, however said his property does not compare with the Hellman Ranch property. Dr. Anton Dahlman, Crestview Avenue, requested that Dr. Winchell's comments be made part of the record verbatim. Dr. Dahlman referred to a previous hypothetical question of Mr. Hunt, and said the analogy of homes burning down and rebuilding is comparable to Hellman rebuilding an existing oil well, not to the risk of permitting a new project. Councilman Hunt clarified that the argument was . 5-14-90 I made as a response to the Council's moral sense, that if the Council says no in this case there would likewise be a moral responsibility to say no in other cases having a like liquefaction level. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 1:05 a.m. The Council reconvened at 1:23 a.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. Ms. Lisa Antoci-Lang, 113 Dolphin Avenue, expressed concern with comments of the Council at previous meetings, stating the collective power of the people is stronger than that of the Hellmans and Molas, and that many people have asked that this project be denied. She advised of her research of developments of the Mola Corporation and of the lawsuits relating thereto, most involving structural defects, improper design and construction, failure to consider soil moisture content, all of which she said affected many people and communities, and asked that the Council research these litigated matters. Ms. Lang said the will of the people will have been violated if this project is approved, and that the City does not have the resources necessary to support the project. Ms. Patti Campbell, 4433 Ironwood Avenue, made reference to a 1988 publication of the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology entitled the Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport/Inglewood fault, and stated the publication sets forth the most likely situations that may occur with a magnitude seven earthquake on the Newport/Inglewood fault in the vicinity of Seal Beach. She read specific excerpts regarding the railway line at the Naval Weapons Station, closure of roads, liquefaction potential, the soil content of the Armed Forces Reserve Center, and research of fault lines by Professor Hoxeng of U. S. C. Ms. Campbell spoke favorably of Dr. Winchell's testimony as an unpaid consultant. She said she did not feel the Council was taking the public testimony into consideration, and asked for assurance that the new Council could take action to reconsider or rescind an action of the present Council. Mayor Grgas stated there is nothing to control whatever legal or jUdicial action the Mola Corporation may take and where a judge may feel compelled to determine that, despite whatever action the City may take, they have entitlements. The City Attorney explained that the developer received no vested rights with the adoption of the Housing Element. With regard to vested rights should the ordinances receive first reading by the present Council and the vesting map resolution be adopted, he clarified that the Vesting Map Resolution has been amended to provide that the effective date of that Resolution is contingent upon the adoption of the Specific Plan and Development Agreement Ordinances and that the new Council will have the right to take the final action on those ordinances. He noted that the issue of whether Mola has acquired other rights with regard to the use of the property had not been addressed, however had been discussed with the Council in Closed Session. The City Attorney again clarified that if the new Council did not adopt the related ordinances, the effect would be that there would be no project, and the Council would have the ability to determine what approach they wished to take at that time. Ms. Lois Briggs, 637 Island View Drive, stated she felt that to pursue taking an action on this matter only adds to the Mola Corporations chances to bring a legal action and be successful. In response to Council, Dr. Clark stated he did not believe that there is any substantial disagreement with the comments of Dr. Winchell, except that their firm I I 5-14-90 believes that the level of risk can be lowered to a workable level within the current state of the art, a level that is felt to be appropriate for the people who reside in Southern California. Dr. Anton Dahlman, Crestview Avenue, extended an apology to Dr. Clark, acknowledged the Doctor's experience and credentials, and stated he did not feel it was the intent to question his integrity. He noted Dr. I Winchell's local knowledge, therefore suggested that is an issue that should be considered when approving the project, that there has been testimony citing the benefits of the project, yet there have been questions raised as to whether it is safely buildable, with minimum risk, as planned. It was again explained that the Housing Element can be amended, if desired, after going through the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and city council, also that a potential for future legal action has been discussed in Closed Session. Dr. Dahlman said he felt the Housing Element was tailored for the Mola project and is a pro- development document, requiring considerable time in order to amend, that the new Council will be pressured to take an action on the development plan, and even though it has been mentioned that the current plan is the same as previously approved, he felt it was not, as the original plan did not mitigate the low income housing requirement. Dr. Dahlman stated he felt the actions of this Council will hamper the new Council and may influence the development atmosphere in the community for a number of years. Dr. Dahlman said that although this is a good plan, there are conflicting opinions as to whether the site is buildable from a geologically safe standpoint, and it appeared that the Council too had concerns given the questions of Dr. Clark. The Council confirmed that this matter would not be considered at the I May 15th adjourned meeting. The city Attorney advised that the time frame that applies to the Council making a decision on the project has not yet been calculated, and once again explained that if the new Council does not favor the project they would have the option to deny it, and should that be their decision the Council would be advised at that time of the pros and cons of whatever action they choose to take. He noted that there are time frames, pursuant to State law, for the City to take action, however the lawsuit has a bearing in this instance where certain approvals were set aside by the court, the question now being what time frames continue to apply to taking an action. In response to Council with regard to Housing Element, the Assistant city Attorney stated their firm contacted the court on Friday and was advised by the clerk of the court that a judgment had been signed, however it has yet to be received, and read what is anticipated to be the verbiage of the judgment. He added there is no indication that the order will address reinstating the previous project approvals. Dr. Dahlman asked if was acceptable to the Mola Corporation that the Vesting Tentative Map be subject to the ordinance approvals. The Council indicated that is a condition of the Map therefore is not debatable. Ms. Wendy Morris, 1729 Crestview Avenue, questioned allowing a thirty foot height 1'- of dwellings for this project when the Hill properties are limited to twenty-five feet. Mr. Roberts, responded that the design of the homes provides an architectural element for steeper pitched roofs and generates greater volume of in-house space, that the steeper pitch fills less air space, thought to be more elegant and aesthetic in the marketplace. Ms. Morris stated the greater height would impact her view, that five to seven feet could make the difference to her, and that there are a number of attractive Hill residences with flat roofs. She expressed her preference that the height limit not be extended for the project. Ms. Morris 5-14-90 I stated concern with regard to noise from the oil wells outside the project, specifically those along Seal Beach Boulevard and along the First Street extension, and asked if there is intention that those wells be electrified. The Development Services Director explained that prior to building permit issuance there is a condition requiring that additional acoustical analysis be undertaken and mitigation measures developed to insure that noise from arterial highways or noise from existing oil wells on the northern portion of the property as well as off-site wells located north of Hellman Ranch Road does not exceed residential interior or exterior noise compatibility criteria. He noted possible mitigation measures include either masonry block walls around the pumps or residences and/or converting the pumps from gas to electricity, that provision for a mechanical ventilation system may also be necessary to achieve and acceptable noise level. He stated noise mitigation will also be required for the seven wells along Seal Beach Boulevard, that the subject noise analysis and mitigation will need to be incorporated into the construction site plan at the time of plan check. with regard to the geologic problems with the area, Ms. Morris asked if the City will insure that there is disclosure to the homeowners. The Director noted the disclosure requirement is addressed on page eight for the CC&R's and on page fourteen of the prior to building permit conditions, a requirement of the initial sale and each time a property changes hands, and is to be regulated by the homeowners association. with regard to required disclosure pursuant to State law, the city Attorney stated it is believed there would be disclosure required as part of the subdivision, however the local conditions were added in the event no disclosure was required by State law, and in the event there was no disclosure by a seller of a property, a cause of action could be brought by the purchaser against the seller, and additionally will be part of the escrow requirements. Mr. Evans noted that Coastal permits now require a deed restriction on the sale of homes, that the city was added to that requirement, and the disclosure will also be required on the title report for a property. Ms. Morris asked if the homes would be required to be built to a more stringent standard in the high liquefaction area, and in what Code those standards are set forth. The Director explained that through the Building Code the state is divided into different seismic zones, Seal Beach falls within Zone Four and requires a higher standard of construction, the appropriate foundation systems to be determined through the soils and geology reports, and a condition of approval requires Mola to bear the cost of the city hiring a geologist to review and evaluate the reports prior to issuance of building permits, that person to likewise inspect the site, with the building inspectors monitoring the actual construction. Ms. Morris made reference to the buffer zone, which she stated was offered by the developer in lieu of the golf course and initially would allow access to the park, yet it is now proposed to be fenced with no access and made a part of the rear yard of the new residences. Members of the Council noted that issue was discussed at length, that the Council chose to not support the buffer with access, that other residents spoke against the buffer, the Police Department also opposing the buffer due to potential enforcement and security problems. Ms. Morris said she felt she and her neighbors were being impacted by the development more than others. Discussion followed. Ms. Morris stated she and her neighbors want to have input as to where and what will be planted in the buffer area. Mr. Evans advised the buffer will be I I . 5-14-90 landscaped and specifically addressed in the landscape plans, that they would be willing to meet with the homeowners to discuss the landscaping and the fencing. Mr. Roberts noted a landscape plan is yet to be developed, however at this time the concept is for eucalyptus trees, tied into the Gum Grove Park theme, and will be considered at the time of the Precise Plan. I Risner moved, second by Grgas, to add wording that would require the buffer portion of the landscape plan to come before the Council for final review. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Ms. Morris inquired about access for police patrol, specifically the east end of Gum Grove. Mr. Roberts stated the concept of police patrol would be to access through the main entrance to Gum Grove Park, proceed to the end and return, and if another roadway is felt to be necessary, it will be provided. The Director pointed out that page twenty-one of the conditions sets forth Police Department review of accessibility and security measures. Ms. Morris inquired about a previous discussion of turf block extending into the buffer zone, asked the reason for fencing the buffer area, noted that access for police from a cul-de-sac had been discussed previously. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to keep the buffer zone open without fencing. Discussion followed. AYES: NOES: Laszlo, Risner, Grgas, Hunt, Wilson Motion Failed I Mr. Charles Antos, 8th Street, said when the project was first before the Council, he had suggested that the existing Specific Plan not be modified until such time as a good project was presented, recalling the seven hundred units, stacked condos, golf course, etc., and now a revised plan, that has been further refined by the Coastal Commission, provides more wetlands and less houses. Mr. Antos recalled recommending that the plan be set aside and looked into further. He said when this plan was previously approved he felt Mola made a judgment error by not finalizing their agreement with Hellman, subsequently the lawsuit and the court set aside the approvals, and Mola still has no property rights. Mr. Antos made reference to the procedural time frames for adoption of the documents relating to the project as it relates to the option d~adline of June 1st, as reported by the Mola representative, unless agreement with Hellman is finalized and Mola becomes the property owner, therefore acquiring property rights and a stronger legal stance. He said the current rumor is that if the project is not approved Mola and Hellman will file a legal action, also fence Gum Grove Park and let the trees die. He said that since Gum Grove has been in the Open Space Element for a I period of time, he felt it could be zoned as urban forest, that the wetlands could be zoned as such, and while allowing , the Hellmans to continue their oil production activity, the remainder could be zoned agriculture. Mr. Antos objected to any possible action by the Council at this meeting that would allow Mola to gain the property rights. In response to Council with regard to the property owners, the City Attorney stated the basic standard of court cases is that there be an economically viable use, and whether a zoning of agricultural/urban forest/wetlands would be sustainable is an issue that has not been looked into. 5-14-90 I Dr. Winchell offered his regrets for having to leave the meeting, and stated he respectfully disagreed with Dr. Clark regarding the reduction of risks to an acceptable level, and referred the Council to a newspaper article he had provided with comments by Tom Holtzer and Pat Campbell, U.S.G.S. and the state Architects Office. He offered his services to the Council. Mr. Walt wright, 326 Redwood Avenue, Brea, consultant to the Wetlands Society, spoke of the continued reference to restored wetlands and offered that given the revetment area surrounding that parcel, the dedicated area is 41.4 acres yet the commitment to restore is actually about 25.6 acres on the wetland restoration plan, also claiming that the deep water area is not wetlands. He said he felt the wetland restoration as proposed is a poor plan, and although it has been claimed to be accepted, the California Fish and Game allowed the revetment because it optimized the wetlands that have been made available, yet if there were more wetlands there would most likely be no revetment, the revetment presently needed for the flushing of the deep water area and proposed to be a minimum of eleven feet wide with a fence or wall at the top, which he claimed to be aesthetically displeasing. Mr. Wright said there had been comment that the Coastal Commission sees the area as having to be restored now, however stated his interpretation is that the area is degraded, will not get better unless someone improves it, yet it is uncertain that it will be restored with this project or within a time frame. In response to a comment of Fish and wildlife that the area was of benefit to wildlife, he stated it would be even better if there were one hundred five acres. Mr. Wright commented on the liquefaction issue, stating that even though the level of risk would be reduced it would still not be safe enough, that the twenty-six units that were not removed by the Coastal Commission remain in an area subject to liquefaction and that he believed that area will be subject to extensive damage due to the poor soil quality. He said many serious damages may occur as a result of an earthquake of a magnitude less than seven, the closer to the site the greater extent of damage, and with regard to no observation of surface breakage, he stated no breakage was found as a result of the Long Beach quake either. Mr. Wright said concerns are not only with the fault and surface rupture but also the settling with peat and subsidence. He asked if the amenities of the project could be equated with the liabilities and constraints of the property. He added that throughout the project documents there is reference to the degraded condition of the area, stated that restoration should be the maximum possible, and that the value of restored wetlands can not be underestimated for the future. Mr. Wright noted the archeological conditions call for capping the site and placing the homes on the cap. He asked the depth of the cap, how certain sanitary facilities could be accommodated with the cap, and charged that a local knowledgeable archeologist has not been contacted to join archeology teams on the site. Mr. Wright referred to the project objectives of the state Lands Specific Plan and urged that the same type of objectives be applied to the Hellman property, and that the project not be approved. Mr. Cameron Briggs, 637 Island View Drive, said he felt the developer is taking away more land than he is giving to the City, and even though the area is unkept it is the only remaining undeveloped area and should remain so. He spoke for restoration of wetlands, even more area than is proposed, and acreage for wildlife. Ms. Barbara Antoci said that a Mr. and Mrs. Kime, Dogwood Avenue, who had left the meeting, had asked that she inform the Council that in his opinion the lien and completion bonds are flawed, and that I I 5-14-90 he also inquired as who would be responsible for any human remains found on the Hellman property. Ms. Antoci asked if the sovereign rights of the Indians have been taken into consideration, and if a title report has been run on the property. Councilmember Risner noted that at this meeting there were thirty-three persons speaking in favor of the project in a period of two hours, including reading of the letters, and sixteen speaking against in a period of five hours. I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to declare a recess at 3:38 a.m. The Council reconvened at 3:45 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Ms. Francis Johnson, Coastline Drive, stated she was against the project. Mr. Galen Ambrose asked that the council adjourn the meeting without a vote, rezone the property, and consider the feasibility of the Wetland Society plan. Mr. Ambrose made reference to the wetland acreage, stating he felt the development agreement had set forth 41.4 acres, another document stating thirty-six plus acres. He said that the agreement resulting from the Restoration society legal action established the acreage at 41.4 acres, based upon the development agreement and before the action of the Coastal commission which removed the twenty-six units, and inquired as to the location of the additional four or so acres. The Director responded that his recollection was that the 41.4 acres is the result of the removal of the twenty-six homesites, and that the previous acreage was approximately thirty-seven plus acres. Ms. Moira Hahn, 1515-1/2 Ocean Avenue, stated she was not in favor of the project, and felt that this entire matter should have been I carried over for action by the new Council. Mr. Kirk Evans responded to Mr. Ambrose that the wetlands agreement occurred after the Coastal commission hearing, that there had been some confusion as a result of earlier nU1llbers that addressed wetlands/open space as combined acreage. He noted receipt of a letter from the Coastal Commission this date authored by Richard J. MCCarthy, senior staff geologist, an independent expert, and Mr. C. B. Krauss with Dames and Moore, a firm hired to investigate the San Francisco earthquake, also a consultant to this project, and read the final paragraph of the letter which set forth their opinion that 'residential structures built in conformance with the design criteria and mitigation measures required as the Commission's conditions of approval of the project has set a new standard for mitigation of the liquefaction hazard of the California coastal zone, the mitigation measures go beyond the structural requirements typically applied to similar situations by local governments.' Mr. Evans stated what is presented is a project designed to the standards that the State uses for its public schools, standards much greater than those used for single family residences, and recognizes the potential of a magnitude seven quake. He advised that the Fish and Game and Wildlife Service has approved the wetlands, the Coastal Commission has issued I final approval with findings that conclude that structures may be built on the site, that there are no major hazards that have not been addressed, and that this project is the least environmentally damaging alternative of all projects. Mr. Evans clarified that the right-Of-way, not Hellman Ranch Road, that has been reduced in width, also that at the left turn pocket into the park the roadway will be expanded, and there will be bike lanes on both sides of the street. Considerable discussion followed with regard to the procedures for continuing the public hearing, closing the 5-14-90 I' hearing on certain items, for considering the public hearing issue with regard to each item. The city Attorney explained that if the Council chose to not introduce the Specific Plan and Development'Agreement Ordinances and the hearing was continued, the new Council could take action on the first reading or take no action, or the council could introduce the Ordinances and continue the public hearing with respect to those items. He added that if the Council chose to take no action on the Resolutions, the hearing could also be continued with regard to those items, however if action is to be taken on the Resolutions, the hearing on those items should be closed. Mr. stepanicich explained that the Vesting Tentative Map is a quasi-judicial action and once the Resolution is adopted making the findings, that would be a final action, however the effectiveness of that Resolution is subject to the adoption of the Ordinances, and it is intended that there be additional language that will clarify that if there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the Specific Plan, Development Agreement and the Vested Tentative Map, the Development Agreement and Specific Plan would control. In response to Council, the Director clarified that 11.3 is the correct acreage of Gum Grove Park, the inconsistency of nU1llbers the result of some small acreages from the original tract map had not been previously included in the Park. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1305 - HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Councilmember Risner moved to introduce Ordinance Number 1305 entitled tlAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN.tI The Assistant City Attorney noted typographical errors in the last recital on page one which should read "...and oral evidence..." and the first recital on page two, second line from bottom, delete the word "tOtl. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1305 was waived. First reading of Ordinance Number 1305 was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Laszlo Motion Carried It was the determination of the Council to consider Ordinance Number 1306 out of order at this time. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1306 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT Wilson moved, second by Risner, to introduce Ordinance Number 1306 entitled "AN 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.tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1306 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance No. 1306, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Laszlo Motion Carried Risner moved, second by Wilson, to continue the public hearing relating to the amendment of the Hellman Specific Plan, Ordinance Number 1305, and approval of the Development Agreement, Ordinance Number 1306, until the next regular meeting, May 29th, 1990. 5-14-90 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The Assistant City Attorney explained that the Council would have the option to close the hearing relating to the General Plan Amendments of the Land Use Element and Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element and take action, that I neither of these items were overturned by the court and are valid General Plan amendments, updated to reflect new data since previously approved. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to close the public hearing relating to Resolution Number 3934 and 3935. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Laszlo Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3934 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1a-90 - LAND USE ELEMENT and RESOLUTION NUMBER 3935 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1b-90 - OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve Resolution Number 3934 entitled tlA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT la-90, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DEALING WITH THE HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" and Resolution Number 3935 entitled tlA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT lb- 90, AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DEALING WITH THE HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA.tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions Numbered 3934 and 3935 were waived. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Laszlo I Motion carried Risner moved, second by Wilson, to close the public hearing relating to Tentative Parcel Map 86-349. . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Laszlo Motion carried It was noted that the developer had accepted the reduction of dwelling heights to thirty feet. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3936 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-349 Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3936 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-349." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3936 was waived. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Laszlo Motion Carried I Risner moved, second by Grgas, to close the public hearing relating to approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198. Councilman Hunt stated his desire that this public hearing be continued until the next meeting. Mayor Grgas acknowledged the request, however stated he wished his support for adoption of Resolution Number 3937 to be known by the new city Council, having voted for this item previously. Mayor Grgas withdrew his second of the motion. The motion failed for lack of a second. 5-14-90 RESOLUTION NUMBER 3937 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13198 Laszlo moved, second by Risner, to continue the public hearing and Resolution Number 3937 relating to approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198 until the next regular meeting, May 29th. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The Assistant City Attorney noted that the Specific Plan will be amended to reflect the change of height limit to thirty feet. The city Attorney clarified there is no legal need for further published notice of the continued hearings. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3939 - AUTHORIZING ACOUISITION - FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY Resolution number 3939 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CITY REPRESENTATIVES TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SAID RESOLUTION. II By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3939 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3939 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "M" throuah "ptI Councilman LaSZlo requested that Item tlptI be removed from the Consent Calendar. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item tlPtI, as presented. M. Approved regular demands nUlllbered 78925 through 79136 in the amount of $478,144.45, and payroll demands nUlllbered 39764 through 39935 in the amount of $205,735.34 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. N. Approved the Agreement between the city of Seal Beach and the County of Orange for Arterial Highway Financing Program matching funds in the amount of $59,000, approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 569, resurfacing of Bolsa Avenue, AHFP Project #1226, authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and to advertise for bids. O. Took a position to opposed Senate Bill 2011 (Greene) relating to local agency discretion over approval of low and moderate income housing projects, and Senate Bill 2274 (Bergeson) relating to Housing Elements. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM lip" - RESIGNATION/APPOINTMENT - 75th ANNIVERSARY STEERING COMMITTEE Councilmember Risner moved to accept the resignation of Ms. Mary Bolton from the 75th Anniversary Steering Committee, and to appoint Ms. Jody Weir to that position. 5-14-90 Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. Councilman Laszlo expressed his feeling that the appointment should be postponed to allow the new Council the opportunity to make the appointment. Discussion followed. It was clarified that the new Council, upon three affirmative votes, would have the option of removing and replacing a member of the Committee. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson Laszlo Motion carried I Councilmember Wilson moved to accept the resignation of Ms. Teri Jones from the 75th Anniversary Steering Committee, and to appoint Ms. Iva Sloan to that position. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried BUDGET WORKSHOP Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to continue consideration of scheduling upcoming budget workshops until the May 15th regular adjourned meeting. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Risner conveyed her pleasure for having had the opportunity to work with the members of the City Council. Mayor Grgas relayed a suggestion that the Traffic Committee be considered as a standing committee. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c) with regard to the oil spill. with unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 4:31 a.m., and reconvened at 4:34 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The Assistant city Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c) to consider whether the city should initiate certain litigation in connection with the oil spill. ADJOURNMENT Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, May 15th, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:36 a.m. I Attest: I I I g;~ Mayo ?7? Approved: