Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-05-29 5-29-90 Seal Beach, California May 29, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:02 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL r.JI.T.1. Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, city Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a matter of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) , the Wetlands Restoration Society versus city of Seal Beach. By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:34 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matter previously announced. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. I Approved: ~rLv.rJ -f\, j/~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California May 29, 1990 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:40 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None 5-29-90 Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, city Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Hunt moved, second by Forsythe, 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: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed June 14, 1990 as "Flag Day in the state of California II and urged all citizens to pause for the pledge of allegiance to the Flag at the hour of 7:00 p.m. The Mayor proclaimed the week of June 4th through June 21st, 1990 as "Grad Night Week.tI Patricia and Joe Nimick, chairpersons of the Los Alamitos High School Grad Night Entertainment committee, accepted the proclamation with appreciation. May 15th through May 21st, 1990 was proclaimed tlSelective Service System Week" by Mayor Wilson. I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - VARIANCE 8-89 - 101 MAIN STREET - WATSON The City Clerk advised that the public hearing on this item had been opened on May 14th and continued to this date. The City Manager reported receipt of a request that this item be continued for a period of sixty days. Mayor Wilson declared the continued public hearing open. Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to continue the public hearing regarding the appeal of Variance 8-89 until the regular meeting of August 13th. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Wilson announced this to be the time and place for the continued public hearing to consider amendment of the Hellman Specific Plan, the Development Agreement between the City and Mola Development Corporation, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198. The Development Services Director reported the initial public hearing was conducted on May 14th at which time the Council introduced the ordinances, deferred action on the Vesting Map Resolution, and continued the public hearing until this date. He noted that at the time of introduction of the Ordinances the council imposed additional conditions, one being the reduction of the height of the homes from thirty-two feet to a maximum of thirty feet. Councilman Laszlo said he felt that a time limit should be considered prior to going further with this item, and announced he would be leaving the meeting at approximately 12:30 a.m. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to consider agenda items tlYtI, Council meeting time limit, tlZ", Closed 5-29-90 Session scheduling, and tlAA", Citizen Housing Element Review Committee, out of order at this time. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried ITEM "Y" - COUNCIL MEETING TIME LIMIT Councilmember Hastings moved to adjourn City Council meetings at 11:30 p.m. with a warning announced at 11:00 p.m., and that any public hearing in progress would be carried over to another time. Councilman Laszlo suggested that public hearings be concluded or continued at 11:00 p.m., allowing consideration of remaining agenda items until 12:00 midnight. Councilman Hunt said he appreciated the objective, however offered that it may be more appropriate for the Council to discipline themselves in order to conduct business in a reasonable manner, and suggested for this meeting that the Council follow Resolution 2874 which sets forth the procedural rules for conduct of City Council meetings. Mayor Wilson said she felt it would be helpful if parliamentary procedure were followed, allowing all persons to be heard and without interruption, that comments be addressed to the Chair, that remarks be limited to the subject and not be repetitive, and that personalities be avoided. Discussion continued. Councilmember Hastings withdrew the motion. Councilman Laszlo moved that public hearing testimony be limited to 11:00 p.m., that public hearings be concluded or continued to another meeting, allowing the Council to proceed with remaining City business with the intent of adjourning Council meetings at 11:30 p.m. or 12:00 midnight at the latest. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Councilman Laszlo said he felt time limits could be modified if deemed necessary. Mayor Wilson indicated she could support the motion if it is understood there may be exceptions to the motion. I I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried ITEM IIZIl - CLOSED SESSION SCHEDULING Councilmember Hastings moved that Closed Sessions be held before the City Council meetings as often as possible, rather than during the conduct of the meeting, the intent being to not delay the public portion of the meeting. Councilmember Laszlo seconded the motion. ' AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEM "AA" - HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Councilmember Hastings moved that each member of the Council appoint no more than four persons, and no less than one, plus an alternate, to a citizens committee to review the Housing Element, the committee to report their recommendations to the City Council. She said she felt I there are inconsistencies in the Element, that there should be no reference to the name of a developer in the document, review also desirable as a result of Bergeson and Greene proposed legislation, and because the Element, when adopted, was not in its final form. Councilman Hunt asked that the appointees not necessarily be required to be from the District the Councilmember represents, noting that certain areas of the City have greater concern with the Housing Element than others, and in his opinion those persons with strong feelings on the issue should be considered for appointment. Discussion followed. Councilmember Hunt seconded the motion, and after further discussion the motion 5-29-90 I was amended to provide that the report be submitted to the Council within three months. The City Attorney clarified that the appropriate procedure would be for the committee to report to the Council, the Council would in turn determine what recommendations should be referred to the Planning Commission. He explained that the City does not have a specific procedure for amending the General Plan, therefore the procedure of state law would be followed that requires hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Hunt moved that at least half of the persons selected as members of the Housing Element Review Committee be from within the district of the respective councilmember. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hunt, Wilson Hastings, Laszlo Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT The city Clerk certified that the notice of continued public hearing to consider amendment of the Hellman Specific Plan, the Development Agreement, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198 was posted as required by law, and reported receipt of five written communications since the last hearing, another submitted at this meeting. At the request of the Council, the city Clerk read a communication from Ms. Anne Slocum Cahill, Ms. Suzanne Maricich, Mr. Tom J. Maricich, Mr. David Maricich, and Mr. Phil Troy. I It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 8:50 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:05 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Mayor Wilson asked for a Council determination with regard to further readinq of eleven communications submitted to the Clerk at this meeting. The City Clerk advised all communications received would become part of the public record whether or not they were read. After brief discussion, the council indicated their intent to possibly read the communications received at this meeting after the Council had the opportunity to present questions concerning the development project. At the request of the Council, the City Clerk read one additional letter dated May 29, 1990 from Ms. Leslie Soukup. In response to questions that had been posed by Councilmember Hastings, the City Attorney reported that the signed court order resulting from the Wetlands Restoration lawsuit had been received this past week, and explained that the wording was broad, prohibits the City from issuing buildinq permits for residential and non-residential development, and provides for exemptions, that the order made no reference to projects that are significant and instead, the court stated the city may issue building permits or other permits for single family residences on a single lot, and for accessory structures, provided that the construction conforms to existing zoning and does not require any discretionary land use approvals, therefore if a project required discretionary approval, the developer would need to seek approval from the court. He pointed out that since the Housing Element has been adopted, and assuming the judge reviews and affirms that document, those restrictions would no longer apply. The Development Services Director resumed the staff report, explaining that the documents under consideration are basically the same as those approved by the City Council in 1989, the only difference being the changes approved by the Council on May 14th to reduce the I 5-29-90 height of the homes from thirty-two to thirty feet, and to include provision for indemnification of the City with regard to geologic hazards as Section 12.12 of the development agreement, the development agreement also reflecting changes as a result of Coastal Commission approval, the reduction of housing units from three hundred fifty-five to three hundred twenty-nine, increased wetland from 37.7 to 41.4 acres, and increase park acreage from 24.7 to 26, which is the result of a reduction of the right-of- way adjacent to Hellman Ranch Road. Councilmember Forsythe said she had reviewed the Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport/Inglewood Fault Zone, the Alquist Priola Act, and other various reports, and that her basic concerns were with the geologic hazards on the property, that she had information that states development on the lOW-lying property of the Hellman Ranch is inadvisable, that if one looks at property where oil extraction has taken place, if there is a potential for high liquefaction, or if a fault line traverses the property, it should not be built upon. She stated these conditions exist on the Hellman property, that the Newport/Inglewood fault is known, however the exact location and width is not known, that the Hellman Unit Fault is known to exist on the property yet the Alquist priola Act has not been applied to that fault. Councilmember Forsythe acknowledge that the experts for Mola Corporation have given their opinions regarding development of the property, that other geologists have done likewise, however said she felt that an independent, objective assessment is necessary to review all of the information, citing her concern with placing single family homes on the Hellman property. She reported she had spoken with professionals at California Mines and Geology, Cal Tech, and a professor at U. C. Davis, and their indications were that if the trace element of the Alquist Priola Act is being used it is insufficient, and that mitigation measures sufficient to compensate for the liquefaction in these soils would be cost prohibitive for single family homes. Councilman Hunt accepted the fact that the Hellman property is in proximity to an earthquake fault and has high liquefaction, however pointed out that is not a condition unique to the Hellman property and is common to all areas of Seal Beach, surrounding cities, and most of north Orange County. He stated the geologic and seismic problems have not been ignored, that the project documents contain a number of conditions to assure that there are acceptable risk levels for the future inhabitants of that property, and if Mola receives approval, and as they proceed through the necessary steps to apply for permits, they will be required to provide data to insure they are complying with the findings at that time and as more detailed findings are made. Councilman Hunt noted that to date seismic and geologic standards have not been imposed on the public as they have on the Mola project, and even though there is no intent to do so, since it is felt such standards would be unacceptable to the public, he questioned how Mola could be denied the opportunity to build using the latest technology where someone else is not required to also comply. He added that there are two acres on the Hellman site that are wetlands, that the remainder is historic wetlands and not unlike the other areas of Seal Beach where persons live. Councilman Hunt pointed out that Dr. Winchell is a respected member of the Cal State University, Long Beach faculty, and he is also a recognized slow growth advocate, and has made the same statements before other Councils as he has made to this Council. He noted a statement of Dr. Winchell that it was morally wrong for the government of Seal Beach to approve construction in high liquefaction areas, and Councilman Hunt said that includes Hellman, Leisure World, I I I 5-29-90 I and other areas of the community, and he did not feel that was an acceptable position. for government to take unless it is uniformly applied. Councilman Hunt made reference to the known lack of seismic activity on the Hellman property for at least eleven thousand years, yet it is known that in the past decade nature has caused the ocean to violently invade residential units along Seal Way, an event that will occur again, place property and lives again at risk, yet in the meantime nothing is being done to resolve the problem, and those property owners will be allowed to rebuild, therefore he questioned how one could rationally oppose the Mola project on a basis where other areas of the community have potential of an equal risk. Councilmember Forsythe read an excerpt that 'buildings that are located in old river beds, estuaries, and former water courses are the worst locations for construction in earthquake countries.' She referred to Assembly Bill 3897, Brown, which encourages cities to address areas such as the Hellman site in the Safety Element of their General Plan through land use policies and regulations to minimize seismic hazards to the public. She also reported statistical information that makes the Newport/Inglewood an active rather than dormant fault. Mayor Wilson declared the hearing open for members of the audience wishing to speak to this item. Mr. Jeff Oderman, Attorney, Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa, said he was representing the Mola Corporation, that he wished to speak to the seismic safety issue, an issue which he said should be resolved by engineers. Mr. Oderman stated that even though the property has geotechnical questions, the fact that those issues exist does not mean that the project can not be built or that the site is unbuildable, the more significant the geotechnical problems, the more substantial the engineering solutions must be. He advised that the report of Dr. Clark had been reviewed by the Coastal Commission, the determination being that the project was buildable, that all applicable legal standards that apply to new construction had been complied with, and that there are conditions of approval on this project that mandate that the requirements be complied with and reviewed at each stage of the development and building approval, and inspection process. He noted this project is designed as state of the art, a level of construction similar to that of schools, a higher level of safety than has ever been required for this or any other city that he was aware of. Mr. Oderman said he felt there is a question of equal treatment, of discrimination, that the rules that apply to Mola should apply to everyone, and that one can not invent rules to justify delaying or denying a project when there is no engineering basis for doing so. He recalled that at the last meeting the only opposition he heard was from a mineralogist who indicated the exact location of the earthquake fault was unknown, possibly five thousand feet from where it is thought to be, therefore the City could not risk placing development on the site. Mr. Oderman offered that if that statement were true virtually any area of the City could be denied development on that basis, as could Long Beach, Huntington Beach, etc., and quite likely any other community in the State. Mr. Oderman stated their desire that equal rules apply, and that the developer is willing to meet any reasonable engineering standard, which the project is already conditioned to do. He said it is felt to be unfair and illegal for the city to take the position that they can not take the risk to allow residences to be constructed under the same or better construction technology that the state has permitted schools to be built, and pointed out that the engineering issues will be monitored throughout the process. In response to Council, Mr. Oderman defined discrimination as treating persons in I 'I 5-29-90 similar circumstances differently, as an example applying the seismic issues to Mola only as opposed to the entire community, which he said is a violation of equal protection of the law, of the Uniform Building Code, the Alquist Priola Act, and all standard engineering practices. He noted that this is not the only project requesting approval for new construction, that there have been recent building permits issued for properties having similar characteristics, particularly the seismic issues. Councilmember Forsythe pointed out that the subject property has been used for oil extraction for at least fifty years which makes the occurrence of subsidence more likely, it is historic wetlands, the water table approximately two feet beneath the surface in some areas, high liquefaction ten feet under the surface, and two fault lines on the property. She said those facts make this property different from other properties in the area, that the staff report of the Coastal Commission said the property should not be built upon for the same reasons, and that Dr. Clark had made the statement that the study of liquefaction was in its infancy. Mr. Oderman referred to the expert opinions of the engineers, including those of Dames & Moore, the Coastal Commission, and Dr. Clark, that the engineer for the Commission had stated the geotechnical issues had been adequately addressed, that development would take place pursuant to the standards that are in place at the time. Mr. Oderman said building standards have been vastly improved over the past twenty to forty years, and the standards for this project are far in advance of anything in the city thus far. Councilmember Forsythe reported her references with regard to buildinq standards were in part the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the Alquist Priola Act, the California Coastal Commission, Cal Tech, U. C. Davis. Mr. Oderman inquired if there were further assurances provided through another independent assessment, could it be presumed this issue would be resolved. Councilmember Forsythe responded that she had eighteen other items of concern. with regard to seeking an outside evaluation, Mr. Roberts, Mola Development, explained that there is presently a condition of approval that requires that the geotechnical and engineering studies be reviewed by an independent staff specialist or an outside consultant, to be retained by the city, prior to grading plans and permits. He added he would have no objection to the outside evaluation. Mr. Oderman reiterated his comment that three engineers have reviewed the information to date and have determined the reports to be satisfactory, that an additional review will be performed by a geotechnical person, and thus far there is no information that would warrant not approving the project at the current level of approval. Councilman Hunt made reference to a May 14th letter from Richard MCCarthy, geologist for the Coastal Commission, that letter in essence stated he had met with Dr. Winchell and the geologist for Mola and as a result of that discussion he had made certain recommendations, and quoted 'in approving the project, the Coastal commission required adherence to the recommended design criteria and mitigation measures in this report' and 'residential structures built in conformance with the design criteria and mitigation measures required in the Commission's conditional approval of the project has set a new standard for the mitigation of the liquefaction hazard in California's Coastal Zone.' Councilmember Forsythe stated she had been informed that a geologist is not qualified to make that finding. Mario and Christina Antoci, 113 Dolphin Avenue, each spoke against building houses and in favor of more wetlands and areas for animals and birds to live. Ms. Joyce Risner, 845 I I I 5-29-90 I Driftwood Avenue, presented a statement in support of the Mola Development project. She spoke of the need for parks, making specific reference to the more than two thousand three hundred petition signatures urging that Gum Grove Park be saved, the proposed development to provide a restored GUllI Grove wilderness area, a community park and improvements, park maintenance for a period of ten years, and tennis courts. She noted that the wetlands proposed to be restored and maintained by the developer is more than forty-one acres, an equivalent of eight to ten City blocks or nearly thirty percent of the project area, and stated the single family residences are a quality product, compatible with Hill residences, and are the lowest density known for Orange County beach communities. Ms. Risner made reference to concerns regarding the geologic potentials, and pointed out that the geologic problems have been analyzed thoroughly by professional firms and individuals that are thought to be the some of the best in the nation. Mr. Paul Klahr, 716 Sandpiper Drive, Sea and Sage Audobon, stated they are opposed to the Mola development and feel that the entire wetland should be restored as a wildlife habitat. Mr. Frank Clift, 4489 Dogwood Avenue, referred to the specific Plan that allowed a one thousand unit development on this property, resubmitted as seven hundred seventy-nine units with a golf course, and through the efforts of members of the community a revised plan was developed that provides for open space, a restored and rehabilitated degraded Gum Grove Park, an active recreation area, a monetary donation to the city, and tax increment on an on-going basis from the residential units proposed to be constructed in the Redevelopment Agency. He noted that the citizens demand services yet the City can not provide those services unless there are revenues to do so. Mr. Clift stated his support for the proposed development and his satisfactlon that the geologic issues have been dealt with in a reasonable manner. Mr. Jeff Deckner, 241 - 5th street, said he felt people are standing together as an era comes to a close, and even though people accepted economic growth as a definition of progress, growth is extremely pernicious because it doesn't end. He said the effect of growth on streets, schools, air and water quality, etc. makes no ecological sense. Mr. Victor Grgas, 211 - 15th street, reported conversations with a number of persons that support this project, however have not been in attendance given the atmosphere of the meetings. With regard to the seismic issues, he offered that the EIR has been certified, that no new substantive information has been provided specific to this project, that the information has been dated and generic in nature, and previously considered. He asked Dr. Winchell which seismic studies he has conducted, and for which projects he has provided expert testimony on seismic issues over the past three years. He reviewed the background of the property commencing in 1981/82, a project approved in 1985, and offered that First English may well be tested again in this case, that untold hours have been spent reviewing what is felt to be reasonable and feasible for this property, and it is an established fact that the property is beyond the City'S ability to acquire. Mr. Grgas spoke of the potential for legal action and possible resulting financial impact, stated that the environmental concerns, which have been addressed a number of times, are a matter of State law, and for the City and its elected officials to apply unreasonably more restrictive standards specific to the Hellman property it would be, in his opinion, an arbitrary and capricious act and most likely unconstitutional. He offered that if the intent is to modify the plan, which is within the authority of the Council, it should be done with a complete understanding of the consequences. Mr. Grgas stated he had sought the advice of numerous experts in various aspects of I I 5-29-90 geolo~, engineering, and development with the intent of assur1ng that the City realized every benefit and protection from this project, and even though there are impacts there are also benefits. Mr. Grqas expressed his opinion that the project deserves approval. Ms. Donna Joy Kett, Avalon Drive, stated that as a resident of the community her concerns lie with the geologic problems of the site, and as an individual she opposes the project because the developer I has not compromised for those persons who reside on the bluff, that the thirty foot buffer and the ten foot easement is not sufficient between the rear yards, that the existing houses will be impacted by chlorine from the pools and smoke from the chimneys. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 10:33 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:43 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Mr. James Goodwin, 1405 Crestview Avenue, made reference to a map, which he said had been provided the Council, setting forth a comparison of the high liquefaction zones of two geologists that have been involved with this property for the ponderosa and the Mola projects, the Mendal opinion involving seventeen homes, the Leighton opinion involving thirteen homes, therefore it appears that if the two geologists are a typical relationship to each other, it is felt that geology is only in the process of development and has not yet arrived. He said that the Coastal Commission and other reports show that development in the moderate liquefaction zone are constructed with stiffened slabs which, with the compacted earth below them, are supposed to moderate the impact of the earthquake so that substantial structural damage does not occur, yet the Coastal report expects a certain amount of motion during a quake and differential settlement of up to six inches to occur, which he said could result in a number of legal actions even though that is not the paramount consideration, and that the City must recognize its obligation to insure that such things do not happen. Mr. Goodwin suggested that no construction take place on the low-lands, that less units would mean less traffic, that a performance bond should be required, and said he would prefer that the City work towards wetlands restoration with Mola, Hellman, and the Ports. The city Attorney clarified that a performance bond is required, pursuant to state law, for subdivision improvements, public improvements that are dedicated to the City, however to require a developer to provide a performance bond for private improvements would be unusual, with the exception of possibly a redevelopment project where there are facilities that the public agency desires to have constructed. He also explained that there are provisions within the development agreement regarding transfer of interests, to insure that the agreement would not be transferred to someone who would not be capable of carrying out the agreement. Mr. Jim S. O. Roy, 641 Island view Drive, said that if the geologic concerns are true and sound reasons, he could accept that, however special interests continue to postpone the decision, and stated to stop development just for the sake of stopping development is not acceptable. Mr. Roy expressed his feeling that the Hellman property has been offensive to view for a number of years, including the Gum Grove Park, and someone is now offerinq the City the opportunity for a real park, low density, and additional revenue. He said Bolsa Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard are likewise offensive, and people complain about inadequate revenues, yet there is now an opportunity to resolve that. Mr. Roy said that if the property is not developed, what are the alternatives and who will pay for I I ~ 5-29-90 it, that he has only heard a call for no development which, in his opinion, was unreasonable. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to extend the hearing to allow for another speaker. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Ms. Vera Rocha, Chairperson for the Gabrielino Indians, said she disagreed that there was agreement with Mr. Roberts regarding monitors on the Hellman site, that she received no call from Mr. Evans offering that she was allowed to have her own archaeologist on site, and that she had asked Ms. Patton of the archaeology team to have an archaeologist present as an arbitrator. She stated Ms. Patton had forwarded an archaeology environmental report, however digging had commenced even before seven days had lapsed. Ms. Rocha said the Hellman site belongs to their people, that it was not sold or given away, and that she did not want the area touched again. Councilmember Hastings reported she had been informed that a member of the City Council may direct the Planning Commission to undertake studies of items that are brought forward, therefore she would request that the Commission proceed to study archaeological guidelines in Seal Beach as requested by the Gabrielino Band. The city Attorney clarified that a Council direction could initiate such studies, and noted there are two issues in this instance, general, long term guidelines for archaeological review, and secondly, what standards would be applied to this particular project. Ms. Anna Christensen, Native American Coalition, stated what is most critical to this project is the research design, that the Gabrielino Tribe and their consultant archaeologist be allowed to review the design before any further archaeology proceeds, where under present Coastal Commission guidelines the Tribe can only see the results after the archaeology is completed, and that the Tribe is presently not permitted to design the archaeology. She said no tribal archaeologist has been invited to participate in the current diggings, and the on-site monitor has no input into the research design. In response to a question of council, the Development Service Director stated the city was not involved in the selection of the archaeology consultant, that the current work on-site is a preliminary survey, being conducted in accordance with requirements of Federal law to determine if the site would qualify for placement on the national register of historic places. He advised that the persons doing the work were retained by Mola Development, and to be best of the City's knowledge, are performing the research in accordance with Federal and State guidelines, the work required to be done by the Coastal Commission as a condition of approval of the project. He noted that since the work began there have been a nU1llber of inquiries posed to the Commission by city staff and the Gabrielino group with regard to whether or not permits were required through the Commission, and that the city is in receipt of a letter from the Commission indicating that the work that is on-going is in accordance with their procedures and does not require an administrative permit. The Director sta~ed that if the site does not qualify for the national register, yet there are resources discovered through the survey work, or are anticipated to be discovered once grading occurs, then further archaeological work would be undertaken on the site as part of the grading of the property, that there are conditions of approval of the Coastal Commission and the City with regard to the type of work, and requirement that an archaeologist be on-site at all times during grading. He said the work that is being done is monitored by the Coastal I 5-29-90 Commission. Ms. Christensen said this is an example of the Commission not following their own guidelines nor involving native American groups, and stressed the importance of the test phase to qualify the site as historical, which could result in an eligibility for fifty percent national funding. She again asked that the City develop its own archaeological guidelines for the Hellman site, that such guidelines envision communities and native American people working together to identify and preserve such sites, as open space I as an example, and stated under the California Environmental Quality Act the first choice for Indian sites is that they be preserved. Councilman Laszlo moved to continue the hearing until the next meeting. There was brief discussion with regard to allowing one additional speaker. There was no second to the motion. wilson moved, second by Hastings, to allow time for another speaker. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried Mr. Tom Blackman, 421 Beryl Cove, welcomed the new members of the Council. He noted that the various vested interests with regard to the subject development were quite evident, that his interest would be recreation and athletic facilities, and said it would be a shame if so many community benefits were to go by the wayside. Mr. Blackman expressed his confidence that the Council would make their decision based upon what is felt to be best for the city rather than certain special interests, and offered that if I the seismic issues are the problem, that should be resolved as quickly as possible. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to continue the public hearing regarding the Hellman property development until Monday, June 4th at 7:00 p.m. Discussion followed with regard to scheduling additional meetings to consider this matter as well as budget workshops. Councilmember Forsythe noted the Council is working within a time frame, and that she would support as many meetings as considered necessary to resolve her questions and concerns. Councilman Hunt spoke for concluding the hearing. Discussion continued. The City Attorney explained that under the SUbdivision Map Act there is a time frame to take action on a Vesting Tentative Map, which in this case is the 13th of June, tQat it would be an option of the developer to extend that deadline, and noted that under the Map Act if a project is not acted upon timely there is risk of the project being deemed approved automatically. He explained that once any map is filed there is a time frame that commences under State law which every city, including Charter cites, must comply with, the time frame specifying when the Planning commission and when the city Council must take action on the map, and that the time frame can be extended only through mutual agreement between the public agency and the I developer, and if there is no extension, the local agency must take an action by the deadline to either approve or deny. Mr. Stepanicich recalled a question asked at the last meeting as to the powers of this Council versus the former Council, and the point was made that it was necessary to research the time frame within which the Council would need to act, and although the lawsuit tended to confuse the issue, it has been determined that either Council would have been under the same time constraints. with regard to the Housing Element, the City Attorney again stated it was their opinion that for the Council to take action to amend or repeal the Element it should be done in accordance with the 5-29-90 I process under state law which requires hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seabreeze Drive, asked if the Mola development could be continued to a date certain and by motion the Housing Element could be placed on the agenda, referred to the Planning commission and considered by the council, therefore allowing the Element to be rescinded before further action is taken on the Mola development. The city Attorney explained that if there is no Housing Element, the City would not be complying with the court order, and if there is no Housing Element, no discretionary approvals can be made, which goes far beyond the project under consideration. Mr. Ambrose said he believed the Wetlands society is objecting to the Housing Element in its present form, and he felt having it placed on the agenda now, considered by the Commission and Council, would save time and proceedings. The City Attorney again noted that at issue is the action on the Vesting Map, required to be taken by June 13th, and pointed out the noticing requirements for a public hearing to consider the Housing Element. At this time, no vote was taken on the motion to continue the public hearing to June 4, 1990. I Councilman Laszlo moved to direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider rescinding the Housing Element. The city Attorney cautioned that if it were the intent of the Council to take action and adopt that motion, he would recommend a Closed Session discussion with regard to the impact and significance of that motion on the court ruling that is presently in effect. Councilman Laszlo withdrew the motion on the floor, and moved to adjourn to Closed Session. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. 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. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The Council adjourned to Closed session at 11:45 p.m. and reconvened at 12:05 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation as identified, and the issue of continuing the hearing on this project to a date and time certain. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to continue the public hearing relating to the Hellman property development until Monday, June 4th at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried I Council indicated their intent to adjourn this meeting until 6:00 p.m. on June 4th for a Closed Session. The City Manager suggested that an alternate date for a budget workshop could be considered on June 4th. Councilmember Forsythe stated she would be submitting her list of eighteen concerns regarding the Hellman property development to the staff for review and response. She indicated her desire to obtain an independent assessment of the geologic hazards on the Hellman Ranch property, and reported that as a result of her contact, the California Coastal Conservancy has offered the services of four geotechnical engineers, that Professor Arulanandan, a geotechnical engineer and principal investigator for the National Service Foundation at u. C. Davis, indicated an interest in this area and offered his services to determine 5-29-90 if the site is suitable for development. She said she would support selection of a qualified individual who could review and provide an objective, unbiased opinion of the site. Councilmember Forsythe moved to authorize staff to seek an unbiased, third party geotechnical consultant to review the geotechnical data, using the names provided, within an amount not to exceed $5,000. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson I Motion carried Councilman Laszlo clarified his request that the concerns of the Gabrielino Indians be placed on an upcoming agenda. Councilman Hunt moved that the staff review and respond to the items submitted by Councilmember Forsythe. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3942 - HONORING ANDREW EISER - BOY SCOUTS EAGLE AWARD Resolution Number 3942 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING ANDREW JASON EISER FOR ACHIEVING THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EAGLE AWARD. tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3942 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3942 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3943 - ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY Resolution Number 3943 was presented to Council entitled tlA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT AND FILING OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE YEAR 1990/91.tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3943 was waived. Hunt moved, second by LaSZlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3943 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3944 - MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Resolution Number 3944 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR OF REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS BOARDS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, ASSIGNING CERTAIN DUTIES TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3861. tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution NUlIIber 3944 was waived. Mayor Wilson announced the appointments as follows: Edna Wilson as the Sanitation District representative, Frank I Laszlo as the alternate; Joe Hunt as the West Orange County Water Board representative; Marilyn Hastings and Joe Hunt as members of the City Finance Committee; Gwen Forsythe as the Southern California Association of Governments representa- tive, Marilyn Hastings as the alternate; Edna Wilson as the League of Cities, Orange County Division, representative, Frank Laszlo as the alternate; Frank Laszlo as the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency representative, and Gwen Forsythe as the alternate. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3944 as amended. 5-29-90 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Mayor Wilson reported Joyce Risner will continue as the representative to the Orange County Vector Control until expiration of the term, January 1st, 1991. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "K" thru tlU" The City Clerk requested that Items "Q, R, and S" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items tlQ, R, and StI, as presented. K. Approved regular demands numbered 79137 through 79341 in the amount of $592,399.68 and payroll demands numbered 39936 through 40207 in the amount of $204,345.31 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. L. Granted a forty hour leave of absence without pay to Sharon Zablocki during the period June 4th through June 22, 1990. I N. Instructed staff to review the draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Endangered Species Management and Protection Plan, Naval Weapons station, Seal Beach/ Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and prepare a summary for Council consideration and appropriate action. Instructed staff to review the draft Environmental Impact Report, when available, of the North Orange county Integrated Waste Management Project, and prepare a summary for Council consideration and appropriate action. M. o. Authorized the City Manager to engage Security Pacific Merchant Banking Group, without obligation, to prepare all documents in conjunction with the 1990 TRAN. P. Accepted the resignation of Mr. Joe Rullo from the Planning commission, District One, and declared the position vacant. T. Denied the claim of John Boag for damages and referred same to the City'S liability attorney and adjuster. U. Denied the claim of Donald Sciscento for damages and referred same to the City'S liability attorney and adjuster. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "0" - MINUTES - FEBRUARY 5. 1990 Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned session of February 5, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Wilson None Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Motion carried 5-29-90 ITEMS "R and S" - MINUTES - MARCH 26 and APRIL 3. 1990 Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 1990 and the regular adjourned session of April 3, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Forsythe, Hastings Motion carried I REPORT - EXTENSION OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE - COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURES Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to acknowledge issuance and receipt of the report regarding consideration of extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 1304 and amendments thereto by Ordinance Number 1307, prohibiting the issuing of development entitlements for covered roof access stairwells. The Assistant city Attorney advised that the public hearing has been scheduled for June 4th. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION - DISTRICT THREE Councilmember Forsythe moved to appoint Dr. Anton Dahlman to the Planning Commission representing Councilmanic District Three for the unexpired term ending JUly, 1993. Councilman LaSZlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried MAYORS HOMELESS SUMMIT CONFERENCE Mayor Wilson requested that consideration of the request for financial support relating to the issue of homeless citizens be held over. I REOUEST - AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION - AICUZ STUDY Councilman Laszlo asked that the request of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission to act on the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center AICUZ Study this year, be held over. APPOINTMENT - SCAG POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ORANGE COUNTY SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY The City Manager reported this Committee meets one or two Fridays per month, the next meeting to be on June 15th and requested that an appointment be made to the Committee at the earliest possible date. Councilman Laszlo offered to serve, time permitting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Beverly Casares, Marvista Avenue, reported the fenceds area on a portion of the Hellman property is the result of the discovery of a quicksand area, and that at the time Bridgeport was developed dirt was transported to that area I from the bottom of L.A. Harbor in order to compact the soil, Bridgeport considered to be submerged disputed tidelands, and the remaining soil was placed on the Hellman property. She acknowledged the comments of Ms. Rocha that the Hellman site is an official Indian burial ground, and noted their claim that the land belongs to the Gabrielino Indians, and clarified that Ms. Rocha had requested an Indian approved archaeologist on the Hellman site. Ms. Casares noted that the Council had not sworn to uphold the city Charter upon being sworn into office, and requested that they do so. She said that parliamentary procedure allows a Resolution to be rescinded by motion and second, questioned reference to the 5-29-90 I Nola project of 1.9 persons per dwellinq unit, yet another area refers to 2.5 to 3 persons per dwelling unit, stated the spirit and law was violated when a negative declaration was allowed for the Housing Element, and charged that items relating to the Mola development, adopted at the May 14th meeting, were not considered under public hearing. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seabreeze Drive, spoke favorably of the attitude of the new Council. He said that if the Council is required to act within a time frame of the subdivision Map Act, the Council would have the opportunity to vote against the Mola development, the developer would then have an option to submit a new project, and stated he has proposed funding sources for the Hellman site a number of times if the land is determined to be unfit for development. Mr. Ambrose made reference to a possible Disney project in Long Beach that will be required to provide mitigation, and if the Mola project is rejected the Ports will consider this site for mitigation, especially if the area were zoned so that the cost would be reasonable. He added that should the area be determined an Indian burial ground there could be fifty percent Federal funding, that the Huntington Beach Conservancy paid $6700 per acre for the Bolsa Chica land, therefore with all of those funding sources there could be a substantial restoration project. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Ocean Avenue, spoke of anonymous letters recently received by a number of citizens and members of the Council, made reference to a document that had been obtained from the court relating to a legal action inVOlving Mola Corporation and Forrest city Properties, which she said a copy had been provided the City Attorney. She said that Mr. Grgas was employed by Forrest City during that time period, and questioned if there was a conflict of interest of the former Council. Mrs. Antoci objected to late night telephone calls from Mola to the new members of the Council, threats and lawsuits. She said she felt that the Hellmans should protect the City instead of vice versa, reported having conversations with the office of Walter Hellman, and encouraged citizens to call his office and voice their opinion regarding the Hellman Ranch site. Mr. Mark Soukup, 16th street, asked if it would not be appropriate to require a performance bond since the project is proposed to be untested state of the art technology. The City Attorney again explained the bond requirements for public improvements, and offered that whether the City could require a performance bond for the completion of private improvements is an issue. that will be looked into and reported to the Council, as that is not standard procedure under the Subdivision Map Act. with regard to a question relating to immunity, he recalled their opinion had been that such provision should be placed in the development agreement rather than the tract map because the restrictions on the immunity agreement only dealt with subdivisions. He explained that the law is not clear, even with respect to immunity provisions in the development agreement, as to whether or not a hold harmless agreement would be enforceable in the future, and given current law, it is not possible to provide an unqualified opinion regarding that issue. Mr. Ambrose made reference to his employment experience in the construction industry and the standard practice of requiring labor and performance bonds. He recommended that the City require the bonds and a financial statement of the developer if the project is approved, however suggested that the developer may not be able to qualify for such bonding. The city Attorney explained that bonding is required in all cases where the City is making public improvements, the issue of requiring bonds for the construction of private improvements, such as the homes, is an entirely different issue. Ms. Anna Christensen, said she had a copy of the Coastal Commission revised findings, and I I' 5-29-90/6-4-90 when the Gabrielino Tribe and Native American Coalition appeared before the Commission requesting to be apprised of future hearings, they were not, which is felt to again be grounds for a civil rights lawsuit. She said the report contains a map of the fault zone, which encompasses the community park and passage to the eucalyptus grove, she also noted the tennis courts will not have night lighting because their location near the wetlands. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel items. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 12:53 a.m. The Council reconvened at 1:38 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney announced the Council had discussed personnel matters and directions were given with regard to employee negotiations. ADJOURNMENT With consent of the Council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting until Monday, June 4, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The meeting adjourned at 1:39 a.m. Approved: ~i.Y~ Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California June 4, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney reported the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a), Wetlands Restoration society vs. City of Seal Beach, and also pursuant to subsection (b). It