Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-06-04 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 6-4-90 I was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed session at 6:03 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:07 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney announced the Council had discussed the matters previously reported. Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting at 7:08 p.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The city Attorney explained that there was no need for a motion to adjourn, that this is an adjourned meeting that simply commenced at 6:00 p.m., and recommended a motion to reconsider. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to reconsider the previous motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The City Attorney clarified that a no vote on the original motion would nullify adjourning this meeting. Vote on the motion to adjourn: AYES: NOES: None Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Motion failed I WAIVER OF FULL READING Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, 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 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Wilson declared the continued public hearing open to consider amendment of the Hellman Specific Plan, the Development Agreement and Vesting Tentative Map No. 13198. The City Clerk certified that notice of the continued public hearing had been posted as required by law, and reported receipt of three communications this date, copies of which had been provided to the Council. The City Manager stated the staff report was unchanged from the previous meeting, however responses have been prepared to some of Councilmember Forsythe's concerns. I Mayor Wilson reviewed the procedural rules of conduct which she asked be followed, and invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration Society, asked to make a presentation in opposition to the project at such time as their people were present. He commented on threats of lawsuit and personal intimidation. Mr. Mark Soukup, 310 - 16th Street, said the basic point he wanted to make was related to Section 6.8 of the EIR which states a major impact of the development is the transformation of Seal Beach from a low intensity beach community to a more urban setting typical of areas further inland from the coast, which he said meant overcrowding and over-development. He stated it has been said the purpose of the project was to 6-4-90 provide housing for a jOb-rich area, however the project has gone from golf course and affordable homes to no golf course and high cost homes. Mr. Soukup said this has occurred under the same EIR, that mitigation of that significant impact was described in the EIR as less than significant, the EIR stating that CEQA and case law does not necessitate feasibility of wetland mitigation measures, only assurance, and that the City is not required to address significant impacts of projects under jurisdiction of other agencies. He noted that it is the preference of the Coastal Commission to judge projects after local approval, however in this case the approval process was reversed, and the issue is now within the discretion of the Council. He stated that although it has been said the EIR is certified, the state Resources Agency and the Department of Fish and Game voted against the certification, that the u.s. Department of Commerce, Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has said any plan to maximize wetlands is preferred over any plan discussed in the EIR, that the EPA said the EIR failed to meet Federal guidelines and recommended that a no discharge analysis be done. Mr. Soukup recalled the attorney for Mola stated seismic activity could not be the only issue for denial and is discrimination, to which he said discrimination does not apply to this type of issue. He asked how a comparison could be made between this project and reconstruction of an existing dwelling that has been destroyed by fire, as had been mentioned at a prior meeting. He stated the fiscal analysis shows the development would create a deficit of $174,000 and even though Redevelopment monies would be realized they can not be used to offset the cost of services, he predicted that taxes will go up and if Mello-Roos is used it will be required to be repaid by the residents, with interest. He said placing homes on this land will preclude the possibility of new commercial that would reduce the deficit, avoid new taxes, and burden on existing infrastructure. Mr. Soukup suggested that the city move forward towards the hotel development near the marina, engage the Ports to restore the wetlands thus increasing tourism, solicit plans for commercial development on the site near Seal Beach Boulevard, if authorized by the Gabrielinos, and possibly develop an Indian cultural center. He offered that high cost houses do not satisfy CEQA nor does the job market support them, and that the project would cause significant impact on the school system as well as day care facilities. Councilman Hunt said he believed there have been responses to the points mentioned except the school issue, and stated he had talked to Mr. Mike Miller, Superintendent of the School District, and inquired as to the impact the Mola project would have, and Mr. Miller's response was essentially that the project would have a positive impact on the economics and program quality of the Los Alamitos Unified School District. Mr. Soukup challenged the statement, and claimed that for each $3200 the District realizes per student, the cost is $3700. Councilmember Hastings noted recent approval of a bond measure for school facility repairs, and during her conversation with Mr. Ron Murray of the District, he said current enrollment at McGaugh is seven hundred forty-two, the maximum that could be accommodated is eight hundred, and it was her belief that the project will impact the schools adversely. Councilman Hunt offered to pose his question to Mr. Murray also, and pointed out that are presently six hundred inter-district transfers, in addition to the Arts program, because there is capacity to accommodate that number of students, and more. Mayor Wilson noted Mr. Soukup's reference to three hundred twenty-nine market priced homes in the Mola development, and stated there are also thirty-three affordable houses included in the plan. Mr. Soukup responded that the thirty- three homes will be built at a later date, that when the I I I -.: .... 6-4-90 Housing Element was being considered it was uncertain where they would be located therefore the end result will be that the developer will pay a fee as an alternative, that fee yet undetermined. He added that the thirty-three homes will not be built because when the Housing Element is reconsidered and revised there will be no location for these homes. I Ms. Helen Potepan, 1870 sunningdale Road, said she had worked with others towards reducing the number of units as presented in the original concept, that she had previously supported the "B-2" plan, yet the expert testimony concerning wetlands and earthquake faults is too important to ignore, therefore every aspect of the project should be looked at. Ms. Mary Mosier, 713 Taper Drive, expressed concern with present traffic conditions and the impact from this project on traffic as well as parking. Mr. Frank Ellsworth, Leisure World, referred to the technical reasons for denying the project, stated he would oppose anything that intensifies population, and if more money is needed something more creative than adding houses could be proposed. Mr. Randy Hines, 1401 Sandpiper Drive, conveyed his experiences in commuting to his daily employment, citing increased traffic over recent years, and that he felt traffic was a major considering with this project. Mr. Hines offered that McGaugh kindergarten classes have thirty or more children in each class, asked how they will be accommodated as they progress through the grade levels, and said he felt that number of students per class is too many. Mr. Robert Thayer, 629 Beachcomber Drive, expressed his preference that the project be rejected since legal technicalities do not allow it to be postponed for any period of time, suggested a citizens group that could review all information thoroughly and provide their thoughts to the Council, that being a suggestion that the developer may agree to. He stated his objection to being intimidated by the threat of lawsuits. Mr. Thayer offered that Dr. Winchell is a respected professor of geology at Cal state Long Beach, and noted he had testified before the Council that the subject site is one of the most dangerous in California on which to build. Mr. Thayer expressed displeasure with regard to the question of Dr. Winchell being paid for his expert testimony and a comment regarding his advocacy of slow growth. He noted a recent Los Angeles Times article on wetlands, describing how developers are becoming very concerned about establishing mitigation banks, and even though it may not be foreseen at this time how the wetlands restoration can be accomplished, it may not be out of the realm of possibility and will be financed by some means, however if the project goes forward the wetlands opportunity will no longer exist. Ms. Francis Johnson, Coastline Drive, said she would oppose a hotel on the DWP or State Lands unless it will be low profile. Ms. Johnson once again asked about the disposition of the animals from the site, stated that when construction begins the property would need to be watered many times a day to keep the dust down, yet there is a water shortage, that another gated community is not needed, that if houses are not built possibly Mola could develop commercial that would be compatible with wetlands, and even though there may be barking dogs at the animal shelter it should remain at the present location no matter. Ms. Johnson referred to a comment of Councilman Hunt some time in the past and inquired how he knew that there were a certain number of persons in Gum Grove at a given time. Councilman Hunt responded that he did not recall the comment, however stated he is a frequent user of the Park and has been since the 1950's, that he has always been supportive of maintaining the eucalyptus trees, and that past differences of opinion had been the result of the location of the fenceline I I 6-4-90 assuming that the land on either side had been dedicated to the City. Ms. Johnson said Gum Grove is supposed to be a low profile park intended for the animals. Mr. Carl SanFilippo, Avalon Drive, said he was neither for or against the project. He commented on the development background of the Hellman Ranch property, ponderosa with one thousand units, then came Mola with condos, houses, and a I golf course, a plan which he said the City should have approved, then a number of alternatives, and now the modified "B-2" plan. Mr. SanFilippo said he felt this developer has done as much as he could to meet the desires of the city council, and he should not be blamed for anything. Mr. SanFilippo described the disclosures that will be required with the sale of units on the Hellman Ranch property, a full, complete and specific disclosure, also the issue of environmental liability, which he said includes earthquake faults, flood plains, soil conditions, slide zones, archaeology, subsidence, etc. He noted however that all of the issues can be mitigated. Mr. SanFilippo said he was not particular about what was built, however it must not block his view, which could result in an eminent domain problem, and that the houses should be no more than twenty- five feet, as are the hill residences. He added that he wanted deed restrictions for barbecues, wood burning fireplaces, noise controls, no walking buffer area behind his home, and dust control. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 8:40 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:56 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Mr. SanFilippo continued, and commented at length on various sections of the Amended Hellman Specific Plan with members of the staff responding to specific questions. He referred to problems that have been associated with this development, the moderate to high liquefaction soils, which he said when engineered can be resolved, then there is a fault line, that problem amplified by the placement of wetlands adjacent to liquefaction soils. I Mr. SanFilippo said he would like to make a proposal for consideration, that the homes in the lower area be removed, as many as necessary if they are in the moderate to high liquefaction area, take away a portion of the park and put homes in that location, and if it appears that the developer may not be able to do that, allow two-story condominiums to be constructed which would isolate the homes from the Police Department and animal shelter. He stated that parks have now become a liability, yet this city has one of the biggest parks, the beach. AGENDA AMENDED With consent of the Council, Mayor Wilson recessed the public hearing regarding the Hellman property development in order to consider Agenda Item "DtI, covered roof access stairwells at this time. I -, PUBLIC HEARING - COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELLS Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider extending the prohibition of the issuance of any permits allowing covered roof access stairwells. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Development Services Director reported this item is before the Council to consider extending the moratorium which prohibits the processing of new permits for covered roof access stairwells. He noted the moratorium was 6-4-90 I initially established by Ordinance 1304 on April 23rd, effective for a period of forty-five days, and amended by Ordinance 1307 to provide for certain exemptions, also that at the last meeting a report was provided to Council to comply with requirements of state law regarding the status of studies undertaken by staff, and recommended extension of the moratorium. He explained that if approved, the proposed ordinance would extend the moratorium for a maximum period of ten months and fifteen days, however it is felt staff research and analysis will be completed and the matter submitted to the Planning Commission and Council within five to six months. I Mayor Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Alan Shields, 1300 Catalina Avenue, expressed his feeling that the original purpose of covered roof access structures, to access a roof deck, has been abused, that a petition of more than three hundred persons previously submitted to the Council requested adherence to the twenty-five foot maximUlll height and no non-conforming structures. He asked that the City be firm on the roof access structure issue in a manner that it can not be abused in the future, that the roof access structures that currently exist and are clearly illegal, be red-tagged or removed, and specifically that the mechanical dome should either be removed or required to go through the approval process under public hearings. Mr. Randy Hines, Sandpiper Drive, said he was an immediate neighbor of where the dome exists, and submitted pictures of how the dome can look directly into his neighbor's bedroom window, as had previously been claimed. Mr. Hines said he was also speaking for his neighbor Mr. Greaves, and expressed their opposition to the dome, stating it is degrading to the City, a commercial piece of machinery that does not belong in a residential area. He added that he had been informed that the dome did not exist on the original plans. Upon question of the council, the Assistant city Attorney reported research has been done to determine if the dome qualified as a mechanical device as defined by the Code and whether it constituted an architectural feature which required additional discretionary review by the Planning Commission, that it has been determined that the dome does not fall within the definition of mechanical equipment as it presently exists, which makes reference to machinery, condensers, coolers, and other similar equipment used in conjunction with swimming pools, air conditioning, and heating systems, and excludes antenna, flues, chimneys, vents and hoods. He noted that discussion of architectural feature issue and other factors will be included in a report to be forthcoming. Mr. Barrow confirmed that the City has the option of modifying or expanding the definition of mechanical device, and possibly providing for an amortization period for which any non-conforming structures would be required to be screened. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seabreeze Drive, said he felt the dome issue should be required to go through further review as it violates the height limit, was misrepresented to the city, and has habitable space. As to whether such modification would apply to the existing dome, the Assistant City Attorney explained that it could be grandfathered, which would make it a legal non-conforming use, or an amortization period could be applied which allows a reasonable period of time to either shield or remove the structure and/or equipment, and noted that the Code only requires mechanical equipment to be shielded and does not say it is not allowed on a roof. He noted that if this structure were determined to be an architectural projection it would require further I 6-4-90 discretionary review, considered by the Planning Commission under public hearing and would need to meet certain criteria. Mr. Matt Nicholson, 125 Surf Place, stated the Hill properties and the Mola development should be subject to the same restrictions, whether it be twenty-five or thirty feet. Mr. Jerry Anderson, 1301 Sandpiper Drive, spoke for extending the moratorium until the entire issue, including the height limit, is resolved through the proper I process. He agreed that the dome structure does not fall within the definition of mechanical equipment, however said the height limit was exceeded in order to cover the stairwell to the deck, and the property owner also placed the dome on that structure which he said is not legal. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1308 - EXTENDING MORATORIUM - COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELLS Ordinance Number 1308 was presented to Council entitled "AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NUMBER 1304, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 1307, PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS ALLOWING CERTAIN COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELLS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.tI By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1308 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1308 as presented. In response to Council, the Development Services Director noted that certain exemptions to the moratorium were approved by the Council on May 7th. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declared at recess at 10:07 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:15 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Wilson reopened the public hearing regarding the Hellman property development. Ms. Cisti Smith, Beachcomber Drive, reported there are currently three schools that are closed in the District, and the reason McGaugh is full is that the boundaries are drawn to equalize the population of all of the schools. She said the school at which she teaches currently draws children from College Park East where they had previously attended Rossmoor schools before unification of the School Districts. Ms. Smith said if new students are enrolled and a closed school is reopened, the result would be reduction of class size and improved curriculum, noting that each year any and all inter-district transfers are welcomed to increase the enrollment. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, confirmed that district boundaries could be redrawn, however that may required certain students to be bussed. She said when Oak and pine were unified she had been told that if the school reached thirteen hundred students the District would open another school, however that has not happened and now, if there are more students there would be question as to which middle school would be opened, would it be cost effective, or would they use McGaugh as a middle school and bus the students. Mr. Galen Ambrose stated the Wetlands Restoration Society wished to introduce another concept if there is consideration of denying the Mola plan, and turned the microphone over to Mr. Mel Nutter. Mr. Nutter, 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, stated he was appearing before the Council at the request of the Wetlands Society, however I 6-4-90 I had not been retained by them as such. He said he is the chairman of the League for Coastal Protection, former chairman of the California Coastal Commission, and had some familiarity with their coastal permits and processes. He stated he did not want to address the merit or lack of merit of the Mola project, but did want to call some attention to the status of the development agreement. Mr. Nutter said his understanding of what has taken place procedurally so far is that the Commission had an application of the Mola Development Corporation before it earlier this year requesting that a coastal development permit be granted for the project that is the subject of this proceeding. He stated he had quickly looked at the Commission staff reports and file, and that apparently the City and Mola Development had previously entered into a development agreement, which appears to have been subject of some controversy, and according to the current staff report there appears to be a request to approve a new development agreement that is similar to that which was previously approved. Mr. Nutter offered that the Government Code contains a number of provisions dealing with development agreements, and he wondered if those provisions had been adequately considered at the time the matter was before the Commission for action. He made specific reference to Section 65869 which states that a development agreement shall not be applicable to a project located in the coastal zone unless the Local Coastal Program has been certified, or in the event the LCP has not been certified, the Coastal Commission must approve such development agreement by formal Commission action. He said he had looked at the findings which the Commission adopted in May which contains a list of the approvals received and the various file documents that were considered by the Commission, and that the motion involved approval of the coastal development permit, yet he did not see reference in the staff report to a development agreement. He said he could not ascertain from the materials that were before the Commission whether they had an opportunity to review the former development agreement, and suggested that as he very quickly reviewed the proposed development agreement there were a number of provisions he questioned as to whether the subject matter had been before the Commission and whether or not there was formal action on the original development agreement. Mr. Nutter said the staff report appears to be clear that staff believes Coastal Commission action is going to be required in the future for the proposed development agreement to be effective, however pointed out that the document calls for the signature of the Executive Director, yet it had been his experience that formal action is required by the Commission. In response to Council, Mr. Nutter reiterated his comment that the Coastal staff report, which the Commission apparently acted upon on May 10th and which reflected their action of January 12th, made no reference to formal action on a development agreement, explained that there is a Land Use Plan and a Local Coastal Program, both requiring ultimate certification by the Coastal Commission, and it was his understanding that this specific property is not subject to a certified LCP. The city Attorney confirmed that the City does not presently have a certified Local Coastal Plan. Mr. Nutter stated that he had reviewed previous Coastal Commission staff reports. The City Attorney acknowledged there is no dispute that there is Coastal Commission approval required of a development agreement, explained that there is a finding specific to that requirement and the document provides for required Coastal Commission signature. He stated that it is understood that the development agreement was submitted in october, 1989 as part of Mola Development's permit application to the Commission, that it was submitted to the I I 6-4-90 commission staff, and to the extent that the final resolution approved by the Commission did not reflect formal approval of that agreement, he felt it would be necessary to verify with the Commission staff as to whether there would be a need for further approval, and if there is question as to whether the commission approval encompassed the development agreement it would likewise be appropriate to have a clarification of that. Mr. Nutter concurred, and again stated the practice has been that a development agreement requires formal Commission approval to be enforceable, and it appears that was not done' previously. The City Attorney explained that in connection with the lawsuit that was brought challenging the Housing Element, one of the actions of the judgment was the setting aside of the development agreement, therefore at this point there is no development agreement. He noted that the development agreement is again being presented for consideration by the Council, and does contain some modifications of the previously approved agreement, which is another issue that would need to be discussed with the commission. He again stated it would be his intent to clarify with the Coastal staff what the previous Commission approval encompassed. Mr. Nutter advised it was his experience that the Commission acted on development agreements in a separate, formal action, which does not appear to be the case in this instance, yet the agreement may be within the Commission files however without reference in the staff report. He said it would be speculation, however the Coastal Commission, in reviewing the development agreement, could require modifications for conformity with the Coastal Act, and in turn that action could have some affect on the Specific Plan amendment and the Vesting Map. In response to questions, he advised that he left the Commission in 1985 and did have some experience with the ponderosa plan, yet he has had no roll as a commissioner with the current application. Mr. Ambrose asked if it were customary for the Commission to support the least environmentally damaging plan. Mr. Nutter explained that there are a number of findings that the Commission makes in connection with such matters, that it is likely that similar findings could be found in the coastal permit that he had referenced previously, and acknowledged that the Commission does look at a project to see how it can minimize the environmental consequences. Mr. Nutter offered that he felt most public decision makers try to do a good job, that there are judgment calls to make, and noted that no one who is making thousands of decisions is always going to be right, and often a court comes onto the scene and instructs that something be done differently. Mr. Ambrose said it was their intent to present a project to the Council that would be the least environmentally damaging. Mr. Walt Wright, consultant for the Wetlands Society, noted considerable discussion regarding wetlands, salt march vegetation, etc., that the present proposal would not be a fully functional salt marsh because of a number of limitations, yet the developer has given the impression that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Game has accepted the present proposal, where the comments were actually that given the constraints of the project it was about the best that could be achieved. He said their map shows a certain area of wetland vegetation on site, that the developer, using the Corps of Engineers criteria, has indicated there are only a couple of wetland areas, which would be the in vicinity of the drainage ditch, however Fish and Game does not use the Corps criteria. Mr. Wright offered that if the State guidelines were followed, a goal to strive for a 1.5 increase of wetlands for projects along I I I 6-4-90 I the coast, and given the original estimate of thirty-five acres on the subject site, he said the minimum criteria of wetlands for the proposed project is short, also that other agencies strive for a three to one up to ten to one increase. Mr. Wright said their proposal has always been restoration of one hundred five acres of wetland on the site, which could possibly be accomplished through a wetland bank, through the Ports, possibly a developer in another area would be interested in acquiring the wetlands as a mitigation bank, also that the wildlife initiatives usually relate to specific areas, funding for acquisition and restoration of open space, and suggested that at some point there could be an effort to designate this site for funds through one of the initiatives, or introduction of legislation specific to this site. He noted the Ports will need between two and six thousand acres for restoration over the next thirty years, and although the Ports would realize the greatest credit for open water restoration, the land that has been dredged in the harbor was once salt marsh and has never been mitigated, therefore he suggested salt marsh rather than open water mitigation should be the focus under the 2020 Plan. Mr. Wright again stated their support for one hundred five acres of wetland and as long as there are no structures on the area it could be open space for the next twenty to fifty years, and that he did not believe the area would be degraded to a greater degree if it is not restored in the foreseeable future. Mr. Wright said there are conflicting views of high and moderate liquefaction, the location of same, different geologic constraints under the peat soils as opposed to the salt marsh soils of the high liquefaction area. He recalled comment that the development has an acceptable level of risk, and questioned if that would be an acceptable burden to those who purchase the homes, where even one-half inch of settling could cause a severe impact on the dwellings. Mr. Wright offered that at present the wildlife are most likely using a great portion of the site and if they are trapped, he asked how that will effect the wildlife in Gum Grove and where they would be relocated. Mr. Wright made reference to his map and how the restored wetlands on the Hellman site, whether it be forty or one hundred five acres, will relate to the wetland restoration that he claimed will take place in surrounding areas and the region, and from an overall standpoint, what is proposed now and in the future is a nice comparison to what is currently the wildlife refuge at the Naval Weapons station. He suggested that a more desirable use of the state Lands parcel would be wetlands rather than a hotel. Mr. Wright alleged that the fault line has not been specifically traced, which he acknowledged may be difficult to do, spoke of drainage patterns on the site, referred to statements that the project would be built to state standards and state of the art technology, charged that state of the art is untested, and asked if what is proposed as mitigation is sufficient. With regard to a question as to whether small amounts of subsidence could take place, similar to what might occur over oil fields as oil is pumped, and not damage homes at the surface, Dr. Bruce Clark, Leighton and Associates, confirmed that occurs rather regularly, and explained that oil withdrawal takes place more than five thousand feet deep and covers a broad area therefore subsidence at anyone location is very small, and the only place where that might be a significant constraint would possibly be a high-tech building with close tolerances. He said he did not feel slight subsidence was of major concern, and noted it is uncommon for housing slabs to be poured within a half inch difference from one side to the other. With regard to I I 6-4-90 ground water, Dr. Clark explained the EIR stated from two feet down the soils were filled with water, which is what their firm said also, that the only zone where liquefaction takes place is within about the top thirty feet, and deeper than that it is not a factor. Dr. Clark reported the actual number of homes removed from the plan by the Coastal Commission was twenty-six. Mr. Walt Wright interjected that a member of the Commission had originally recommended fifty- two homes be deleted from the vicinity of the wetlands however the action was to remove twenty-six, which he believed was a matter of economic consideration. Dr. Clark responded that statement was not correct, that he believed the decision was based upon a map they had provided to the Commission involving a small zone on the north side of the road with high liquefaction potential and the twenty-six homes. with regard to faults that are felt to be critical for construction purposes, Dr. Clark confirmed such faults are those that rupture up to ground surface, and stated there is enough evidence of the Newport/Inglewood fault so that it is considered to have come to the surface even though it does not show actual surface breaks. Dr. Clark reported there was an extensive study in 1981, which is the basis for the Alquist Priola maps, that consisted of trenching at the base of Landing Hill and that, along with oil well data from the northern portion of the property, there is a good correlation to trace the actual faultline, that there are additional alignments that are based on geomorphic evidence, which is topographic changes that appear to be solid, therefore it is felt to be a well located fault at this point. with regard to differing opinions as to the fault line location, Dr. Clark said he felt they were traced at different times, his feeling also with regard to the liquefaction zone, the first liquefaction study having had about a third or less of the number of data points than there is now, and even now the zone has not been narrowed to the nearest foot, which is something that must be done after the remediation work to insure that no high liquefaction zones remain. Dr. Clark said at the time of the 1981 study a person could put their hand on the exact fault location in the trenched areas, that he is satisfied with a fifty foot setback from the fault line, and except for the small area immediately adjacent to Landing Hill there are no homes near the fault or even the setback zone. He said based upon information taken from a Naval Weapons station study there appears to be a fault that might intersect the property, a study of faults about five thousand feet deep, and to his knowledge there is no indication that fault comes anywhere near the surface. with regard to the location of dwellings in comparison to the fault, Dr. Clark stated for the first several thousand feet from a fault there is almost no decrease in intensity, and directed attention to the seismic study of a magnitude seven along the Newport/Inglewood fault which shows a broad zone of nearly equal level of damage several thousand feet away from the actual fault, and said it would be about two to three miles away before a reduction in intensity would be realized. with regard to whether the city would be safe, or free from liability, in allowing development on the subject Hellman site, and how the problems can be mitigated to a point where families can live in the area, Dr. Clark said it is their opinion that the hazards can be mitigated well below those in other areas of Seal Beach or the Southern California region. He explained that there are a number of mitigatable factors on the site, as an example, the peat will be removed, the organic materials will be extracted, then replaced as compacted fill, therefore the fill will no longer behave as peat or organic soils do, it will not continue to settle, and with regard to the potential for I I I 6-4-90 I settlement of the silty soils at the south and west edge of the property, those soils will be surcharged so that they will become compacted in place, which in turn is expected to have a substantial impact on the liquefaction zones, even though the problem may not be entirely eliminated. He added that, as they have informed the developer, one can not build in the high liquefaction zones unless there is further mitigation in those areas, such mitigation could be accomplished through densifying the sandy soils to a depth where they might liquify, which could be a very expensive procedure, that the houses could be built on piles, or delete houses from those areas, as were the twenty-six. Dr. Clark explained that the peat is to a depth of approximately fifteen feet and the water table about ten feet, therefore some dredging may be necessary, also it has been identified that the site is subject to sulfite attack on concrete, thus a special type of concrete would need to be used to mitigate that problem, and if piles are used, the housing foundation would be anchored to the piles by a grade beam. Dr. Clark confirmed that there is a difference between fill and engineered fill, stating engineered fill has been rolled and compacted with the correct amount of moisture content for maximum compaction, and in this area is superior to the natural soils, that engineered fill has been used throughout Southern California, more than fifty million yards during the past year, and noted engineered fill withstood the Bay area earthquake very well as compared to regular fill. In response to Council, Dr. Clark advised he is a structural geologist and an engineering geologist, agreed with a statement that the site and the faults are geologically hazardous, reported that their firm, as one example, has been consulting for the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach for some time, therefore they are familiar with these conditions, and acknowledged that there are differences of opinion regarding mitigation, and that it is common practice in the profession to have reports reviewed by a professional who is not involved with the project. Dr. Clark explained that surcharging the ground would consist of removing the top four or five feet soil, replacing that material and building it up to above the final elevation of the site for a period of time ranging from three to possibly nine months in order to allow the ground beneath it to compact, and then removing the excess to another location. He explained that in a case where piles are to be used, they are placed at the corners of a structure, for this location about twenty-five to thirty feet deep, and the building constructed on top of them, noting they would only recommend piles for areas of high liquefaction and only after it had been demonstrated that the surcharging would not remove the high liquefaction potential. He explained that the Long Beach earthquake is thought to have occurred on the Newport/Inglewood fault as it goes into the sea off of Newport Beach, the epicenter off of Newport however the fault broke at depth as far north as Signal Hill, with no ground breakage, that the area effected the most was a mile or more to the west of Long Beach proper, and even though the fault line passes through the Hellman property, the intensity of shaking would be no greater at that location than it would be in Leisure World or at the beach, that the concern would be if a structure were built across the fault and the fault were to move. Dr. Clark described the elements of engineered fill as ranging from fine clay to sand sized material, basically dirt, that it is placed in horizontal layers and compacted with large earthmoving equipment, that it has the correct moisture content, is quite dense and very strong, much more so than native soil, and it is heavier than uncompacted soil. With regard to the affect of water from the restored wetlands on surrounding subsurface soils, Dr. Clark pointed out that the I I 6-4-90 subsurface soil is already saturated, that the basins are full of water, and the procedure would be to densify the soil to the point that it will not liquify in the event of an earthquake, therefore the water from the wetlands would have no place to go. Dr. Clark noted that the soils in the Harbor area are not compacted and those soils may be seventy-five feet deep, much different conditions than the Hellman site. In response to a quote from a government report regarding oil extraction, subsidence, and earthquakes, Dr. Clark stated the report cited situations that are prior to improvements to the soils, that there is now the opportunity to modify the ground to change its behavior, and that the area where oil extraction had been a problem was the Long Beach and Wilmington fields, very deep, soft, thick sediment zones where oil was extracted between twenty-five to thirty-five hundred feet, much shallower than the Seal Beach field that had its maximum production in the 1940's and 1950'S, five to ten times the present production, and since that time water flooding has been used in this field to force the oil out, a different type of geological condition than Long Beach. Dr. Clark noted that field records indicate that as early as the 1940's the Seal Beach field in general has been driven by pressurized water. At invitation of the Council, Dr. Winchell expressed his views regarding certain aspects of the discussion. He said he felt a pertinent question had been whether the mitigation measures had been tested, and given the unsubstantiated knowledge of that, he would contend that certain measures are still experimental and should be tested before being used. He noted that surcharging is a method to densify the materials and has been used successfully in some areas, however what the result may be in this particular area is another question, and that he continues to question the materials that would lie beneath the densified area and how that material would behave in an earthquake. He noted his continued question as to the width of the fault zone and why trenching was not continued onto the site, and offered that the materials often do not retain their mark of displacement and it is sometimes difficult to hold the trenches open for a period of time adequate to observe if there are problems in a particular area. Dr. Winchell said he did not feel that the Newport/Inglewood fault is a straight line, that he believed it to be a shear zone, as was indicated in the Bolsa Chica, and if the materials were consolidated as are the materials in the bluff area then one might expect a narrower zone or linelike behavior, yet the subsurface information indicates that there may be splaying of materials as they come to the surface, and where the materials are incompetent, as in the lowland, marsh lagoonal areas, there is potential for considerable problems, and if one refers to the planning scenario maps the zone is indicated as possibly being up to five thousand feet wide. He said if there is adequate planning, and if it is felt that the project is viable, all information should be known up front, and since mitigation through some of the proposed techniques is an expensive process, the costs should also be known. Dr. Winchell advised that trenching and some geophysical methods have been used to determine the width of fault zones and subsurface offsets, however in most cases the potential width of fault zones are unknown, but where one can actually see surface rupture it is believed the fault zone is relatively narrow, the problem again being the nature of the materials, how easily they can be sheared or broken, natural materials having very low strength. He offered that the consultant's recommendation is that densified materials be used, which he said he would expect to be the best that current practice could offer and most I I I 6-4-90 I likely withstand shearing much better than natural materials, yet again, that fill will rest on natural material. Dr. Winchell defined incompetent materials as loosely consolidated, having shear strength, retaining saturation, the grains shifting at random, having no coherency, such materials being high liquefaction where they are saturated, and affirmed his belief that there is the possibility of surface rupture on the Hellman property, and if the materials shear in depth, even the densified, compacted material will shear. Dr. Winchell offered that professional opinions regarding current engineering standards and reduction of hazards could be obtained from the state Architects Office and the U. S. Geological service, and that he believed his statements could be supported through the materials previously provided the Council. Dr. Winchell said he believed there is dialogue in the professional and scientific engineering communities, as Dr. Clark had indicated, with regard to whether or not these techniques will work, and in this case the evidence and varying opinions must be weighed, and again stated his opinion that the Hellman site was one of the most hazardous on which to build. Dr. Clark stated most of the Hellman site is not subject to liquefaction, liquefaction being a specific situation that occurs when soils are loosely packed and saturated with water, most of the Hellman site having silty clay soils which are not subject to liquefaction, which can be verified through the nearly forty borings on the site, the other problems on-site are ones that can be mitigated has been done throughout Southern California for approximately twenty-five years. He advised that the broad zone shown on the planning scenario is what is called a zone of deformation which is used by geologists to locate small amounts of displacement, that the point the Alquist Priola Act was involved with initially was to try to identify areas where there was enough displacement that it could pose a hazard to people and buildings, and that a 1988 set of maps of the Division of Mines and Geology show very specific lines that have been identified from aerial photographs, trenching and other sources where there had been some evidence that displacement had actually taken place, and that reference to a five thousand foot zone around the Newport/Inglewood fault is not workable nor appropriate response to the kind of hazard that exists. Dr. Clark noted the procedure to identify faults and the hazards has been developed and worked on since 1972. He added that the hazard associated with the Newport/Inglewood fault are areas where discrete displacements have taken place along the breaks, the location where a break was found to have occurred and fifty feet on either side of it identified as a zone that should not be built on, and if there is no evidence that breaks have taken place on other surfaces or along other zones along this fault area then there is a high probability that the next time it will break where it previously broke. Dr. Clark again stated that the fault had been trenched at the base of Landing Hill, that there is another location on the north side of the property at an oil well and projected to the surface, and that the distance between those identified points is not enough for the fault to wander, therefore it is well constrained, and it is part of the Alquist Priola zone because the fault and the hazard zone could be located, noting that in other areas of the fault where the exact location is not identifiable, structures have been built across the entire zone. Dr. Clark confirmed his opinion that the Newport/Inglewood fault, in this location, follows a relatively straight line, which can be traced on aerial photographs to Signal Hill, a distinct break in the topography as a result of movements in that general area over time, and ranges from four thousand I I 6-4-90 feet deep to the surface. At the request of Council, Dr. Winchell commented further, noting that Dr. Clark had indicated there is a deformation zone as determined by field studies, also that more recent work indicates a narrower zone, yet he said the problem remains that the materials do not necessarily retain the offset that might be associated with materials like this, and whether the topographic features are definitive is a matter that one will have to I wait to see, that generally there can be a splaying of these materials and it will not show as a rupture zone because the : materials do not retain that evidence, and that he continues to find it interesting that the trenching associated with this fault is always in what are determined to be competent materials. Dr. Winchell acknowledged their fundamental disagreement, stated he felt these materials may behave very differently than the materials that have been seen in the bluff area or at depth in water wells, and it has been suggested that these materials do provide splays of faulting and shear zones. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the council, to declare a recess at 12:25 a.m. The Council reconvened at 12:37 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Discussion continued with members of the Council indicating their preferences for continuing to receive public testimony, continuing or closing the public hearing, or concluding this meeting. The city Attorney noted that if there is to be further review of the seismic safety issue, the hearing should be left open for that purpose. Mr. Chester King, Topanga Canyon, stated he had reviewed the I EIR with regard to archaeology for the Hellman Ranch, that he also had a copy of the research design for the archaeology testing. He said that when the Coastal Commission approved the project they recognized deficiencies of information regarding archaeology and recommended further work be done, as did the Corp of Engineers to satisfy requirements of Federal laws, and that the California Environmental Quality Act requires that impacts of cultural sites be considered for the ethnic groups that are losing their heritage, and although that is mentioned in the research design, he did not believe that had been thoroughly considered. He also noted the concern of the Gabrielinos that their input had not been requested for the research design and that remains of their ancestors are possibly being removed. Mr. King said that neither the EIR or the research design specifically defines the size of the sites and it is felt that is based on shell or artifacts observations on the surface, which is not always adequate information to determine location of cemeteries and areas other than where people were living and eating, and that he had been informed that fill had been placed on the Hellman Ranch which may obscure the visibility of some archaeological areas. He said the research design to determine national register significance is basically oriented toward how the Indian used the landscape in terms I of what kinds of foods they ate, why they were there obtaining foods, animal bones and shell fish, food remains of archaeological sites which usually consist of burnt remains of plant foods, refuse, animal foods, and often causes the site to have a dark color, however he stated the current design has no systematic procedure for recovery or analysis of small plant remains, which is a critical point. He said there is interest in how the people actually used the settlement sites, what kinds of activities occurred, some sites having rows of where houses were placed, areas for butchering, skinning, hide preparation, earth ovens, yet 0" H.,j'~l 6-4-90 I he has not seen this being looked for in the initial testing of the Hellman site. Mr. King said there is a general bias in most archaeological work that implies that sites were not permanent settlements, yet he had been told there are human bones on the site which is a good indication of a permanent settlement. He said it is important to determine site boundaries, that some sites may be mitigated by placement of fill, by drawing them outside a project boundary, making them park areas, etc., however in this case it appears that decisions have been made as to housing sites and land uses before that decision can actually be made fairly as to whether or not to preserve certain areas. Mr. King said it is likely that if the area is to be residential and there are not burials, etc., that the native Americans and archaeologists will be satisfied to salvage the information as to how the settlements were organized, etc., and then allow them to be destroyed, however if there are areas of spiritual significance to native Americans they become difficult to salvage by just bulldozing the burials away or relocating them. Mr. King said if the archeological issue is postponed the concerns of the native Americans may not be adequately addressed, therefore he would recommend that the EIR be amended, that the new information being gathered be included, and that there be a public decision as to the disposition of any significant areas located on the site. Mr. King reported he has not been on the site, yet he understood it is quite likely the areas are intact sites since shellfish and artifacts have been observed on the surface, the soils appear to be intact, the sites are on the bluff tops, and that it may be worthwhile to do further exploration between the sites or at the base of the hills. He again noted that CEQA recommends avoidance if possible, set the area aside, place a fill cap that can be built upon, or some type of engineering approach that will result in the site not being demolished and hauled away, or if that is not possible the significance of the site should be determined from various aspects and mitigation would then be appropriate, which could consist of removal of the artifacts, the carbon, fossil remains, then analyze those and write a report describing what was found for future generations. He advised that if the current testing determines the site to be significant for placement on the national register, then further work would be required if the sites are to be destroyed. The City Attorney advised that conditions to further address this issue could be added as part of the tract map, and if there were new information that could not have been determined prior to this time regarding burial sites, etc., that would be a question of the EIR that would need to be addressed. Mr. King stated it would be difficult to determine what the mitigations might be at this point, given the continued testing, the review and determinations based upon those reports, that are yet to be completed. At the request of Council, Mr. Frank Mola reported a press release had been prepared, a copy of which to be provided the Council, announcing that an extension of their option on the property has been formalized with the Hellman family through a partnership arrangement, Mola Development to be the general partner and Hellman to be the limited partner. He noted that not only are they obligated to purchase the property, but the Hellman's will retain an ownership in the property throughout the construction of the site. Councilmember Hastings said she felt such arrangement would invalidate existing agreements, and given the problems associated with the Hellman site and the anticipated expense to remedy same, she requested a certified financial statement of Mola Development. Mr. Mola explained that he I I 6-4-90 did not believe Mola Development is required to post any financial information with the City with regard to the approvals, as the city has no financial interest in the project, that the problems associated with the site are required to be mitigated as conditions of approval, and that a condition could be added to require a financial statement if deemed appropriate. Mr. Mola explained that the partnership changes nothing with regard to the City, the I applicant is still Mola Development and the land owner is the Hellman family. The City Attorney advised that the general partner would be considered the manager of the partnership and the limited partner could conceivably be considered the financial investor. He recalled that the issue of whether the city could compel the developer to provide a financial statement had come up before, the request was made, however the developer did not feel the request was appropriate. He reported at that time the city commissioned a financial feasibility study be done, and pointed out that where the City does not have a direct financial interest in the project, there is quite likely no means for the city to compel submittal of a financial statement, except possibly in cases involving a redevelopment agency as the property owner, even though it could be requested. He offered that the Council could be provided with background as to their powers over the project with regards to disclosure of financial information. He cautioned that in considering land use decisions there have been cases that have shown that a local agency is not to consider the personal identities of the parties involved, but whether the project is appropriate for the site and adequate conditions have been imposed. In response to Council, he noted that if, at the discretion of the Council, I a decision were made to issue Mello/Roos at some time in the future, that would be an obligation of the property to support the assessment, there being no obligation of or recourse against the City. The City Attorney suggested that the issue of the effect of the limited partnership be a matter of discussion with the Council prior to the next meeting. Mr. Mola again assured the Council that the limited partnership changes nothing with regard to the project approvals by the City, explaining that the form of ownership will not change until the development phase at which time the Hellman family will assume a limited partnership position. He confirmed that the Hellmans would realize an approximate twenty percent equity in the profits of the project. Discussion continued. Mr. Mola offered that when Mola Development came to the City more than four years ago they came with integrity and intent to place a good project on the Hellman land, which has not changed, an important part of a good plan being community involvement and a goal to do something good for the community. He said he felt that the project is no longer the issue, it is whatever group survives, yet it is the people of the community that are possibly going to lose. He noted there is no focus on the plan, and conversations are directed to mitigatable issues. He said he felt the project provides facilities that will be used by a large segment of the I community, a project that one can be proud of. Mr. Mola offered to discuss the context of the project, did not object to questions regarding the design, yet said he would not permit challenge of the integrity of the representatives of the development. Councilmember Forsythe noted concerns of the Council with regard to geologic hazards and archaeology, which she said must be resolved before any approvals are granted. with regard to independent review of the geologic studies, Mr. Mola urged that the person have background, experience, and expertise equal to the professional group that prepared the studies. He offered ... ~ '. . ~ 6-4-90 I that the customary procedure is that a project is approved with conditions, and upon design, the City staff works with the consultants to develop the workable plan, and even if the project receives approval, he said Dr. Clark could determine that the site is not buildable at some point in the future, and explained that Dr. Clark would not sacrifice his integrity for this or any other project. He explained further when the conceptual plan is known and approved, the technical issues then need to be resolved, and at that time more studies are conducted by the consultants for the developer and the City to resolve any differences, noting as an example that typically archaeology is never addressed until after the initial approvals, yet in this case the testing has commenced prior to the approvals, the same with the engineering, road design, environmental issues, etc., which are conditions of approval that must be met prior to moving to the next phase of approvals or development. Councilmember Forsythe said in her opinion the baseball diamonds, the water and sewer impact studies should be done prior to the providing any vested rights for the project. Mr. Mola again pointed out those types of issues are dealt with after the initial approvals, and noted that the development process is one that is established by the state, that a project can be approved with conditions that must be adhered to, if they are not, there is no project, and it is the responsibility of the developer to find the acceptable solutions to the problems. Councilmember Forsythe suggested the conditions of approval be prior to vesting of the tentative tract map. Mr. Mola responded that the map is tentative, that there are no vested rights until all conditions have been met, that the problems on the site are recognized, and there are mitigation measures to resolve those issues. With regard to granting an extension to allow independent geotechnical engineering review, Mr. Mola said he would request the identity and qualifications of the individual or group, that he would have no objection so long as the person is qualified to conduct such review from a standpoint of on-going geotechnical expertise, a person with practical experience and application, yet he would defer that decision pending discussion with the Hellmans. The Director of Development Services reported contact has been made with several organizations, that the Earthquake Engineering Institute in Berkeley recommended three engineering geology firms, however two of those firms are involved in this project therefore would not be considered, the other firm being Woodward/Clyde of the San Francisco Bay area and Santa Ana, a principal of which was highly recommended as being an specialist in liquefaction and seismic activity, that Professor Arulanandan of U. C. Davis had also been contacted, and it appears his background is research oriented rather than development/construction, with primary expertise in liquefaction. Dr. Clark offered that the chief engineer on this project for his firm is a student from Davis, which could pose a conflict of interest. Mr. Mola again stressed the importance of having'the qualifications and practical experience in the geotechnical engineering field, and noted there is something to be said for his team of experts since two of top firms recommended have been working on this project. It appeared to be the preference of certain members of the Council to leave the selection of the independent expert to Councilmember Forsythe. Mr. Bruce Stark said the community park improvements, proposed to be agreed to by separate agreement prior to approval of the final map, was not an enforceable agreement, and at this point in time there is nothing in writing that specifies that there shall be parkland, and should the I, I 6-4-90 vesting tentative map be approved, the developer would be provided a vested interest under which he can bring legal action, and that the final map is merely a ministerial act. He also said the development agreement states that the City shall cooperate with the developer to issue Mello/Roos bonds, yet the developer testified that the City was not committed to do so. The City Attorney explained that the city would have discretion under state law to decide whether or not to approve formation of a Mello/Roos the district, and if the district were approved the City would then cooperate to issue the bonds, that there is also a procedure for election to establish Mello/ Roos district, depending on the number of property owners in the district, yet if the district is formed at such time as the developer is the sole property owner, he believed the district could be formed merely by agreement of the developer. He added that the provision for Mello/Roos is a condition of the development agreement as an option, it is not a mandatory condition, and explained that there is a difference between a maintenance district as opposed to a district that would provide the initial installation of improvements and spread those costs over a period of time. He again clarified that the condition was worded in such a way to insure that the City would have the option to decide upon formation of the district. Mr. stark also noted a condition of the development agreement requiring the Hellmans to enter into written agreement to sell to the City five acres of land for park and recreation purposes prior to approval of the final maps, and it was his understanding there is no such agreement. The City Attorney reported there is a September, 1989 letter agreement that specifies the terms that would be required in that final agreement, those terms providing a procedure to determine the value of the property, based upon current zoning, which is oil production, with no expectation that the zoning would be changed in the foreseeable future, a protection against any speculation possibility. He added that the land must be made available prior to the approval of the final map, and clarified that under the letter there was provision that although the City would be responsible for construction of facilities on the site, Hellman would be responsible for cleaning the site and delivering the property in a satisfactory condition to the City, noting that the procedure and timing would be further clarified in the written agreement, and although there are general parameters as to the location, the precise location has yet to be agreed upon by Hellman and the city. He noted there were discussions to formalize the purChase/sale agreement subsequent to the September, 1989 letter agreement, however the process was postponed upon filing of the lawsuit, and the Hellman family had indicated their intent to not proceed with the agreement until such time as there were assurances that the project would go forward. He pointed out that in terms of development of the property, the lots can not be developed and sold without approval of the final map, and the final map can not be approved and recorded until all of the conditions of approval are complied with, one of those conditions being the additional five acres for recreation use. With regard to the community park, the city Attorney noted there had been discussion as to the type of park facilities that would be appropriate, that it had been determined that there should be further planning, therefore the plan is yet to be finalized. The city Manager explained that at the time the of discussion of the five acres, the Hellman's were in negotiation with their lease operator, Union oil, with regard to secondary recovery methods and techniques, therefore Hellman could not provide the specific location until those discussions were concluded, however the city did specify preferences of location, thus the wording 'I' I I .~~- , . 6-4-90 I of the letter so that the location could be determined at a later time subject to agreement by the city. He confirmed that the letter agreement contained language that would require the site to be free of any contaminants. Discussion continued. Mr. stark said he had inquired as to costs incurred that have been billed to developers, and was informed that $7,800 has been billed to Mola for staff time from February 1987 to May 2nd, 1990, that slightly more than $5,000 has been paid, that Bixby has been billed $8,000 from September, 1989 to March 30th, 1990 and have paid $4,000. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to continue the public hearing relating to the Hellman property development until the next meeting. Councilman Laszlo suggested that discussion be limited to those persons who have not spoken before. Ms. Anna Christensen, Native American Coalition, inquired as to when the archaeological guidelines would be placed on the council agenda, the intent having been that the guidelines would apply to the Hellman development. The City Attorney responded that it was his understanding that item would be on the June 11th agenda. Ms. Christensen noted a comment that archaeological concerns could possibly be placed on the tentative map, and inquired if the Council would be interested in receiving additional independent archaeological input regarding the Hellman site. I BUDGET WORKSHOP After brief discussion, the Council agreed to schedule the next budget workshop for Wednesday, June 6th at 2:30 p.m. The City Manager confirmed that copies of the proposed budget would be available for public review at the workshops and hearings. The city Attorney noted that the Hellman property hearing will be again considered on June 11th, and that the Council could adjourn the June 6th meeting until 6:00 p.m. that date for a Closed Session. Councilman Laszlo inquired if the Redevelopment Agency is required to approve the Mola project since a portion of that property is within the project area. The City Manager advised there is no approval of the project required by the Agency since the project area has previously been approved, unless there were substantial changes to the project that would be inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Kirk Evans, Mola Development, inquired about their letter regarding whether the Council would be discussing the findings regarding to their project as is relates to the Housing Element. The City Attorney reported receipt of a request from Mola Development to place an item on the June 11th agenda regarding a separate determination that the approvals of the project are consistent with the revised Housing Element, to which their firm had interpreted to mean the prior approvals, and their recommendation would be that no separate determinations be made, that the findings and determinations should be made with respect to the pending application that is presently before the Council, and should there be approval, the Council would then make a finding as to the consistency with the revised Housing Element. The City Attorney advised that no motion was necessary if it were determined to not place the item on the agenda. He advised the developer their recommendation would be forwarded to them in writing. Mr. Charles Antos read a paragraph from the Mola/Hellman press release, and suggested 6-4-90/6-6-90 that the City Attorney be requested to review the partnership concept and determine if the map under consideration can be approved for Mola Development Corporation. The City Attorney advised that they would be reviewing whether the parties to the development agreement will need to be changed, what effect there may be with regard to the applications, and discuss with the attorneys for Mola the exact form of the changes. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Wednesday, June 6th at 2:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 a.m. clerk of the Approved: ~ -f.. V~ Mayor Qwilbl ~ o CJ.ty Cletk I Attest: Seal Beach, California June 6, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 2:30 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo Councilmember Hastings Absent: Councilmember Hastings arrived at the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the city Manager Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Mr. Zaharas, Assistant Finance Director Chief Stearns, Police Department Captain Garrett, Police Department Captain Maiten, Police Department Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Chief Dorsey, Lifeguard Department Mr. CUshman, Lifeguard Department Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk I