No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-06-11 6-6-90/6-11-90 Councilmember Hastings suggested that an attendant be hired to operate the beach lots during early hours to capture the surfer traffic at an hourly rate, which would result in increased revenue through turnover. The City Manager offered to research the suggestion if the Council so desired. I After discussion, the Council indicated agreement to conduct another budget workshop on TUesday, June 12th, at 11:00 a.m. or a time to be determined at the June 11th regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting until Monday, June 11th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn at 5:52 p.m. C C of the Approved: ~r:L...) 7{. W~~ Mayor I , Attest: Seal Beach, California June 11, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:03 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL ~lI.T.T. Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, city Manager Mr. stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the city Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and (b) to discuss pending litigation, Wetlands Restoration Society versus City of Seal Beach, and labor relations. It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:38 p.m. 6-11-90 with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously announced, and had given directions to staff with regard to labor relations. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 7:38 p.m. / I I o Clerk and ex-o iC10 clerk of the of Seal Beach Approved: c::~ ~. VA/~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California June 11, 1990 Th~ City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:39 p.m. with Mayor wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL ~AT.T. 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 WAIVER OF FULL READING Forsythe moved, second by Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I 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 between the City and Mola Development Corporation, and Vesting Tentative Map Number 13198. The City Clerk certified that notice of the continued public hearing was posted as required by law, reported receipt of 6-11-90 communications from Ms. Jody Weir, Mr. Phil Troy, Ms. Wendy Morris, and Dr. Winchell, also a letter received this date from Rutan and Tucker. I Mayor Wilson requested that persons speaking to this item state their name and address for the record. Ms. Beth Paden, 59 Smokestone, Irvine, advised she was senior staff archaeologist for LSA Associates, a private environmental planning firm, introduced her associate, Mr. Bill Breece, senior staff archaeologist, and stated she wished to present a summary of their work on the Hellman property. Ms. Paden said they commenced their investigation the past December with a records review at the Archaeological Survey at U.C.L.A., the regional clearing house for Orange County records, the research showing that the property was previously surveyed for archaeological resources, and that archaeologists from Scientific Resource Survey had excavated several sites on the property, however their work did not provide information necessary to evaluate the research potential of the sites, therefore in order to evaluate the resources it was felt necessary to analyze faunal remains, soils stratigraphy, the age of the cultural deposits, and do an analysis of stone tools recovered. She said a field review was conducted to confirm the location of the six recorded archaeological sites within the project area, and pointed out the sites on an archaeological diagram which she described as ORA 260, 261, 260A, 852, 263 and 851. Ms. Paden stated they had conducted additional archival research with Dr. Rozier at the Los Angeles County Museum and Bob Bears at SRS, the Museum housing the artifacts from the Landing Hill site surveyed by Peter Redwine in 1955, however the collection did not include all of the materials from that excavation, that there were artifacts from five of the sites, yet four of those sites beneath existing housing, outside the Hellman project area. She said the research at SRS revealed soil samples from trenching done in 1981, field notes and photographs, and although no analysis of the materials collected had been done, the materials were reviewed, as were the surface artifacts of Peter Redwine's work from Landing Hill site Five, which is now ORA 260, and noted there were no subsurface materials. Ms. Paden stated the background investigation led them to recommend that a systematic subsurface testing be conducted of the known archaeological sites in order to determine the significance of the sites prior to development of a mitigation or preservation plan, and noted the recommendations follow the standard archaeological procedures for treatment of such resources, endorsed by the Society of California Archaeology and the Society for Professional Archaeologists. She reported they had contacted the California Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers to review the processing procedures with LSA, since the field investigations and other work was required to comply with the Coastal Commission development permit and Section 106 of the Federal procedures under the Corps of Engineers. She said the corps agreed to be the lead agency for the review process with the Commission acting as monitors of the work, that Mr. Dibble of the Corps agreed to review the research design and the scope of work, and she submitted a memorandum from Mr. Dibble for the record. She added that courtesy copies of the research design had been forwarded to Dr. Keith Dixon of the Anthropology Department, California state University, Long Beach, to Dr. Bilardi for the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, to Vera and Manuel Rocha and Anna Christensen for the Gabrielino Band Indians. Ms. Paden stated following the review by the Army Corp, subsurface work commenced on the site with a crew of ten to twelve professional archaeologists, all but one having extensive I I 6-11-90 field experience and more than half having served as supervisors and crew chiefs on other projects. She submitted copies of the resumes of each of the archaeologists for the record. Ms. Paden reported the hand dug excavations were started in May, that test excavations have been completed at ORA 260, 260A and 261, that the number of units excavated at each site depends upon the surface and subsurface indications of the deposits. She explained that excavations are done at ten centimeter levels, or approximately six inches, that all cultural materials are moved to their lab for analysis, the soil conditions, soil color, and stratigraphy is recorded for each ten centimeter level, each unit is photographed, a profile is drawn of at least one of the unit walls, with a sketch of the placement of the units at each site. She added that when sterile soil is reached, or below cultural deposit, an auger hole is placed in the middle of the unit to assure that there is not another cultural layer below the sterile soil, noting that those units are one meter by one meter. She offered the levels records and the photograph notebook for review. She said they are currently excavating ORA 852 and that they have yet to investigate sites 263 and 851 which are on the northerly portion of the project area. Ms. Paden stated coastal prehistoric sites are often recognized by soil discoloration caused by shellfish remains and decaying organic materials, where prehistoric inhabitants probably gathered food resources and raw materials from the Los Alamitos Bay. She reported thus far their research has not found many stone or shell artifacts, some bone tools, that they do not have a large quantity of historical materials that predates World War II, they have not found features such as hearths or house floors, that most of the cultural material recovered so far are shellfish remains at a ten centimeter level at site 260. She explained that the materials have been processed through the water screening program, the different shellfish have been separated to determine the type of food being eaten and the source of the food, that shell that appears in this type of context, as occupational refuse in soil, has been darkened by decaying organic materials and provides information about the diet and daily food sources of the inhabitants. She submitted photographs to illustrate their procedures for augering, water screening at the site, excavation, documentation of completing a unit, as well as column sampling where retrieval is finely screened at the lab for any plant remains, seeds, etc. Ms. Paden reported several small, less than one-half inch, pieces of burned bone have been found, however have no diagnostic features, appear to be mammal yet unidentifiable as to species. She stated it has been suggested that the burnt bone may be representative of a cremation, however explained that the existence of burnt bone alone is not sufficient to prove cremation, that cremation has a recognizable feature of burnt bone, charred wood, burnt soil, ash, and evidence of a pit that was dug for the remains along with some artifacts placed with the burial. She noted that the burnt bone was found with the refuse debris along with the shellfish and were not concentrated within a specific area, found with other food debris such as deer and sea mammal, which suggests that the bone may be food remains. Ms. Paden said in Orange County prehistoric burial grounds have most often been found at habitation sites, the interments rarely found within the refuse areas of sites, noting that research thus far on the Hellman property appears to be refuse areas. Ms. Paden stated to date the research has not shown evidence of human remains, that there have been no peat levels on the upper terrace sites, however the soil specialist did find some peatlike soil at the 851 site which is below the bluff. She I I I : .: .. '; . . ,,' 6-].1-90 I again noted they have excavated three sites through forty- nine units, the units have gone down between sixty to eighty centimeters, some further, with the augering about one hundred fifty centimeters below that. She acknowledqed that evidence of fill and debris has been found near the access road from Seal Beach Boulevard, a concern that has been looked at carefully. With regard to identification of the bone fragments, Ms. Paden again explained that if they were from a burial there should be further evidence, such as charcoal or artifacts. She also explained that the units are placed on a random basis in an effort to sample the entire site, and that it is felt the number of units used were sufficient, that the random site selection is so that there can be a more predictable characterization of the site, that judgmental units are also being used so that when a concentration of the midden is found, there may be placement of additional units. She again explained that they dig at ten centimeter intervals until sterile soil is reached, where there is no further evidence of shell, artifacts, or discolored soil, that the depth of the units are approximately fifty centimeters minimum and one hundred centimeters maximum. Dr. Winchell stated that Keith Dixon had once told him he felt he had found human remains in the area, and asked if Ms. Paden had spoken to him on that matter. Ms. Paden responded that she had, however the records are unclear as to where those remains may have come from, that when Redwine did his work he had identified ten sites, including sites on Landing Hill, the area presently being researched, and further north towards Rockwell, that exact locations are not identifiable from the maps, and that the Redwine find is not available to analyze. Dr. Stan Finney, 4689 Hazelnut Avenue, stated he is a Professor of Geology and Chairman of the Department of Geological Sciences at Cal State Long Beach, and although his remarks may not reflect it, he was not totally opposed to the project, yet wished to brinq forward his concerns as a citizen and educator. He noted the geologic interest of the Council in this project, and also said he felt Dr. Winchell has been unfairly criticized by the developer. Dr. Finney stated he was not an engineering geologist or a seismologist, that his specialty was paleontology and stratigraphy, an active researcher, familiar with the scientific process especially as it relates to geology, having field geology experience in mapping rocks, soils and faults, has analyzed engineering geology problems for the U. S. Forest Service, and as a scientist he has an understanding of and feel for the earth and its dynamics and the complexities of geoloqic problems, and that he has the responsibility of developing curriculum and resources for a teaching program in engineerinq and hydro geology. Dr. Finney stated he has examined the U. S. Geologic survey and California Division of Mines and Geology pUblications that were made available by Dr. Winchell, which he said makes it clear that the Newport/Inglewood fault that passes through the Hellman Ranch property is an active fault with a potential to generate a major earthquake, and that a significant portion of the development area is underlain by materials of high susceptibility to liquefaction, therefore the pertinent question becomes what is the risk. of developing the Hellman property, can it be mitigated, and to what degree. He noted that the developer has proposed measures to mitigate the liquefaction risks, the enqineering geologist hired by the City also evaluating that risk, and that he wanted to point out the differences between geOlogists and engineers in understanding the earth and its processes, and highlighted an article from the Journal of Geological Education entitled 'The Engineerinq of Sand' and I I 6-11-90 a separate article entitled 'The Control of Nature, Los Angeles Against the Mountains.' with regard to the Hellman site, Dr. Finney said the risk of a major earthquake and liquefaction is known, that the risk of the mitigation proposed for the structures and land needs to be thoroughly understood, that they must be tested procedures that have repeatedly been shown to be successful in situations closely I_ comparable to the development area. He said if the mitigation has not been tested, the City may be dealing with an experiment of those measures, and the risks will be great if the hazards are not mitigated, including the risk of liability. He offered that with the information he related with regard to engineers, geologists, and the earth, the Council must ask many questions and receive satisfactory answers, what measures will be taken to prevent structure damage, to prevent liquefaction, have the measures been tested, how many times, when, where, and under what conditions, and variables that need to be considered are the strength of the earthquake, proximity to the focus, amplitude and frequency of both body and surface waves, nature of foundation materials in terms of grain size and variation both laterally and vertically, and depth of water table, that thought must also be given to unanticipated variables such as unusually large earthquakes, change in foundation characteristics, fluctuating water table, etc. Dr. Finney made reference to a letter from Mr. Mola to the Chancellor of the California University system with regard to Dr. Winchell's participation in the discussions and having submitted documentation on College stationery, with an assumption that Dr. Winchell was speaking on behalf of the University, to which Dr. Finney acknowledged he could not speak for the University however said as a faculty member it is Dr. Winchell's responsibility to participate in I community service, and that he has been the only geologist that is not employed by any interest in this project and has spoken on behalf of the citizens. with regard to whether he felt the issues of liquefaction, fault lines, and oil extraction and subsidence could be mitigated on the site, Dr. Finney said he had not studied all of those factors adequately to comment, his intent was to speak only to the geologic concerns, yet confirmed his belief of the risk in building on a high liquefaction area, and again questioned whether the mitigation measures have been repeatedly tried and proven to be successful. In response to questions of "Mr. Jeff Oderman, Rutan and Tucker, Dr. Finney confirmed that he had not reviewed the Leighton and Associates geotechnical report, therefore had no comments on its contents, and stated the Department of Mines and Geology publication and the U. S. Geological Survey Maps show the exact fault locations and liquefaction zones. In response to Council, Dr. Winchell advised he had not reviewed the Leighton report, pointed out that there is a geotechnical consultant and engineer presently reviewing the reports, that he has not challenged Leighton'S survey of the area, nor the results or mitigation measures, as Leighton and Associates and Dr. Clark are reputable persons in this situation, yet he does question whether the mitigation I proposed has been adequately tested, and if not can be considered experimental, and confirmed that his opinions , were based upon State and Federal studies and the review of Dr. Arulanandan. Mr. John Watt, 213 - 4th Street, stated a survey was conducted to determine citizen feelings regarding the Mola project, that nine hundred three residences were visited, there was no answer at four hundred forty homes, eight of those were vacant, that there were six hundred forty petition signatures against the Mola project, ten persons . "..:.....' '::'~.i.. 6-11-90 I were not in favor however chose not to sign, eleven were against yet favored minimum development, seven supported open space only, twenty-eight were undecided, fifty had no opinion, and sixty-six were in favor of the project. He said he felt that the survey was an objective, impartial inquiry, which is about one-third completed, and provides an indication of public opinion from District Three. Mr. Mick Hellman, San Francisco, stated he was present primarily due to having recently taken a direct interest in their property. Mr. Hellman said he had visited the property this day, observed an oil field that is in need of repair, a wetland area likewise in need of repair however Showing some life, a number of people using the property to run, bike, etc., and noted his opinion that the property is in general disarray. He expressed his hope that the plan will be approved so that the problems of the site can begin to be resolved. Mr. Hellman offered to respond to questions posed at this meeting, also provided his office telephone number. In response to Council, Mr. Hellman advised that approximately two months ago, after patiently watching the process for nearly four and one-half years, it was their expectation that they be offered the opportunity by Mola to participate in the project from a financial standpoint, that being an equity interest through the buildout of the project, however it is not anticipated that the Hellman's would be a lender to or guarantee of the project financing. He explained that a partnership agreement has yet to be drafted, however the terms will be specifically set forth, that they will be a limited partner in the project, their rights would be fundamentally rights of persuasion and input, and at such time as the houses are completed and sold they would share in the profit, yet at some point the property in which they have an interest will be sold to the partnership. To a question of Ms. Reva Olson, Mr. Hellman responded that there is currently a signed option agreement, confirmed that also by agreement this will be a limited partnership and that Mola Development will be the general partner. Ms. Alice Davis, 7th Street, requested clarification of the April, 1990 Amended Hellman Specific Plan, Section 1.4, Project History, which refers to the sale of one hundred forty-nine acres to Mola Development Corporation, and if this project is not approved, inquired as to the Hellman family plans for the property. Mr. Tim Roberts, Mola Development, explained that the definition in this case is that an interest to the property under an option has been sold to Mola Development, however at this point the property title has not changed. Mr. James Brett, 7111 Seawind Drive, Long Beach, concurred with the opinion that the Hellman site is unkept. He stated he is the Director of Research at Cal State Long Beach, objected to the letter from Mr. Mola to the University Chancellor regarding Dr. Winchell, that the use of University stationery is common for a member of the academy to express affiliation so long as their views are not representative of the University. Mr. Brett questioned the methods used for the current archaeological research, specifically the sifting as opposed to the paint brush method, and reported a recent inquiry by the Chancellor to determine whether there were any American Indian artifacts on the campus and if they were human remains, that they be returned to where they were obtained, which he said he felt was in response to recent legislation, and a step that may not have been taken into consideration on the Hellman property. Mr. Rick Ramirez, Pomona, charged that the LSA research team mentioned earlier consisted of persons with masters degrees in anthropology which is not archaeology as it should be, what they have provided is an assumption of the Gabrielino's lives, and stated records of the sites should be researched. He I I 6-11-90 objected to stories of children taking artifacts from the site to school, urged that the Council deny the project which would help the Indian efforts with other developers, and said the children of Seal Beach would enjoy a wilderness area more than they would a playground. Mr. James Brett made reference to the LSA findings, and his understanding that the research team had not seen evidence of the previous archaeology of this site, therefore said the contents of the report should be gauged as to its accuracy to the long archaeological history of the area. Mr. Bob Spivey, 2120 East First Street, Long Beach, South Bay Harbor Greens, expressed concern with the desecration of sacred Indian lands, and destruction of vital ecological areas. He said a key value of Green is grass roots democracy, and if the reported survey is reflective of citizen views, their group may also want to become involved if the project is approved. Blue Feather, 7911 Alhambra Street, Huntington Beach, said he was a representative of the Gabrielino Tribe and currently an observer on the Hellman site. He offered that the Hellman Ranch has long been known as an Indian burial, that the digging is disrespectful and a discrimination against their people, that the archaeology serves no purpose, and it is their belief that whatever is under the earth is related and sacred. He objected to building on the burial grounds. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 9:18 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:31 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Society, spoke for the Seal Beach quality of life, stated it is felt this project is taking away the property rights of the citizens, that progress is not rapid building, it is a lifestyle. He said there is now adequate information to close this issue and vote denial of the project. Mr. Evans, Mola Development, advised that they were willing to grant an extension until June 25th to allow further review of the soils reports. Ms. Miriam Kelly, 1125 Catalina Avenue, asked if there were assurances that the project will be built as it is presently proposed, with the park, ball field, and tennis courts, or as an example, could the Recreation Commission decide those facilities were not necessary. Mayor Wilson responded that there are more than one hundred conditions of approval in addition to specific requirements of the various approvals to insure development as proposed. Councilmember Forsythe inquired as to where the exact acreage of the community park is shown. The city Attorney responded that the boundaries and acreage of the community park are shown on the tentative map, that the park improvement plan had been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, that the Council had briefly reviewed the improvement plan however had not taken a final action, and suggested that the community park boundaries could be delineated in the development agreement as well as the park improvements if the Council so desired. Councilman Hunt said he felt that the acreage and the amount of money for recreation is a certainty, however his recollection of the last Recreation Commission meeting was that there remained an uncertainty as to the exact number of tennis courts and some minor improvements. The Development Services Director clarified that the park improvements would be provided by Mola under the conditions of approval as well as a funding source to maintain those facilities for a ten year period. Councilman Hunt recalled that a monetary commitment had been made for park improvements and that the Recreation Commission would develop the plan within that amount. Ms. Anna Christensen, 259 Termino Avenue, Long Beach, Secretary of the Native American Coalition, reported I I I .."'"" , ,....... 6-11-90 I that the remains, which were found in 1938, and more recently returned to the tribe by a Seal Beach resident, Mr. wilson, were turned over to the coroner and then taken to Dr. Walker at the University of Santa Barbara, who analyzed the skull fragments and other supportive materials, including a map of the site, and determined that the remains were of Gabrielino Indian origin. She stated the past week. the coroner was again provided with small bone fragments from the site that are to be analyzed. She complained about misleading statements about what is being found on the site, that she was not aware of anyone testifying to that issue, and stated archaeologists who work for developers often degrade human habitation sites, which the Hellman Ranch was. Ms. Christensen again said the first choice of CEQA is preservation on-site, that the manner in which a site is determined valuable is important, stated the need for improved guidelines for native American resources, and offered that a number of important Gabrielino persons have attended the meetings of the Council. Mr. Phil Troy, Bayou Way, objected to the continued diggings on the Hellman property, and asked why Rockwell is making structural improvements to their facility for the event of an earthquake if the area is considered safe. I Mr. Jeff Oderman, Rutan and TUcker, representing the applicant, stated their agreement to a two week continuance and expressed willingness to work with the City. He said they have attempted to fully cooperate with the City, yet there are people who are unhappy with the project even though there are more wetlands than required, considerable park and open space acreage and facilities to meet the city's recreation needs, mitigation of impacts to levels of insignificance, the project conditioned by the City and a number of other jurisdictions, and noted the only reason the project is again before the Council is the result of the Housing Element challenge. Mr. Oderman made reference to his letter of this date addressed to the Council, and suggested that the Council discuss with the City Attorney the significant legal aspects of the project and the commitments of the applicant, with their expenditures exceeding $10 million at this point. He again noted it was not their doing that this issue is again before the Council, that he represents a property owner who is protecting his rights, having compromised and done everything possible to satisfy the concerns of the City Council, and requested that the Council review the background of this project, and make a decision that will be fair to the citizens, the property owner, and the future of the City. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney suggested that the Council consider whether there is to be a continuance until the next meeting, and noted agreement to that by the developer. He explained there are three approvals for consideration of the Council, the Amended Specific Plan, the Development Agreement, and the vesting Tentative Tract Map, the Tract Map document setting forth the conditions of the project, which the Council may want to review further, that there is an option to approve as presented, approve with additional conditions or revisions, or to deny the approvals, also to consider the continuance to receive additional information. Councilmember Hastings read a letter from Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe dated August 28, 1989 to the City Manager relating to the five acre parcel of Hellman property, and a response to that letter from the city Manager to Mr. Robert Epsen of that firm. She questioned who authorized Mr. Nelson, Mr. Hunt, and Ms. Massa-Lavitt to negotiate for the five acres, if the previous City Council reviewed the letter I 6-11-90 prior to transmittal, why was the contents of the letter not made public, and why was the purchase agreement withheld from the new councilmembers until asked for. She questioned why previous councilmembers were anxious to build on such geologically hazardous land, stated she supports responsible slow growth, yet to allow development on the Hellman Ranch is not being responsible. Councilman Hunt responded that he felt he was the instigator of the five acre parcel arrangement, that the entire Council was aware of the negotiations, and stated he has long felt that one of the most valuable assets that could be acquired for the City is land, and that the opportunity to gain an additional five acres outside of the project, even by paying fair market price, was a benefit to the City, that the terms that the City Manager ultimately developed were excellent for the City, and at that time everything, with the exception of Closed Session discussions, was done in public. He questioned what was felt to be wrong with the agreement. The City Attorney explained that the first offer of Hellman with regard to the five acre parcel was unacceptable to the Council at that time, that 'negotiations then took place pursuant to instructions given during Closed Session. As a point of background, he noted that on the remainder of the Hellman property the General Plan proposed a community park, the City to acquire that property at some future time either through negotiated purchase, dedication under Quimby, or condemnation when the remaining Hellman parcel is developed. He stated however that as part of this development there were negotiations with regard to adding more parkland which led to the transfer of the future park property to the Mola project as a condition of approval, which ultimately resulted in the Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement being amended accordingly. He explained that the Council was still desirous of obtaining additional parkland on the remainder site, which led to the negotiations for the additional five acres that would accommodate the ballfields. The city Attorney again stated that since the first Hellman proposal was unacceptable, the September 7th letter from the city Manager resulted, and as a condition of the project the Development Agreement provides that prior to final map approval by the City, the agreement for the five acres would need to be consummated, and substantially upon the terms set forth in the September 7th letter agreement. He said he felt there were key aspects of importance to the City, one being how the property would be valued, which led to the agreed upon appraisal process, that a concern of their firm had been that if there was a condemnation proceeding with Hellman there could be arguments as to the potential use of the property, also a concern with an inflated appraisal value, therefore the terms of the development agreement, pursuant to the letter agreement, provides that the property would be required to be appraised based upon current zoning, and with no change of that zoning in the foreseeable future. He noted that a proposed interim rent of the land had been unacceptable to the Council, yet the city wanted to pay for the property over time, thus the provision for interest of eight percent for a period of five years, as opposed to the procedure where public agencies typically acquire property immediately rather than over a period of time. The City Attorney advised that toxic cleanup was a key provision to the City and Agency, therefore the terms provided that Hellman would be responsible for any toxic cleanup, and more importantly they would be liable to the City in the event of future problems associated with the site. He said there had been discussion as to the most appropriate location of the site, therefore that provision had been left open until the specific location could be chosen, yet it had to be within the Hellman remainder with reasonable access to the Hellman I I I j;: '. '. ~~ '" 6-11-90 I Ranch Road. He stated the basic terms were set forth in the letter and incorporated into the development agreement, yet it is the option of this Council to determine if these terms are acceptable. As a point of clarification he explained that the deletion from the General Plan of parkland from the remainder of the site was because of that park area being transferred to the city now through the Mola project, therefore the City was receiving the community park, which was a long-term goal of the General Plan. Councilmember Hastings expressed concern with the provision for the Agency to agree to a one time right to exchange the site for another five acre location, also that concurrent to the sale of the site to the Agency, the City would agree to amend the General Plan to delete the designation of parkland from the remaining Hellman property, stating this should be two separate projects. Councilman Hunt noted that in the beginning there were two hundred twenty-five acres of Hellman property and of that seventeen were designated as parkland, when Mola proposed development of one hundred fifty acres the City negotiated for twenty-five acres of parkland, and then an additional five acres outside the project, twenty-five acres at no cost to the City, the five acres to be purchased at market price paid from tax increment from the project, and the payment of interest only until such time as the tax increment was realized. The City Attorney explained that initially Hellman had requested substitution of the site at any time, which was unacceptable, therefore it was required that should there be a substitution of site it would be allowea only once, and Hellman would be required to pay all costs, including the improvements of the relocated site, and noted allowing the option to relocate the five acres was only in the event there would be development or change of the oil production facilities on the site. I I Councilmember Forsythe commended the staff for their efforts in responding to her concerns, and commented on those concerns in part, as follows. She said even though it has been stated there may be some legal implication, she would like to pursue the possibility of requiring an indemnity bond and completion or performance bond; that she felt the building heights should be in compliance with existing limitations of the residential areas; made reference to existing Code Sections 21-43 and 28-401, staff response being that a Specific Plan supercedes provisions of the Code and Zoning Ordinance; with regard to the thirty foot buffer zone she said it had been promised by the developer however has been incorporated into the project as a premium lot; with regard to exceeding City noise standards, she stated mitigation would reduce noise to approximately sixty-five decibels, and that mechanical windows and ventilation systems would be instituted. with regard to the inclusion of thirty-three low income dwellings to be established in the future, she questioned how the minimum amount of $316,000 in-lieu fees could be applied to thirty-three homes not knowing when, where, or how they would be provided; stated her concern with not having a firm agreement to acquire the additional five acres for baseball facilities; that all arChaeological and burial site concerns should be resolved prior to vesting any property rights, and that issue should not be delayed until prior to grading permits; a preference that the issue of noise generated from the animal shelter be resolved prior to approvals; that a copy of the agreement between Southern California Edison and Mola Development regarding removal of the electrical lines along Bolsa was needed, or information as to whom that property would revert to. She inquired as to the status of developer impact fees and whether it would apply to this project; that 6-11-90 the language of the condition relating to Mello/Roos allows the developer, by sole election to petition the city to establish the district for the purpose of selling bonds to provide certain public facilities where, in her opinion, the developer would be using the city's credit to assist the development; that her concern regarding landscaping along Seal Beach Boulevard was addressed by General Condition 18; stated her understanding of the benefits in terms of maintaining the facilities associated with the development by being a closed community, noted that there would be limited access during election times yet the homeowners would have the ability to remove that access; that she had been advised all appropriate City departments and outside agencies had reviewed the Vesting Map and provided conditions of approval and/or comments; the Code providing for the Director to review the architectural design; a concern with studies to assess the impact on the water supply and sewer capacity; and concern with the number of items that are to be addressed at a later time which she felt should be resolved prior to providing the developer any vested right. Councilmember Forsythe said her primary concern related to the independent assessment by a geotechnical engineer given that the property was once a riverbed, an estuary, wetlands, the water table being two to thirteen feet below the surface, two fault lines on the property, oil production use for more than fifty years, and that her objective in obtaining a third party opinion was to evaluate the information from both Dr. Winchell and Dr. Clark, yet noted the U. C. Davis Professor only has the Leighton and Associates report. Councilmember Forsythe stated in view of the unanswered questions, it was her feeling that development on the lowlying areas would be morally wrong. In response to Councilman LaSZlo, the city Attorney explained that the Council could take action at this meeting if they so desired, yet if the intent were to approve the project, questions have been raised where it would be advisable to take the two week period offered by the developer to clarify those points, as an example the issue as to what facilities should be contained in the community park. He added that as previously pointed out the Council also has the option to vote denial of the project, and in that case it would be recommended that there be a referral to staff to prepare a resolution of denial, and if it were the desire to take that action at this meeting the findings should be stated for the record, yet it would be recommended that a formal document be prepared setting forth the findings of the Council and considered on June 13th. He clarified that action to approve the ordinances would require three affirmative votes, noting also that the time frame applies to the Vesting Tentative Map pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, not to the ordinances approving the Specific Plan or Development Agreement, and with regard to denial, he explained that three votes would be required to carry the motion, and should there be abstentions, a two, two, one vote would deem the motion to have failed. Councilman Hunt stated although he did not agree with many of the concerns of Councilmember Forsythe, he commended her thoroughness. with regard to the baseball diamonds, he said he recalled that several months past he had made the statement that at the appropriate time if there was not a firm, solid agreement with regard to the five acres he would not vote for the project, and asked if this issue is now considered to be firm. The city Attorney again explained that before a final map could be approved, which in turn affects the Vesting Map and Parcel Map, there is a requirement that the purchase/sale agreement be entered into I I I .' 6-11-90 I based upon the terms set forth in the september 7th letter, which was the means by which the City was able to secure the eventual acquisition of that site, and that final agreement is a condition of approval of development of the property. He noted that the reason there is no detailed purchase/sale agreement at this time is because discussions had taken place after approval of the project, and due to the extensive documentation that is required to properly support that type of transaction, the development agreement sets forth the requirements for the acquisition pursuant to the terms of the September 7th letter. I Councilman Hunt also noted Councilmember Forsythe's concern with regard to additional studies regarding water and sewer impacts, however pointed out that one of the things the development will do is provide the opportunity to improve some of the infrastructure that is deteriorating, that Mola will have to participate in a new well or new pumps, and it can be expected that their per capita contribution will be far greater than the number population of Seal Beach. He noted also that Seal Beach will not realize a water shortage for at least four years, and that water consumption in the community is presently down by ten to twelve percent. Councilmember Forsythe stated her concern is with the studies being conducted later in the process rather than now. Councilman Hunt summarized the one hundred forty-nine acre project as the City getting 10.5 acres of Gum Grove Park, $150,000 for improvements of that Park, additional fifteen acres of parkland, $800,000 annuity for maintenance thereof for ten years, $1 million in cash, forty-one acres of wetlands plus the restoration, roadways, and the schools realizing $1.5 million initially plus additional monies from the State. He reported that after the previous meeting he spoke with Mr. Murrey of the School District who repeated what the Superintendent had said, namely that the Mola project would have a favorable impact on the economics and programs of the Los Alamitos School District. He also pointed out that there will be $600,000 tax increment realized per year from the portion of the project that is within the Redevelopment Agency, that those monies may be used for necessary projects within the community, that he felt the EIR mitigates the impacts of the project, that the five acres that is to be made available is a tremendous advantage for the community, and that the project has the lowest density of any recent development in Orange county. Councilman Hunt stated that when considering a development of this type there is a need to consider the advantages against the disadvantages, and in this case and in his judgment the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. He said although there are obviously other considerations, one must also analyze the consequences of rejecting the project, some of the possibilities being litigation, the property remaining as is with no improvements, rezoned for wetlands, pressures for low income housing, soliciting new proposals, possibly placing all of that land within the Redevelopment Agency, and having considered all of those options, he said he could see the advantages that this development provides. He added that putting the geologic and seismic issues in perspective and with the combination of conditions on the site that may present a risk, he remained reasonably convinced that the technology that is presently available will mitigate those risks to allow houses to be built, yet in spite of using all of the available mitigation measures there could be an earthquake and loss of life since all risks can not be totally eliminated and there is no means of preventing such occurrence. He also pointed out that as each parcel is developed it is a requirement that the city will have an opportunity to review the conditions that are I 6-11-90 present and set standards accordingly, that as the project proceeds more specific information will become available to be used to make decisions that are pertinent at that time. councilman Hunt offered that the delay of this project over the past couple years has cost the City approximately $1.8 million as the result of lost tax increment, however as he had stated before, his prime concern is not with the finances involved, even though he would personally be I willing to pay additional taxes to provide the things citizens have often ask for, but with disapproving the development, as he felt it would be difficult to justify findings for denial, and expressed his feeling that the development is good for the community and urged support of the items before the city council for consideration. Councilmember Hastings stated the establishment of a community facilities district through Mello/Roos, and noise were a concern to her. with regard to Mello/Roos, the city Attorney explained that in the event the Council chose to issue bonds there would be a requirement under the Development Agreement to cooperate with the issuance of same, and even though state law allows the developer to petition the City to issue bonds, the Development Agreement provides that the City has the sole discretion to decide whether or not to proceed with the district and whether bonds would be issued. He noted that as previously mentioned, if the bonds were issued there would be no recourse against the City, that any recourse would be against the property. He explained further that the City's participation in the issuance of bonds would have no effect on the ability of the City to incur other indebtedness since there would be no financial obligation under Mello/Roos, that all obligations of the bonds must be paid by the I property. He noted that before bonds could be issued a financial analysis would be required to determine whether the property has sufficient value to support the bonds. Mr. Oderman advised they would have no objection to revising the wording of the Development Agreement with regard to Mello/Roos to the satisfaction of the Council. Mr. Hunt spoke in favor of retaining the provision for allowing Mello/Roos, pointing out that it is the option of those residents and that property to accept that assessment for public improvements. Mr. Roberts responded that at the time of purchasing the home a purchaser would have the option of accepting the assessment if the district were previously established, that the purchaser will be informed that there is a Mello/Roos District and of the affect on their property taxes, or if the district is considered at a later time an election would be held on that issue within the district boundaries. He advised at this time there has been no determination as to whether or not to utilize the Mello/Roos program. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 11:10 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:20 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. CLOSED SESSION I The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Wetlands Restoration Society versus City of Seal Beach, and also pursuant to subsection (b). It was the consensus of the council to adjourn to Closed Session at 11:21 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:36 p.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 previously identified. ",I' 6-11-90 I Councilmember Forsythe referred to Section 13.3 of the Development Agreement and inquired as to the affect of new legislation on that Agreement, specifically AB3897 relating to development in hazardous areas. The City Attorney explained the referenced Section 13.3 of the Development Agreement was taken from State law and provides that State law would be controlling as to how development would take place, yet the wording of AB3897 would determine if that legislation was meant to apply to existing development. Councilman Hunt inquired as to the amount of discretion the City would have, in the event of such legislation, each time there was a geological report for a new parcel. The City Attorney stated that would be difficult to determine until the wording of the legislation is reviewed. He noted that the purpose of the Development Agreement is insure that the project is completed during the term of that Agreement regardless of changes in the law, the Agreement more applicable to local laws, yet if State or Federal laws were to supercede local law, they would apply. He pointed out that the Development Agreement is also meant to insure that all mitigation measures are carried out, and offered that there could be further clarification in the Agreement as to such things as the application of new technology, and that the scope of future geotechnical review should be made very clear. Mr. Oderman again stated Mola Development had consented to a two week continuance to enable the city to obtain further geotechnical information, and since additional questions have been raised at this meeting, they would also request the continuance to allow them to respond to the concerns raised. As a point of clarification, Councilmember Hastings stated at the last meeting she had asked Mr. Mola if he would be willing to grant a two week continuance. Discussion continued. With regard to taking an action to deny the request for continuance, the city Attorney stated that in view of the pending litigation and threat of future litigation, a report had been provided advising of the options available to the Council. I I Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to continue this matter for two weeks. The City Attorney requested clarification from the applicant's attorney that although the hearing was closed and if there were a continuance, that the applicant would agree that additional technical information from the geologist and staff response to the issues raised would be acceptable. Mr. Oderman said there was no objection to that. Councilman Laszlo made reference to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times regarding the choice of the U. C. Davis professor and that a quote of the professor had been that everything could be mitigated, which he said he felt was biased therefore asked how the information from his report could be relied upon, and questioned if the professor has ever found cases that could not be mitigated. Dr. Winchell stated the consultant that was retained is a civil engineer although he considers himself to be a geotechnical engineer, and that it is understood he will be addressing whether or not the studies are complete and whether the mitigation measures proposed are appropriate, and reported that in their conversation the professor appeared to sidestep the issue of loss of lives and property. He said as a geotechnical engineer the professor would be more closely associated with the aspect of Leighton and Associates rather than the geological hazards associated with the area, and recommended retaining an impartial geologist. Discussion continued. Vote on the motion to continue the Hellman property 6-11-90 development discussion for two weeks until the next regular meeting: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Laszlo, Wilson None Hastings, Hunt Motion carried Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to continue the meeting until 1:00 a.m. or the completion of the agenda. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider the 1990/91 fiscal year budget. 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 matter. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to continue the public hearing until the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried After brief discussion, the Council determined to meet for a budget workshop at 1:00 p.m. the following day. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3940-A - INITIATING PROCEEDINGS - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Resolution Number 3940-A was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, I CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3940-A was waived. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3940-A as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3945 - APPROVING ENGINEERS REPORT and RESOLUTION NUMBER 3946 - DECLARING INTENTION/SETTING PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3945 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS IN A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT" and Resolution Number 3946 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN A STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolutions Number 3945 and 3946 was waived. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3947 - AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE STUDY - LOS ALAMITOS ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER Resolution Number 3947 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACT WITHOUT DELAY ON THE AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE (AICUZ) STUDY FOR THE LOS ALAMITOS ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER (AFRC)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3947 " r 6-11-90 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3947 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3948 - APPROVING PARTICIPATION - HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Resolution Number 3948 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3948 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3948 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "J" throuah "0" The Assistant City Attorney requested Item "0" be removed from the Consent Calendar, and Councilmember Forsythe requested Item "M" be removed. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "M" and "0", as presented. J. Approved regular demands numbered 79530 through 79716 in the amount of $362,266.11 and payroll demands numbered 40326 through 40502 in the amount of $203,821.02 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I K. Denied the claim for damages of Stephen F. and Sean O'Keefe, and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. L. Denied the claim for damages of Charles and Marie Antos, and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. N. Approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 610, Handicapped Restrooms at the Marina Community Center, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "M" - APPROVAL OF MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 1990. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Forsythe, Hastings Motion carried ITEM "0" - CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT - OIL SPILL The Assistant City Attorney reported they had been advised by the Attorney General that there may be some minor changes to the Confidentiality Agreement as it presently exists, and requested Council authorization to execute the Agreement as written or with minor changes if deemed appropriate. Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to authorize execution of the 6-11-90 Confidentiality Agreement as stated by the Assistant city Attorney. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT GUIDELINES The Development Services Director noted that additional information is forthcoming and it is anticipated this item will be presented to the Planning Commission by July or early August. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to refer the request of the Native American Coalition of Southern California regarding Archaeological Resource Impact Guidelines to the staff and Planning Commission for further review and recommendation. with regard to application of the guidelines to the Hellman site, the City Attorney noted that the guidelines submitted to the city could be used to develop conditions relating to the Hellman property development, and at such time as local guidelines are adopted they could be applied to any future development in the City. Ms. Anna Christensen, Native American Coalition, suggested that City staff meet with the tribal groups when developing local guidelines. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, LaSZlo, wilson None Motion carried PARKING PERMIT FEES The City Manager reviewed the staff report and the recommendation that the Council consider increasing the current annual residential parking permit rate of $10 per permit to $15 and increase the visitor parking permit rate I from $12 to $18 per year for fiscal year 1990/91. The memorandum of June 8th reported that during fiscal year 1989/90 to May 10, 1990, the city issued two thousand four hundred eighty-two residential permits at $10 each and one thousand one hundred forty visitor permits at $12 each, and that the personnel and operational expenses for the Parking Control Division is estimated to be $155,806 for fiscal year 1990/91. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to hold this item over until the June 12th budget workshop. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried 75th ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Committee Chairperson, Dorothy Whyte, reported the Committee is making preparations for events to be held on October 27th, both downtown and in north Seal Beach, July 4th activities at College Park, fund raisers, and tying Anniversary activities into other scheduled events. She reported activities planned for October 27th include a parade and dinner dances in the evening, one in Leisure World, one on the Naval Weapons station, and possibly one at the North Community Center, coordinating activities with the scheduled 10K Run and dedication of the Zoeter ballfield. She explained that none of the City facilities or the bunker I at the Navy base are large enough to accommodate a single dinner dance. Councilman Laszlo expressed his feeling that one all-city dinner/dance would be more acceptable. Mayor Wilson reported that Leisure World recently hosted a very successful tour of that area and encouraged everyone to join the tours that will be held monthly through October. Ms. Whyte offered to look into one all-city dinner dance if that were desired. Councilman Hunt suggested that such decisions should be left to the Committee. Councilmembers LaSZlo, Forsythe, and Hastings indicated their preference for one all-city dinner dance. Ms. Whyte reported that the tent 6-11-90 I recently used at a Juniors Womans Club activity accommodated three hundred fifty persons and she believed the cost was about $2500. She noted there will be family oriented activities after the parade on the 27th. Ms. Whyte said the Committee has adopted a historical theme, and that there is considerable interest and participation throughout the community. It was the consensus of a majority of the Council to hold one all-city dinner dance. AGENDA AMENDED By unanimous consent of the Council, the agenda was amended to consider Item "un out of order at this time. APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION Councilmember Hastings moved to appoint Mr. Joe orsini to the Planning Commission representing Councilmanic District One. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I, BIXBY RANCH COMPANY - COMMUNITY MEETING SCHEDULE Councilman Laszlo referred to the meetings that have been held regarding the Bixby property, stating at the end of the third meeting plans had been drafted for housing on the site, which he said he did not feel was appropriate, and it was his desire to meet with the residents of his District before moving forward, which could likely result in progress towards an acceptable plan. Councilman Laszlo stated his preference to postpone further public meetings regarding the Bixby property until after the summer months, and with the assistance of staff further guidelines and criteria could be developed for that property. In response to the Council, the Development Services Director reported a meeting was scheduled to be held June 23rd, a continuance of the meeting that was not held in May. Councilman Hunt expressed his feeling that the Council should not be involved in this process at this point and that the meetings should proceed as they were scheduled unless Bixby or the consultant chooses to postpone them. Mayor Wilson said it was her feeling that Bixby should take the lead for the meetings, and even though the subject property is within her District she would welcome input from Councilman Laszlo. Councilman Laszlo objected to the district reference, and stated residents of College Park East would be affected by the project more than others. Councilman Hunt noted that persons residing in Leisure World, College Park West and Rossmoor are likewise affected, and that he would not object to passing the City's comments on to Bixby or their consultant for consideration. Councilmember Hastings spoke for postponing the meetings until after summer vacations, and Councilmember Forsythe said it may be helpful to not have so many issues at one time, also inquired about city staff participation at the meetings. The City Manager responded that the Council authorized staff to participate in this pre-application process which started several years ago when the Council advised BiXby they would not accept their application until traffic concerns had been addressed, which resulted in a Traffic Engineering Study. He said in this case the Council indicated a policy to conduct community hearinqs prior to submittal of an application and environmental impact analysis in order to identify as many issues as possible that should be addressed by the applicant and the City. He added that Council authorized retention of a consultant to facilitate the meetings, the cost of the consultant to be paid by Bixby. Councilman Laszlo made a comparison of the community meetings to the Airport site Coalition meetings he has attended, and read the Code I 6-11-90 provisions relating to developing a Specific Plan. Councilman Laszlo moved that the community meetings regarding the Bixby property be postponed until at least October. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried I 75th ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE - ALTERNATE MEMBERS The City Manager reported the 75th Anniversary Committee has requested the appointment of alternate members, one from each District, to serve in the absence of a regular member and to have voting rights in the event of such absence. There was discussion as to whether appointment of regular members or alternates would be preferred. Ms. Whyte, Committee Chairperson, stated that in view of upcoming vacations, it would helpful to have additional members to carry out the Committee's business, that alternates would be adequate so long as they commit to attend the meetings regularly. After further discussion, Mayor Wilson moved that each Councilmember appoint an alternate to the 75th Anniversary Committee. Councilman LaSZlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman LaSZlo appointed Mr. Del Smith, Fir Avenue, as the alternate from District Four, Councilmember Forsythe appointed Mr. Scott Newton, Carmel Avenue, as the alternate from District Three, and Councilmember Hastings appointed I Ms. Barbara Rountree, as requested by the Committee Chair, as the alternate from District One. - 75th ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE BUDGET The City Manager reported the Committee has requested an allocation of $2,750 from the 1989/90 budget, and in addition $16,674 for 1990/91, and offered that the 1990/91 allocation could be discussed at the budget workshop. He advised that no monies have been allocated to date, that $5,000 was loaned to the Committee to allow them to order tee shirts, pins, etc., to be reimbursed through their fund raising efforts. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to initially allocate $2,750 to the 75th Anniversary Committee. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried HOUSING ELEMENT COMMITTEE Councilman Hunt suggested that the Housing Element Committee be set aside until such time as the pending litigation is resolved. Councilmember Hastings said she could see no problem with the Committee simply reviewing the Housing Element and making recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Forsythe noted that since this issue will be considered by the court on the 20th, it may be advisable to I postpone activating the Committee until after that date. The Assistant City Attorney concurred that it may be in the best interest to wait until the matter is considered by the court, yet agreed that the appointments could be made and meetings scheduled after the 20th. Discussion followed. Councilman LaSZlo appointed Ms. Lorraine Navarro, Ironwood Avenue, Mr. Scott Whyte, Candleberry Avenue, Ms. Patty Campbell, Ironwood Avenue, and Ms. Marilyn Spiegel, Candleberry Avenue. Councilmember Forsythe appointed Ms. Anne Marie Sablock, Electric Avenue, Ms. Beverly Casares, 6-11-90 I Marvista Avenue, and Mr. Jim Goodwin, Crestview Avenue. Mayor Wilson appointed Ms. Harriett Roth, McKinney Way, Mr. Jack Snow, Purdue Circle, and Mr. George Brown, Tam O'Shanter Road. Councilmember Hastings appointed Mr. Charles Antos, 17th Street, Mr. Mark Soukup, 16th Street, Ms. Lisa Lang, Dolphin Avenue, Mr. Jim Gilkerson, Electric Avenue, and Mr. Jeff Deckner, 5th street, as the alternate. Councilman Hunt said he would present his nominees at the next meeting. In response to Council, the staff advised that in this case the issue of the number of members that would constitute a quorum, if less than the majority, could be determined by the Committee. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Forsythe reported a call from a downtown resident inquiring about the Riverbeach sign on the State Lands property. The City Manager reported the city has requested State Lands to remove that sign a number of times, and noted the City does not have the authority to enter and remove things from private property without going through a legal process. Councilman Hunt referred to a question posed by a citizen at the last meeting regarding his comment on the usage of Gum Grove park, and stated his conclusion had been based upon a figure obtained from the Recreation Department, divided by the calendar days to reach the daily use. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Ane Slocum Cahill, 209 - 17th Street, read a letter dated June 11, 1990, which she had submitted for the record, regarding the Mola project and related staff reports of the California Coastal Commission. With regard to comments relating to the use of Mello/Roos for wetlands restoration and maintenance, the city Attorney offered that whether such use would be allowed would need to be researched, and dependent upon the type of improvements, it is conceivable that Mello/Roos could be used for that purpose, however that would first depend on whether the city was agreeable to such use. Councilman Hunt offered that if it were possible, he would conclude that it would then be possible for the people residing in that project to have a legitimate complaint about the use of Mello/Roos because the benefit would not be entirely theirs. Ms. Cahill said she had information relating to public and private funding for infrastructure, and it appeared that she quoted that if a situation exists where the special tax will hinder the initial marketing of the site, agreements have been constructed whereby the special tax has been defeased during the early period of a project, the developer permitted to prepay the tax into a special tax fund whereby monies invested and interest earned are drawn down when tax payments are due, or, in view of the special tax, points are given up on the sale of a home or a year of free rent is offered on leased industrial space. With regard to factors to be considered when structuring a district, she read that unless a multiphased project insures developer control of a district, new residents could amend the special tax and debt authorization, and eliminate the ability to execute the bond issue for the remaining phases of the project, one of the considerations being whether the developer had a good record or ability to secure credit enhancements. She suggested that Mello/Roos could be looked into as a facility for the developer to use where it appears that many of his development costs would be paid by another means. Mr. Charles Antos, Seal Beach, inquired about the effect of the Hellman/Mola partnership on some of the project documents since they do not contain the partnership name. The City Attorney responded that prior to the time of I 6-11-90 recordation, ths Development Agreement would be revised to provide the property owner and any other party to the development, additionally the Subdivision Map Act requires that before the final map can be approved and recorded there must be signatures of all persons having an interest in the property. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, referred to the procedure by which the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan was developed, and stated the reason it is not I presently done in that manner is that the City Manager was authorized to enter into pre-development agreements, and offered that the solution would be to require disclosure of all negotiations with a property owner on behalf of the City, then cancel the staff authority, and follow the procedure set forth by City ordinance for developing a Specific Plan. She asked if the Council had points and authorities to support a denial vote of the Mola project. Ms. Casares made reference to a previous court experience she had, the importance of truthful statements, and accurate quoting of the law. She questioned why only the Leighton study had been submitted to Dr. Arulanandan. She noted the Council had not taken an oath to specifically uphold the City Charter, charged that the ownership of the Hellman Ranch has not been thoroughly investigated, suggested that it may be sovereign land, pointed out that the Charter provides that the City Manager receives direction from the City council, and suggested there be changes of City staff. Mr. Mark Soukup, 310 - 16th Street, questioned Section 6.8 of the EIR which he said stated that the City would be transformed from a low intensity beach community to an urban setting typical of areas further inland, and referred to the June 11th letter from Rutan and Tucker which he said stated the developer is only required to mitigate the impacts, which they feel they have. He stated that Seal Beach is a I low intensity community, not impacted by surrounding areas, isolated to some degree, and by including this development, Seal Beach will have the same problems as the inland cities, losing the uniqueness, for which there is no mitigation proposed, and that the development will solve no budgetary problems. With regard to the impact on the community, the City Attorney offered that the city Council will make the decision as to whether this project is appropriate for the site, the Specific Plan amendment being the basis for making that decision. He added that the original and supplemental EIR provides for mitigation measures and a statement of overriding considerations for issues that are determined not to have been adequately mitigated, and that mitigation specific to the impact on land use and asthetics could be reviewed with regard to community impact. He noted that the issue of the appropriate level of use for this property has been on-going since 1981. Mr. Stepanicich explained that the EIR has been adopted and certified for this project and that the options with regard to new evidence have been discussed with the Council. He pointed out that since the beginning of this project their firm has provided the prior and present Councils with a number of memorandums dealing with legal issues, and although there may have been some controversy regarding those opinions, to date those opinions I have been correct, and they would stand by them. With regard to the sovereignty issue and rights to the property, he advised that issue had been raised and was addressed some time in the past, and clarified that the Council is not in the position of being the adjudicator of interests in that property, and if there were a claim of public ownership, that issue would require a court action to gain title, also, under the SUbdivision Map Act the Council can not, on its own, declare public rights on a property without there being some existing record of such. In response to Mr. Soukup, the city Attorney stated that in general terms density would .... 4. J\. 6-11-90/6-12-90 be considered the number of units per acre where intensity would tend to be the nature of the use, as an example commercial would be considered more intense than residential use. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED SESSION No additional Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, June 12th at 1:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 2:07 a.m. erk and ex-offJ. of Seal Beach of the Approved: ~ -{ M1~) Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California June 12, 1990 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 1:07 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 I Also present: Mr. Nelson, city Manager Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the city Manager Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ city Engineer Chief Stearns, Police Department Captain Garrett, Police Department Captain Maiten, Police Department Mr. osteen, Recreation Director Chief Dorsey, Lifeguard Department Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Manager requested a Closed Session after the budget workshop to discuss labor negotiations.