Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-06-25 6-19-90/6-25-90 CJ.ty Cit f of the I Approved: --G~ -Ir 'J/~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California June 25, 1990 The city council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 5:04 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilmember Forsythe led 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. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters and pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Wetlands Restoration Society versus City of Seal Beach. With consent of the Council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 5:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:50 with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session and discussed the matters previously announced. ADJOURNMENT With unanimous consent of the adjourned the meeting at 6:51 Council, Mayor Wilson p.m. I the Approved: t).V~ Mayor Attest: 6-25-90 Seal Beach, California June 25, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:03 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 I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, city Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the city Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 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 I AGENDA AMENDED It was the consensus of the Council to consider Items "U", the Grand Jury Report, "M", Ordinance Number 1309, "I and J", Eagle Scout Resolutions, out of order, and that the introduction of the General Telephone District Manager be postponed pending his arrival. ITEM "U" - GRAND JURY REPORT The city Manager reported on June 13th the Special Issues Committee of the 1989/90 Grand Jury issued a report regarding the Seal Beach Police Department, the report initially received through the news media with the official copy received June 18th, the report making findings and recommendations to which the Mayor and City Council must respond to the Superior Court within ninety days of June 18th. He stated the Grand Jury indicated they reviewed and investigated complaints and made recommendations for changes to the operations of the Police Department and personnel policies of the city, that no criminal or job competency investigations were undertaken, and that no findings relative to qualifications of personnel or professional I competency were made. The City Manager noted that the Grand Jury did make findings which relate to the performance of particular individuals presently and previously employed by the City under the various laws of the State, the City Charter and local rules that have and will be reported to the Council in Closed Session relating to personnel matters. He read the conclusions and recommendations as set forth in the report of the Grand Jury. The City Manager stated it is felt that some of the Grand Jury information is incomplete in order to conduct an analysis therefore an attempt will be made to obtain further information, and that a more detailed 6-25-90 I report will be forthcoming to the Council prior to the ninety day period. He added that he felt the report should be taken seriously and that action should be taken to correct any situation deemed necessary. Mayor Wilson made reference to the investigation and incident report of the Grand, Jury, and pointed out that although there was no basis for criminal charges, the report did raise concerns with regard to other issues that are worthy of investigation by the city, and if it is found that remedial action is appropriate, such recommendation would be made to the Council. She stated that the Mayor and Council are legally required to comment on the report, however the Grand Jury allegations must first be thoroughly analyzed and investigated, yet the report did not contain specific information and without such information it would be difficult to effectively respond. Mayor Wilson noted that although the report was not officially received until June 18th, the staff had already commenced their analysis, and have been directed to initiate a comprehensive investigation of the issues contained in the report, to be completed in a timely manner. She said she would not comment on the Grand Jury conclusions and recommendations until such time as the Council has an opportunity to examine, consider, and comment on the City's recommended response. Mayor Wilson stated she felt the investigation would show that the confidence she holds for the Police Department and management staff is not misplaced. It was the consensus of the Council to recognize a request that public comments be allowed at this time regarding this item. Officer Rick Paap mentioned that he is a thirteen year veteran of the Police Department and was representing the Police Officers Association, and he objected to an outside agency saying the Department has a morale problem. Officer Paap spoke in support of city management and the Department, explained that as opposed to years past the Department is up to staff and moral is high, accomplished partly through the cooperation of the new administration and city council. Ms. Norma strohmeier, 209 Seal Beach Boulevard, reported negative experiences with the Police Department which included ignoring her calls regarding noise from a construction project and harassment by a specific officer as a result of a problem with her automobile. Mr. Gary Biggerstaff, 3201 Katella Avenue, said he was present on behalf of Chief Guess and the Los Alamitos Police Department and stated the two Departments have had a close inter-agency relationship for a number of years, including shared enforcement programs, back-up patrols, that the court liaison has served Los Alamitos for many years on a contract basis, and the efficiency of the current personnel has improved the relationship with the District Attorney's office and has reduced court time for officers, that the Department's pride in appearance, job accomplishment, quality of work, personal relationships, and professional attitudes have been observed for some time, and in the opinion of Los Alamitos the current personnel enjoy a high degree of morale as shown daily by the manner in which the Seal Beach Police serve, and their overall accomplishments are the result of the dedicated leadership of the Chief and his staff. Ms. Dinette Ross, Police Department employee, relayed positive comments regarding an officer previously referred to, she also read a letter she had prepared, yet signed by a number of non-sworn personnel, that was in response to the Grand Jury report and mailed this date, advising that their assessment of the morale of the Department was incorrect. Mr. Frank Clift, 4489 Dogwood Avenue, acknowledged that when there was insufficient personnel and extended working hours Police Department morale was not what one would like it to be, however that has since changed and the opposite is now true, and reminded I I 6-25-90 that the Police Officers Association represent the rank and file of the Department. Ms. Barbie Meyer, 1400 Catalina Avenue, stated as an eighteen year resident she has experienced timely responses, cordial and pleasant attitudes, and efforts exceeding normal duties from the Police Department. Officer Mark Risinger, President of the Police Officers Association, conveyed appreciation for the expressed Council support of the Department, the Chief, and City Manager, and of the City's investigation of the Grand Jury matter in order to set forth the actual facts. He stated the Association was amazed at the conclusion of the special issues committee, that it was felt the committee's investigation had not been in depth, that current employees were not called to testify or give their opinions. Officer Risinger said from his experience Seal Beach is by far the best agency he has worked for, not only from the standpoint of working conditions and contact with fellow officers but also through contact with the citizens, a wonderful community to work in and for, and stated all of the officers present at this meeting share that feeling, and support the Chief and city Manager. A resident of 15th Street stated he has never experienced a more professional and courteous Police Department, and because of the Police and Fire Departments he plans to remain in the community. Ms. Francis Johnston, Coastline Drive, spoke in favor of the self-defense classes that the Police officers once taught, and offered her support of the Department. Ms. Barbara Antoci, 1502 Ocean Avenue, said unfortunately not all Seal Beach Police Officers deserve commendation. Ms. Antoci read a June 22nd Los Angeles Times editorial regarding the Police Department and the Grand Jury investigation, and requested that the State Attorney General be requested to conduct a complete investigation of the City. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3953 - HONORING LEWIS BOOK - EAGLE SCOUT AWARD Resolution Number 3953 was presented to Council and read in full by Councilman Laszlo entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING LEWIS D. BOOK FOR ACHIEVING THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EAGLE AWARD." Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3953 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Laszlo presented the Resolution to Mr. Book with congratulations. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3954 - HONORING ANDREW WOLF - EAGLE SCOUT AWARD Resolution Number 3954 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING ANDREW L. WOLF FOR ACHIEVING THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EAGLE AWARD." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3954 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3954 as presented. " AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1309 - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT - REPEALING ORDINANCES 1279 and 1292/RESCINDING RESOLUTION 3823 Ordinance Number 1309 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REPEALING ORDINANCES 1279 AND 1292 AND RESCINDING CITY I I I 6-25-90 I COUNCIL RESOLUTION 3823 REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY KNOWN AS THE HELLMAN RANCH. II By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1309 was waived. The city Attorney explained that the proposed ordinance carries out the court order in the Housing Element case, repeals the Development Agreement and Amended Hellman specific Plan and rescinds the Vesting Tentative Map that were previously approved. He explained this will not affect future actions that the Council may take relating to the Hellman property development. The city Attorney advised that Commissioner Bauer had asked that an announcement be made that letters have been received by the court from members of the public regarding the Housing Element case, and the Commissioner requested that no further ex parte communications be sent. Mr. Oderman, Rutan and Tucker, stated he was representing Mola Development, and requested that action on this item be deferred until after the July 11th court appearance and rulinq on ~e validity of the 1989 approvals for the Hellman Ranch project. The City Attorney responded that his firm's position is that the direction of the court was to invalidate those approvals, that it is felt appropriate to continue with consideration of the submittal currently under discussion, to either approve or deny, yet clear the record and repeal/rescind the prior actions as directed by the court. Mr. Oderman said he felt that the approvals were properly granted, that the city should stand behind them, and that the reasons for the resubmittals justify the City honoring the original approval of the project. Mr. Oderman said he would not expect that an action of the Council will effect the decision of the court, however he felt it would be appropriate for the Council to wait until the legal validity of those approvals is determined so that an action taken at this meeting is not challenged and invalidated at a later date. Mayor Wilson read Ordinance Number 1309 in full. Councilmember Hastings moved to introduce Ordinance Number 1309 and that it be passed to second reading. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I CONTINUED HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT The City Attorney advised that the public testimony portion of the hearinq had been closed at the June 11th meeting, and with agreement of the applicant, the hearing remains open to receive the report from the geotechnical expert from U. C. Davis and any other technical information from the staff, however if Dr. Clark, Dr. Finney, or Dr. Winchell wished to address the information contained in the report, that would be acceptable. He noted that after such testimony the hearing process would be concluded and deliberations on the project could commence, and pointed out that in addition to the documents before the Council to approve the project, a draft Resolution was prepared should the Council choose to deny the project. Dr. Stan Finney, 4689 Hazelnut Avenue, said he had reviewed the report of Dr. Arulanandan and looked through the Leighton and Associates report, stated he felt the report by the Professor had missed several important factors, and using the Leighton report and references as a source of data, even though that report was lacking much information, he determined that the fault does not fall totally within the setback zone. He said he also found there was an assumption made in determining the liquefaction potential, where the first step is to determine the magnitude of earthquake that is possible to occur and plan the liquefaction potential using the engineering 6-25-90 techniques and criteria based upon that proposed earthquake, this being a factor that Dr. Arulanandan did not address, and as stated in the Dames and Moore report that judgement is left to the owner of the land. Dr. Finney said to predict the magnitude of an earthquake that could occur along that fault there are two variations of criteria that can be used, or peak ground acceleration, one scenario being the maximum probable earthquake, the other the maximum credible earthquake. He stated'to determine the maximum probable quake one must first look at the site itself, then the history of earthquakes along the fault zone and within the region within approximately one hundred years, the subject fault having existed for a million years or more. He noted the peak acceleration number that was arrived at in the Leighton report varied from .13 to .22 and subsequently when the report was submitted to the Coastal Commission it was suggested that .28 be used. He added that in determining the maximum credible earthquake the report used a maximum regional earthquake of magnitude seven on the Newport/Inglewood fault zone which passes through the site, the numbers derived used several references for acceleration and varied from .54 to .69, yet states that since those equations were developed, additional accelerogram data has been recovered from 1987 earthquakes with acceleration varying from 0.5 to in excess of 1.0, therefore based upon that data the report stated a reasonable estimate of a maximum credible earthquake acceleration applicable to the entire site is 0.7. Dr. Finney offered his explanation of how that relates to determining the liquefaction potential, that the average cyclic stress ratio must be determined for each layer sampled, of forty-eight borings and twenty-two cone penetration tests only twenty-eight horizons were given as data points and based only on the cone penetration tests, thus one can determine where the maximum ground acceleration is within the equation. He noted that the Leighton report used .28 as the number to determine liquefaction, yet if .7 is used the average cyclic stress ratio will be up to three times larger, which is a reflection of the amount of energy that can be released by the earthquake. He said that the nature of the materials are also a factor, determined by the difficulty of penetrating those materials, usually expressed by the modified penetration resistance or the number of blows per foot when pounding a four inch core into the ground with a one hundred forty pound weight, noting that in some cases the Leighton study used an eight inch bore. By graph, Dr. Finney provided a comparison, using the penetration blows, the cyclic stress ratio, and a magnitude seven earthquake, by plotting the lower ratio data of the Leighton report and a higher acceleration for the maximum credible earthquake, which he said would then fall within the liquefaction range. Dr. Finney stated he had looked at the report from a standpoint of being an expert in stratigraphy and structure, that he found many uncertainties with the report, that there is many different ways of interpreting the data, and that he would prefer to depend upon the values used by the California Division of Mines and Geology of a magnitude seven earthquake. In response to Council, Dr. Finney said he could provide a written report for the City Council. Dr. Bruce Clark, Principal Engineering Geologist, Leighton and Associates, explained that survey data was used to determine the location of the fault and while the maps within the report were not surveyed maps, they will be at the time final design and construction are created for the site so that any discrepancy between the location of the fault and setback zone can be resolved and included in the final project design. He noted that a surveyed map will be I I I .' , ' 6-25-90 I prepared at the time of grading plan review. Dr. Clark said he wished to responded to the earthquake amplitude matter, a complicated issue to which he would be willing to respond in writing. He stated that basically the acceleration values that Dr. Finney spoke of are referred to as instrumental peak ground acceleration values which is the largest acceleration that occurs once during the lifetime of the earthquake, and a much smaller number, which is the repeatable ground accelerations, and the number that is actually used for the calculations. Dr. Clark reported there are virtually no residential subdivisions, no non- critical structures, that are now built to the maximum credible earthquake, the maximum credible earthquake implying that during the lifetime of the buildings, something between one to two hundred years, an earthquake will occur directly beneath the site, and stated there is no indication that such earthquake is likely, that the chances of an earthquake of that size directly beneath the site are extremely small, possibly one in a thousand during the two hundred year period, and it would be similar to comparing an earthquake on the Newport/Inglewood fault which, to the best current understanding is once in three thousand years, to an earthquake on the San Andreas fault which occurs about once in two hundred forty years. Dr. Clark said the analysis of liquefaction was taken from a 1983 paper which is considered to be a more conservative analysis than the 1985 work which is now generally accepted in the geological and technical community. Dr. Clark commented on the report of Dr. Arulanandan, noted that he had recommended three types of analysis in order to perform a risk assessment, the first being liquefaction potential or whether liquefaction will occur at all, the second a settlement analysis, assuming that liquefaction does occur, then he questions how much the ground will settle at ground surface as a result of the liquefaction event, and third, surface manifestation, where during liquefaction sand boils form and the surface becomes distorted, and occasionally water rises with the sand. Dr. Clark said one problem with the Professor's report is that it still does not set a criterion for the site, that more and more studies could be conducted, and in doing so there may be one chance in ten thousand of finding that liquefaction may occur at that site, the issue then being to identify the level of risk and how that is applied to this site and all of the other sites that are proposed for construction in the area. He noted their report recommends a cutoff criterion or safety factor, and in the case of liquefaction it is possible to identify a factor of safety with a relationship to the seismic stress ratio to the resistance of stresses, in other words a number that is acceptable and identifies the safety applied to the site. He pointed out that the City of Los Angeles, a leader in this area, has not chosen a safety factor as yet, however 1.1 or greater has been recommended to this city in the report. Dr. Clark advised that they had requested an independent review of their report from Dr. Raymond Seed, son of Dr. Harry Seed of Berkeley, which has been received and copies provided the Council, and where there were some concerns they are willing to address those, the conclusion of the review being that the geotechnical issues associated with soil liquefaction appear to be resolvable for the proposed development, they will not be inexpensive, that there will be some areas where building can not take place, yet those issues have been included in the Leighton report and the plans. with regard to how the safety factor is calculated, Dr. Clark explained it is a ratio of what is interpreted or calculated to be the stresses that resist the liquefaction versus those that are likely to cause liquefaction, and if that does not drop below 1.0 then I I 6-25-90 liquefaction does not occur, noting that there is evidence from the Loma Prieta quake that the calculations in the past have been quite good, and virtually all of the sites that have been remediated in the Bay area performed properly during the earthquake. He stated the details for the calculations were identified in the 1970's and have been in use for at least five years, nationally and internationally. with regard to Dr. Clark's mention of a written response, councilmember Hastings requested the Council be provided a copy thereof. Councilmember Forsythe made reference to oil field areas were there is uncertainty as to whether fluids have been pumped back into the formations, and asked if that is mitigatable. Dr. Clark stated it is their understanding that replacement fluids have been pumped in this field for a number of years and since 1970 this area has risen about 1.2 feet where it had been subsiding from about 1933 to 1970 and was related to the southerly portion of the Wilmington oil field. He explained that if oil is pumped slowly, the water replaces the oil and no settlement takes place, noting also that the depth of the Seal Beach field i~ between five to eight thousand feet therefore equal water for oil replacement would probably not make the area more or less stable. Dr. Finney made reference to the comment that the acceleration numbers contained in the report were somewhat conservative for a maximum probable earthquake, and made comparison between the Whittier and Newport/Inglewood faults, similar fault systems with quakes in the magnitudes of 6.0 and 6.3, with actual ground accelerations reported by Dames and Moore in the .5 to 1.0 range, which is SUbstantially higher. He referred to the importance of knowing the exact location of the fault, yet the Leighton report shows only one cross section to determine that location and the cross section does not show the fault, also that the report does not contain data on the trench that is on the property. With regard to the fault location, he said the Leighton report mentioned the work of Medall, also the work of Bryant, California Division of Mines 1988 report, and Dr. Finney stated in plotting that work he determined it shows a different location as well as evidence of another splay within the area. Dr. Clark explained that the acceleration values reported for the Whittier fault and the Loma Prieta fault, and contained in the Leighton report are instrumental peak ground accelerations and despite the .6 acceleration values for the Whittier quake, there was no liquefaction even though there is a deep alluvial valley nearby where liquefaction could have occurred, the reason being that the high accelerations take place only once, they were bedrock accelerations which tend to be higher than in the soft materials, therefore those single number values can not be used for this type of analysis. He noted that in the Loma Prieta quake, Foster City was an area where fill had been placed and appropriately compacted, and they suffered no damage from that quake where nearby San Francisco did, explaining that the San Francisco accelerations were .33 yet the same earthquake waves through Foster City were .12, therefore the near surface ground conditions do affect the acceleration values. He also pointed out that the highest ground acceleration that has been established with Loma Prieta was .64 at a small town east of Santa Cruz, a bedrock site, and explained that type of high frequency acceleration wave does not go through alluvial materials and such single pulse does not produce liquefaction. Dr. Clark said that the Medall work of 1979/80 has been widely available as public information, and that the 1988 California Mines report covered a broad area on seven and one-half minute quadrangle maps for the location of the Newport/Inglewood fault from offshore Newport Beach to Hollywood, that the detail shown in that investigation was not sufficient to use for site investigation, and pointed out that the U. s. I I I 6-25-90 I Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360 in the California Division of Mines Scenario Report specifically states that information was not to be used for site specific evaluations because the information was not sufficiently accurate. With regard to the fault location, Dr. Clark said he felt it was important to rely on the survey data since the information was clearly shown from the trenches and work done in 1979, that the people who conducted the work were reinterviewed and their observations at that time were examined in detail, and pointed out that the 1933 quake that effected the area from off the Newport Beach coast north to Signal Hill did not break the ground surface, which shows it is possible to realize a sizeable earthquake without ground breakage, however since there was evidence that some ground breakage had taken place during the late Pleistocene time at the edge of Gum Grove Park, a setback. from that area has been provided. The City Attorney clarified that if the intent of the Council was to close the hearing, the options would be to approve, deny, or continue the project, noting that the applicant had made a statement that they would be willing to continue the item further if the City wanted to receive additional information. Mr. Oderman stated he had received the proposed Resolution for denial of the project just prior to the meeting and had not had the opportunity to address that document, and that he found it interesting that Dr. Finney had been requested to provide further seismic information in writing, and that Dr. Clark had likewise offered additional written information. He said the findings set forth in the Resolution regarding the seismic issue, which would be the only justification to rely upon for denial, did not state that the site is not buildable, nor that there are hazards that can not be mitigated, nor questions the accuracy of any of the geologic information that has been provided, yet does state there is more study required, and stated the applicant has agreed to provide additional study if that is the desire of the Council and is requested. Councilmember Hastings retracted the request for written comments from Dr. Finney and Dr. Clark. Mr. Oderman said if there is a legitimate concern regarding the liquefaction potential on the portion of the project located to the west of the earthquake fault, they would be willing to offer to the Council a further compromise position, that the Tentative Tract Map and other items under consideration be approved for the portion of the project on the upland area of the property, and defer action on the remaining area in order to allow the further study that is claimed to be needed. Mayor Wilson called for the public hearing to be closed. I I The city Attorney clarified that the Resolution for denial was prepared based upon issues that have been raised during the course of the public hearings on this project. He stated if consideration is given to the Resolution, he would recommend certain corrections and one addition to Resolution Number 3937, that the word "suggests" be deleted from the last sentence of Section 6 of the Findings to read "This new evidence indicates..."; that the word "if" be deleted from the second sentence of Section 6(b) of the Findings to read "Moreover, there is evidence :tbn three other identified faults..."; that in the fourth sentence of Section 7 of the Findings the word "portion" be changed to "portions"; that the third line of Section 5 be corrected to read "...evaluate City-initiated amendments..."; and a possible addition to the end of Section 2 of the Findings regarding archaeological resources to read "Additionally, new evidence 6-25-90 has been presented indicating that significant archaeological resources exist on the site that have not been adequately studied and that further study and review is required to ensure that all archaeological resources are properly identified and that no archaeological resources are inadvertently destroyed or damaged." Councilman Hunt inquired if the City had been made aware of the comments of the Mola representative to not build on the lowlands prior to this time, and if those comments would have any significant bearing on draft Resolution Number 3937. The city Attorney responded that it was not known that there would be a formal proposal until just prior to this meeting commencing, again stated the options of the Council to approve, deny, or continue, and offered that if the Council chose to address the issue of only partially approving the project, approving the upland and not the lowland areas, that would require modification of the documents under consideration for approval. with regard to whether the applicants request would determine that the Resolution for denial should not be considered, he said he felt the Resolution continues to stand independent of the request for a number of reasons, explained that the document does address seismic safety issues more than once, yet there are other basic issues involved in terms of the Specific Plan as proposed. He pointed out that although the Specific Plan approval would carry out the project, the issue before the Council is a legislative policy decision or judgment that the Council will need to make as to whether the policies, standards, and regulations set forth in that Plan are appropriate for that site, and of particular importance where, in this City, for properties zoned SPR, Specific Plan Regulations, the zoning for that property is the Specific Plan. He added that he did not feel the alternatives are a legal question at this time, yet a policy decision of the Council as to what option is appropriate in this particular case, and with regard to the proposal by the applicant, that too would be a policy decision of the council. The city Attorney advised that there had previously been an issue as to whether there had been a conflict of interest by Mr. Grgas participating in the proceedings, that the issue had been reviewed and a report provided to the Council with a determination that there was no conflict that would affect the deliberations presently before the Council. I I Hastings moved, second by LaSZlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3937, as amended, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 13198, AN AMENDMENT TO THE HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3937 was waived. Mayor Wilson called for any comments the Council may wish to make. Councilmember Hastings chose to postpone her comments at this time. Councilmember Forsythe stated the parkland proposed for this project was important to her, as it was to a number of persons in the audience, however noted that I although the Land Use Development Plan delineates acreages for certain purposes, a footnote to Section 4 states there is to be a possible opportunity for a five acre City park and contemplation that this area would be purchased by the City from the owner of area four or area seven, therefore she stated the park is not presently an absolute certainty. She referred to the Development Agreement and reference to community park, which she said is a concept without formal agreement for that parkland, also made reference to reports of the Coastal Commission, Dames and Moore, and others, many with conflicting opinions regarding the seismic safety . - , 6-25-90 I issues, the mitigation measures, etc., and stated those concerns would be the basis for her vote. Councilmember Hastings indicated the parkland dedication was a concern of hers also. Councilman Laszlo said his vote would be based upon the safety of present and future citizens of the City, and pointed out the evidence presented claiming that there are hazards on the property. Councilman Hunt noted the difficulty for communities such as Seal Beach to acquire park and open space land, and to him, that was one of the opportunities of this project. He recalled that originally the one hundred fifty acre project was proposed for condominiums and single family homes with an anticipated ninety-five acres of open space in the form of a golf course and Gum Grove Park, however as time progressed the project changed, now consists of three hundred twenty-nine homes, twenty-six acres of park, five additional acres available for purchase, and other benefits such as $1 million cash, park improvements and maintenance for a period of ten years, a package which he said he felt was about the best a developer could offer based upon the financial analysis that had been done for the city. Councilman Hunt emphasized that the benefits to be realized from the project are absolutely firm, set forth within the project approval documents, and in the event any of the benefits did not occur Mola would be denied further approvals. He noted that the issue being considered is a land use decision, subject to Federal, state, and local laws which protect property rights as well as the interests of the citizenry, and stated that if it was the intent of the Council to not proceed with this project there must be strong, factual evidence in conformance with State law to deny the development of private property, and although the Resolution proposed represents a best effort to develop such findings, from a personal standpoint he disagreed with the findings given the geological data that has been provided and actions of other approving agencies. He added it is somewhat alarming to him that if the project is not approved, something will eventually occur on that site, predicting high density development on the highland area along Seal Beach Boulevard, which may be much less desirable than this development, also if a condition were created that would cause the property to lose value, that would be a violation of the Constitution. Councilman Hunt said it was his intent to support the project, which he felt was an excellent plan. Mayor Wilson said she felt after more than four years, numerous hearings, attempts to meet citizen desires, modification of plans, a decision should be made. She again mentioned her preference for the original plan that provided a golf course and affordable housing, however compromised for the present plan that provides over thirty acres of recreation area, expanded Gum Grove, ball diamonds, increased wetlands, and a considerably lower number of units. She pointed out that the project has been reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission, corps of Engineer, Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, the Planning Commission and prior Council, that the geotechnical concerns have been addressed, that archaeological concerns will be mitigated, that current building standards address development in earthquake areas, and stated her opinion that the area could safely be built upon. Councilman Laszlo said he felt testimony had brought forth new information, that the project is proposed on the Newport/Inglewood fault, in an area of high liquefaction, and although the Coastal Commission approved the project a condition was required to be placed on the deed that would preclude a legal action against the Commission. councilmember Hastings spoke to the provisions for parkland, noted that the development agreement calls for detailed park improvements to be set forth by separate agreement, that the I I 6-25-90 park plan was developed however was not formally approved by the prior Council, therefore stated the park is only a concept, and questioned why such agreement had not been developed. She commented on the five acre parcel proposed to be obtained at fair market value, yet stated the exact location is yet unknown, that the City will receive the $1 million upon the sale of the two hundred forty-seventh home yet by that time $367,500 in interest will have been paid I the Hellman Trust, and given the price of the parcel, the five acre ball diamond will cost the City $1,102,500, and Hellman would still have the option to move the location. Councilman Hunt made reference to current selling prices for lots in Old Town and land in general in a coastal area, and said he felt if land can be purchased for $150,000 an acre that would represent a good investment, and in this case it is even more desirable since it can be purchased with tax increment. The city Attorney clarified that the Resolution, based upon the findings set forth, denies the project as proposed which includes the Vesting Tentative Map, the amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan, and the Development Agreement, and further, directs staff to prepare a City initiated amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan and the General Plan to provide appropriate development, including residential uses on portions of the site suitable for development considering the factors set forth in Resolution Number 3937, which were the concerns identified by the Council as part of its findings. Vote on the motion to adopt Resolution Number 3937: AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried I It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:44 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET Mayor Wilson declared the continued public hearing open to consider the 1990/91 fiscal year budget. The City Clerk certified that the notice of public hearing had been published for the June 11th meeting, that the notice of continuance had been posted as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. 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. Ms. Francis Johnson, Catalina Avenue, inquired about the proposed trash separation plan, and indicated her objection to paying for recycling. The City Manager reported that pursuant to State law cities are mandated to reduce solid waste at the landfill sites by twenty-five percent by 1995 and fifty percent by year 2000, to implement a recycling plan to achieve waste reduction, and that proposals will be forthcoming to the Council in the near future. He noted I that the trash contractor has made a proposal to maintain the twice per week collection and to implement a recycling program at a minimal rate increase, that consideration is being given to soliciting bids for recycling services, also possibly join with other Orange County cities for preparation of the needed waste characterization study. Mr. Mark SOUkup, 310 - 16th Street, inquired as to the use of PERS funds in balancing the budget. The City Manager explained that the city, as the employer and as the result of past labor negotiations, contributes a percentage of payroll to the Public Employees Retirement System, the 6-25-90 I percentage of contribution quite often adjusted annually. He stated in the case of miscellaneous employees PERS shows the city has a surplus on deposit, that the City is allowed to take the credit and make no contribution for the year, and that it has been recommended that the credit be taken this year with the understanding that at some point in the future that credit will not be available. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, spoke of a recent request submitted to the City for information regarding payments to the City Attorney firm, and the amounts paid to and received from Mola Development and the Bixby Company. Mr. Stark detailed the personnel costs and administrative charges of the bill he received from the City for the information requested, questioned certain expenditures and suggested they be looked at more closely, inCluding employee salaries, and objected to various organizations seeking financial help from the City where the alternative should be fund raising efforts. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th street, referred to the proposal to increase the residential parking sticker fee, to which he said he would object if the amount is in any way significant, stating that the purpose of the sticker was to provide street parking for residents and encourage beach goers to use the parking lots, and charged that the cost of the stickers is not comparable to parking citation revenue generated. With regard to recycling and reduction of refuse, Mr. Antos suggested that the City look at systems that exist that can reduce the amount of trash going to landfills by up to ninety-five percent, and not rely on the County Solid Waste Plan, nor enter into a recycling contract that will increase costs to the residents and force the refuse collector to provide additional equipment and haulers. Mr. Antos offered to provide a copy of the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. Mayor Wilson explained that the Council determined to not increase the resident parking sticker for the upcoming year. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. I I At the request of Council, the City Manager explained that the top salary step for a Senior Account Clerk is approximately $30,000 annually or $14 per hour, with benefits in the range of twenty-three percent. He noted in years past Seal Beach has been considerably below the average of Orange County cities in the clerical category, however more recently the Council has moved towards compensation more comparable to the County average. In response to Mr. Stark's reference to a $700 expenditure to the Green Pepper Restaurant, the city Manager explained each year the city sponsors an employee recognition dinner and this year that function was held at the Senior citizens Center of the Mary Wilson Library, the dinner catered by the Green Pepper. With regard to questions of Councilmember Forsythe, he reported Gum Grove Park is on a month to month lease arrangement with Hellman provided the city pays the property tax, those funds provided in the budget, and the Public Works Director advised that the Volunteer Firefighters recently watered the Gum Grove in conjunction with a drill, and offered to request it be done again. Councilman Hunt expressed his desire that a water and sewer reserve fund be established in the next budget in order to be somewhat prepared for future needs of those facilities, also additional monies for repair of the groin and sidewalk repair. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3949 - APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT (GANNI - 1990/91 Resolution Number 3949 was presented to council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, 6-25-90 CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990/91 AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS PROPOSITION 4, THE GANN INITIATIVE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3949 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3949 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3950 - ADOPTING 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET Resolution Number 3950 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990/91." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3950 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3950 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PRESENTATION The City Manager recognized Ms. Robin Koons, current General Telephone District Manager representing Orange County and announced she will soon be representing Los Angeles County cities, and introduced Mr. Tom Facon who will assume the Orange County District Manager position. Ms. Koons expressed appreciation for the positive manner in which the City worked with General Telephone, and Mr. Facon said he was lOOking forward to working with Seal Beach. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Street Lighting Assessment District Number 1 for fiscal year 1990/91. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing, as set forth by Resolution Number 3946, had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The city Engineer presented the staff report, noted that the assessment is unchanged from 1989/90 fiscal year, and reviewed the specific assessment amounts of the four Zones. With regard to the difference in assessment amounts between the downtown area and College Park East, West, the Hill, and Coves, he explained that the lot size in Old Town is generally twenty-five feet wide as opposed to the typical fifty foot lots in the other areas, therefore there are a greater number of properties to cover the assessment. There being no comments from the audience, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3951 - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Resolution Number 3951 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990/91." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3951 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3951 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3952 - CABLE COMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT OF 1984 Resolution Number 3952 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO REVISE THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1984 AND EXPRESSING GENERAL CONCERN 1- I I 6-25-90 I ABOUT THE NEED FOR GREATER LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3952 was waived. The city Manager the reported League of cities and a number of cities throughout California have encouraged modification of federal communication regulations to allow telephone companies that currently provide wire communications to participate in cable television communication services. He noted the Council was in receipt of information from General Telephone in support of the proposal and a letter from Comcast Cable in opposition, and stated he was not aware of the Orange County League having taken a position on this matter to date. Councilman Laszlo expressed concern with the impact this issue may have on the franchise fees that the city currently realizes, also with regard to public access programming. Members of the Council agreed with those concerns. Mr. Facon, General Telephone, stated the city of Cypress and the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley/stanton/ Westminster Cable Authority have approved resolutions in support of telcos entering the cable business. He also responded that GTE supports franchise fees for the use of public rights-of-way, buildings, and maintaining their network, that the new fibre network would only involve replacinq copper cable with fibre cable, a program that has been followed for years in improving their network, and that the issue of whether a separate franchise fee for video programming would be appropriate, since telephone companies pay a franchise fee for rights-of-way, would be left open for discussion with the cities. Mr. Facon pointed out that the fiber optics technology is more expensive than copper, yet the feeling in the industry is that the cost of placing fiber optic cable will reach a break even point with copper and in the next two years it will be very inexpensive for the telephone companies to replace their copper plant with fiber optics, affording the opportunity to provide telephone as well as video service. Councilman Hunt said that was his specific concern, that once fiber optics are in place there will be so many options for service that the present cable provider, that has made a substantial investment, will be out of the competition. Councilman Laszlo again stated he felt franchise fees and community access programming may be jeopardized, also that the telephone customer will most likely assume the cost of the fiber optics system, and spoke in support of reregulation of the cable industry. Councilman Laszlo stated he wished to discuss this subject with persons in this industry, and moved to hold this item over until the next meeting. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3955 - TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES Resolution Number 3955 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ITS 1990 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES; APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT, TERMS OF SALE, NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANT; PLEDGING REVENUES AND ENTERING INTO CERTAIN TAX COVENANTS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID NOTES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3955 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3955. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried 6-25-90 RESOLUTION NUMBER 3956 - ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM Resolution Number 3956 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, INFORMING THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3956 was waived. In response to Councilmember Forsythe, the City Engineer explained that II Bolsa Avenue is on the Orange County Master Plan for Arterial Highways, that he did not believe receiving funds ' under this Program would in any way be an obligation to allow widening of Bolsa as a traffic corridor at some future time, that the project underway is merely for resurfacing of that street, which is a primary function of this Program. Mr. Jue reported he had inquired if soundwalls would qualify under the Program and was informed they would not. Councilmember Forsythe requested that staff investigate if improvements such as sidewalks and landscaping would qualify for funding since Bolsa is an arterial. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3956 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The city Engineer reported $120,000 had been budgeted for Bolsa Avenue improvements and the low bid was $90,000. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "N" throuah "T" Councilmembers Forsythe and Hastings indicated they would abstain from voting on Items "0" and IIp'' therefore those items were removed for separate action, and Councilman Laszlo also requested Item "0" removed. Wilson moved, I second by Laszlo, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "0" and "P", as presented. N. Approved regular demands numbered 79717 through 79950 in the amount of $1,068,968.36 and payroll demands numbered 40503 through 40683 in the amount of $212,973.78 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. Q. Accepted the resignation of Mr. William LaBar from the Civil Service Board representing District Four and declared the position to be vacant. R. Denied the claim for damages of John Spencer and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. S. Denied the claim for damages of Kerry C. Murphy and referred same to the City'S liability attorney and adjuster. T. Bids were received until June 18, 1990, 1:30 p.m. for Project Number 569, Reconstruction/ Overlay of Bolsa Avenue as follows: I Silvia Construction Company R. J. Noble Company Excel Paving Company Vernon Paving Company Sully Miller Contracting Company All American Asphalt $ 90,800.14 94,300.34 94,462.78 95,986.90 99,994.80 100,765.64 6-25-90 Awarded the bid for Project Number 569, Reconstruction/Overlay of Bolsa Avenue to the low bidder, Silvia Construction Company, in the amount of $90,800.14, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "0" - APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Laszlo referred to Ordinance Number 1303 regarding handbills and signs and questioned if his vote was accurately reflected on that item. The city Clerk recalled that there had been a no vote on the urgency Ordinance, yet a yes vote on the second reading of Ordinance 1303, and offered to verify that vote. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 23rd, subject to verification of that vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Forsythe, Hastings Motion carried ITEM "P" - APPROVAL OF MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of May 7, 1990. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Forsythe, Hastings Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Environmental Oualitv Control Board Councilmember Forsythe requested that the District Three appointment be held over. Councilman Hunt moved to reappoint Mr. Steve Gavlick to the Environmental Quality Control Board representing District Five for the full term expiring July, 1994. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Parks and Recreation Commission Councilmember Hastings moved to appoint Mary Williams to the Parks and Recreation Commission representing District One for the full term expiring July, 1993. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Mayor Wilson moved, to reappoint Ms. Mary Helen Finch to the Parks and Recreation Commission representing District Two for the full term expiring July, 1993. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Citizens ParticiDation Committee The District One, District Three, and District Five appointments to the Citizens Participation Committee were held over until the next meeting. 6-25-90 Seal Beach Administration Buildina Authoritv Councilmember Hastings moved to reappoint Ms. Mitzi Morton to the Seal Beach Administration Building Authority representing District One for the full term expiring JUly, 1994. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Councilman Laszlo requested that the District Four appointment to the Seal Beach Administration Building Authority be held over. Pro;ect Area Committee The District Three resident representative and business representative, Friends of the Library nominee, Seal Beach Historical Society nominee, and San Gabriel Parks Society nominee were held over until the next meeting. Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation Councilmember Hastings moved to appoint Mr. Laird Mueller to the Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation representing District One for the full term expiring July, 1992. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Mayor Wilson moved to reappoint Mr. James Clow to the Cable Communications Foundation representing District Two for the full term expiring July, 1992. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Councilman Laszlo moved to reappoint Mr. Kenneth Yglesias to the Cable Communications Foundation representing District Four for the full term expiring July, 1992. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Hunt moved to appoint Mr. Harold Robertson to the Cable Communications Foundation representing District Five for the full term expiring July, 1992. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried The District Three appointment to the Cable Communications Foundation was held over until the next meeting. Councilman Hunt moved that those persons leaving the various boards and commissions be presented a Seal Beach plaque in appreciation for their services. Councilmember Forsythe seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I 75th Anniversarv Steerina Committee Mayor Wilson moved to appoint Ms. Harriet Eagle to the 75th Committee representing District Two. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried 6-25-90 Housina Element Councilman Hunt Housing Element Wilson seconded Committee moved to appoint Ms. Mildred Tuttle to the Committee representing District Five. Mayor the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I Councilmember Forsythe moved to appoint Ms. Suzanne Maricich to the Housing Element Committee representing District Three. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Mayor Wilson moved to appoint Mr. Les Eagle to the Housing Element Committee representing District Two. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENT - LEAGUE OF CITIES - SPECIAL MEETING - MEASURE M The City Manager reported the Orange County Division of the League requested appointment of a representative to attend a special meeting on July 12th to discuss Measure M, which is anticipated to be placed on the November ballot by the Orange County Transportation Commission. I Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to appoint Mayor Wilson as the city's representative to the special meeting. Councilman Laszlo reported that he, Councilmembers Forsythe and Hastings recently attended a regional transportation committee meeting in Los Alamitos, that he felt Seal Beach will not realize much benefit from the one-half cent sales tax for traffic improvements should Measure M be passed, and requested that the Mayor try to include widening of the freeway overpass on the priority list of projects, which was one item of discussion at the recent meeting. Councilman Hunt suggested this matter be placed on the next agenda to allow the Council to take a formal position for the Mayor to carry to the meeting. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION Councilmember Forsythe also made reference to the transportation study meeting and reported that within the written materials there was mention of further analysis and data collection recommended for Pacific Coast Highway in Sunset and Seal Beach, initiation of a study to determine a means to alleviate traffic congestion in those areas, and noted her concern is that CalTrans may look to widening, therefore the loss of the parking and possibly the median. She reported that the City of Newport Beach, in an effort to protect Pacific Coast Highway from being widened from that City through Corona del Mar, adopted a resolution, with findings, to maintain the parallel parking on both sides of the Highway, and requested that staff look into the Newport Beach action and determine if it could be applied to Seal Beach. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Forsythe reported complaints regarding smoking in City Council Chambers and asked if that could be considered. Councilman Laszlo suggested that be postponed for the time being. Councilman Laszlo mentioned the 6-25-90 adoption of a Resolution at last meeting requesting that the Airport Land Use Commission not delay action on the AICUZ study, that at a recent SCAG Aviation Committee meeting there were comments that adoption of that study would be unwise, and reported since that time the Army has withdrawn their study under pressure from legislators and cities at the approach end of the Armed Forces Reserve Center. He said if the study is again considered it would most likely I not be until late 1991 or 1992. The City Clerk confirmed that at the request of Councilman Laszlo, the resolution had not been forwarded to the Airport Land Use Commission. Councilman Laszlo expressed his objection to a letter from the President of Cal state Long Beach with regard to Dr. Winchell, who had addressed the Council a number of time regarding the Mola project, and to the objection to the use of University stationery. He stated his intent to respond to the letter and voice his concern regarding curtailment of academic freedom, and recalled that Dr. Winchell had made it clear that he was not speaking under the auspices of the University, but for himself, and that he had used University stationery merely to identify his affiliation and credentials. Councilman Hunt reported his attendance at a recent West Orange County Water Board meeting, the primary function of that body being to manage the water lines between the Metropolitan Water District and the four cities, and stated only routine business was conducted. Councilmember Hastings reported it was recently learned there was a notice of foreclosure on the old city Hall building and grounds, that she has, collected and studied data relating to that property, and stated she would make a report to Council regarding this matter at the next meeting subsequent to receipt and review of new information that is forthcoming. Mayor Wilson reported a citizen has expressed I concern that free speech is being violated during the ~eetings by not allowing hand clapping, etc., and referred to Resolution Number 2874, adopted in 1979, that sets forth the conduct of City Council meetings, and specifically to Section 12.d relating to disturbances during meetings, and 11.a relating to time limitation of comments. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, requested that in the future budget workshops be held in the evening rather than daytime, and that consideration be given to rezoning the Hellman property to oil extraction, urban forest, and wetlands, and that the remaining land be zoned for agriculture until such time as a plan for that property is developed. He also asked if, when investigating conflicts of interest of elected officials, the Charter is considered. The City Attorney responded that in the case of an alleged conflict of interest, the Charter provisions, which are based upon the Government COde, are taken into consideration, however noted that the Charter was adopted prior to the Fair Political Practices Act which are the primary regulations. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, commended the Mayor'S efforts to bring decorum to the conduct of Council meetings, and I spoke for the City to start working together for the good of " all. He suggested the Council may now wish to address issues that are in need of consideration, that urban forest, as defined in the Public Resources COde, be considered for preservation of trees on public and quasi-public land; that the thirty-five foot height limit be enforced without exception; a disaster clause to allow people to rebuild what they presently own without going though a major rebuilding effort; resolve the issue of garages that are too short on the Hill; deed the Redevelopment Agency held P. E. Right-of- Way to the City as a park in perpetuity; that Ocean Avenue 6-25-90 I from First street to the San Gabriel River is a city street and the Department of Water of Power should be required to remove the fence; that it should be determined whether there is or is not a parking problem; that the term density should be defined, questioning if it is lot coverage, the number of people that occupy a house, or how property can be subdivided; questioned how much is paid for all legal services, suggesting there be a Charter Amendment to provide for an elected city Attorney; questioned the recent burning of two lifeguard stations, suggesting that to be a waste of money, where they could serve as shelter for the homeless; and that the city should solicit bids for trash recycling rather than contract with Briggeman which will be a cost to the residents and a loss of twice per week. pickups. Councilman Laszlo asked that the issue of the P. E. Right- of-Way be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Staff explained that the Redevelopment Agency does not pay the maintenance costs of the Right-of-Way. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 11:33 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:42 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. with regard to the lifeguard towers, the City Manager explained that the building inspectors had determined that the towers could not be repaired given the extensive dry rot and general deterioration, therefore in response to a request of the call firefighters, the towers were used for a live-fire exercise. He noted that on occasion towers have been sold to other agencies when they have been in a less deteriorated condition. I Ms. Anna Christensen, 259 Termino Avenue, Long Beach, Secretary to the Native American Coalition of Southern California, read in full a June 25, 1990 communication from Moira Hahn, 1515-1/2 Ocean Avenue, regarding the June 11th Archaeological Report from LSA on the proposed Mola project, and a June 25th communication from Dr. E. Gary Stickel, Principal Director of Research, Environmental Research Archaeologists, with regard to review of the Research Design of Beth Paden, LSA. Ms. Christensen offered to provide copies of the communications for the record. I Councilman Hunt excused himself from the meeting at 12:00 midnight. Ms. Christensen asked if digging is continuing on the Hellman site, and requested support to have the digging concluded. The city Attorney said that since there is no longer a project, he would suggest that staff contact LSA to determine their intent with regard to further research, and noted that although the property owner could have the right to continue their research, if there was a potential for damage to significant resources the City would have an interest in that matter. Ms. Christensen stated it would also be necessary to obtain a Coastal permit to continue the research. Ms. Barbara Antoci, 1502 Ocean Avenue, again requested that the Attorney General's Office be asked to conduct an investigation of the Police Department matters considered by the Grand Jury. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No additional Closed Session was held. 6-25-90/7-9-90 ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 12:04 a.m. I Approved: --e~ .J{. ~~ Attest: Seal Beach, California July 9, 1990 The city Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ProTem Laszlo Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt Mayor Wilson I Absent: Hunt moved, second by Forsythe, to excuse the absence of Mayor Wilson from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Ms. Lynch, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Forsythe 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: ABSENT: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I PRESENTATION Mayor ProTem Laszlo presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Owen Meehling in recognition for his years of dedicated service to the children of the community as a school crossing guard. Mr. Meehling accepted the Certificate with appreciation.