Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1990-11-13 11-5-90/11-13-90 I previous EIR and the statistics of that document as factual information, and inquired if City staff could review the EIR and pinpoint areas such as traffic, air quality, etc., that should likewise be updated. Councilmember Hastings noted the analysis of the project had shown an approximate $175,000 shortfall, that the proposed initiative is based on the same plan and EIR, therefore it appears that an update of the financial analysis is intended to benefit the initiative that may be before the voters. Mayor ProTem Laszlo inquired if Michael Brandman & Associates had indicated that Mola Development is seeking an update of the financial analysis, what recourse the City would have to such request, or if another firm could be selected by the City to do the analysis. Mr. Archibold stated the City could not prevent Mola from doing a revised analysis, however the City would have the option of requesting a separate financial study. There were no Oral Communications and no Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 10:23 a.m. Cl. ci 1 Approved: ~.....j~/~r Mayor Pro Tem Attest: Seal Beach, California November 13, 1990 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo .1 Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting city Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 11-13-90 CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters, a matter of pending litigation regarding Mola Corporation versus city of Seal Beach, and a matter of threatened litigation against the city. It was the unanimous consensus of the Council to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. The Council I reconvened at 6:50 p.m. with no action reported to have been taken on the previously announced items of discussion. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. clerk of the Approved: ~~) ':f.. ~~ ~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California November 13, 1990 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:02 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Councilmember Hastings reported of a request to read I Resolution Number 3985 in full. 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 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 11-13-90 PRESENTATIONS I 75th Anniversarv Committee - Resolutions Numbered 3989 and ~ Resolution Number 3989 was presented to Council and read in full by Mayor Wilson entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF , THE COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY's 75th ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION" as was Resolution Number 3990 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, cALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT PARTICIPANTS FOR THE CITY's 75th ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION." Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolutions Numbered 3989 and 3990 as presented. Mayor Wilson presented a copy of the respective Resolution, a commemorative plaque, and a floral bouquet to each Committee member and the representative of each of the community support groups, and each member of the Committee was presented with a 75th Anniversary banner. " . AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Members of the Council extended appreciation for the success of the 75th Anniversary celebration and efforts of the Committee. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, Committee Chairperson, expressed appreciation to the City on behalf of the Committee. 1 Seal Beach International FriendshiD Association Ms. Barbara Wright, President of the Seal Beach Friendship Association, read a communication addressed to the City Council with regard to Seal Beach's sister City, Todas Santos in Baja Sur, reporting that a meeting was held on October 26th with a delegation from La Paz and Todas Santos, Mayor Wilson and representatives of the City and Friendship Association, at which time a youth cultural exchange was discussed that would involve baseball and swimming teams. Ms. Wright requested that the Council appoint an individual to act as liaison to Todos Santos, that the Recreation Department be responsible for a June, 1991 swim exchange and competitions, and that the Seal Beach Kids Baseball Association be responsible for selecting children for a baseball exchange with Todas Santos. It was the consensus of the Council to continue this item until a future agenda. AGENDA AMENDED Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to consider items "DD", "EE", "FF", "II", and "JJ" after items "C" and "D", proclamations. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed November 18th through November 24th, 1990 as "National Family Week." The Mayor proclaimed the holiday months of 1990 and all of 1991 as "BUCkle-Up For Life Challenge." ITEM "BB" - PETITION - LEISURE WORLD MUTUAL TWO - HELICOPTER NOISE ABATEMENT The Acting city Manager reported the City is in receipt of a petition from residents of Leisure World Mutual Two containing approximately six hundred signatures in objection to the noise generated from the helicopter operations at North American Rockwell, also receipt of a draft copy of 11-13-90 Rockwell Seal Beach Noise Study prepared by Heliport Consultants, Thousand Oaks, that study forwarded to the County Health Care Department for review and comment. Mrs. Bonnet Winter, 1231 Golden Rain Road, noted that the City has police powers over all land use within its boundaries, that Leisure World was constructed pursuant to the Codes ~f the city prior to Rockwell being allowed to develop their industrial site, without buffers to protect the adjacent residents from their activities, that the heliport was initially approved without public hearing, and more recently I approval was granted to relocate the heliport to an area closer to Leisure World residences, again without public input. She offered that the Planning commission and City Council have the authority to review conditional uses and land uses when there is a question of public nuisance arising or a change of conditions to cause adverse environmental impacts. Ms. winter stated that Mutual 2, of which she is the elected president, functions under the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and on behalf of the eight hundred sixty-four Mutual 2 shareholders she asked that the Council request the Planning commission and Planning Department to review Rockwell's development plan with specific attention to the relocation of the heliport site to an area where the noise that is appurtenant to landing and takeoff does not reverberate against the homes of Leisure World residents, and that there be a public process for the affected residents to express their concerns to this situation as well as to the potential traffic increases on Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard as a result of the proposed relocation of the Rockwell corporate headquarters to Seal Beach. Mr. Tom Lyons, Concerned Shareholders of Leisure World, stated he had filed a report and recording of the helicopter noise with Rockwell last November at which time he was advised that the problem would be presented to their corporate officers, which he I said it has not, and reported objection was raised to his suggestion to move the helicopter pad to the south of the buildings because there are building plans for that location. He said Rockwell had proposed to reroute the helicopter flight path, however sound readings showed there to be no difference, another alternative was to place the pad atop the building which also made a negligible difference. Mr. Lyons stated he had looked at the noise report prepared for Rockwell with some criticism, the readings not taking into consideration the wind factor or time of day, and concluded that relocation would reduce the noise level by 2.5db, which he said would be inadequate, made reference to the various noise levels contained in the report and charged that the Rockwell helicopters are operating in violation of the City'S noise ordinance. He added that the original flight application stated that the flights in and out would be listed separately, subsequently the FAA report allowed eighty flights per month, yet as many as twelve flights per day have been observed. Staff advised that a noise study has not been conducted by the City, that a study could be commenced through the County Health Department if that were the desire of the Council, which would take between thirty to forty-five days. councilman Hunt noted that the speakers have met with Rockwell and the I City, have seen no progress, have now submitted petitions of more than six hundred persons who have been subjected to this noise condition, and suggested that a commitment be made to investigate the situation, seek the assistance of the County, and take whatever action is necessary to obtain the cooperation of Rockwell for an action and enforcement of all existing regulations. Staff confirmed that an area to the south of the existing buildings is proposed for construction however there would be adequate remaining land that could be used for helicopter purposes. Discussion continued. The Development Services Director offered that .' .- t. 11-13-90 I staff could meet with Rockwell to inform them of the problem, discuss the issues and the current provisions of the City Code, meet with the Orange County Health Department to obtain the cost involved to obtain additional noise measurements, review the original CUP to determine the criteria under which the helicopter operation was granted, also contact the FAA to determine if there is violation of their regulations. Mrs. winter requested to be included in any meetings held with Rockwell. Councilman Laszlo requested a copy of the noise study prepared for Rockwell. Councilman Hunt introduced and read the background of Mr. Ernie Winter, whom he said he intended to appoint to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. 1 ITEM "EE" - HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN COMMITTEE Councilman Laszlo made reference to the initiative that is in the process of being circulated, sponsored by the developer, regarding the Hellman property Specific Plan, and said it has been suggested that there be an alternative to allow the voters a choice, therefore suggested that the Hellman Specific Plan Committee, formed prior to the initiative, be charged with the duty of developing a plan to likewise be placed on the ballot. Ms. Joyce Risner, member of the Hellman Specific Plan Committee, expressed her objection, stating she felt such action would politicize the Committee, forcing the development of a plan and evaluation of liquefaction, mitigation, etc. within a short time frame, where the Hellman plan was developed over a period of four and one-half years with citizen input to the Council, Planning Commission, various City commissions and State agencies. She stated that if another plan is proposed for the ballot it too should qualify through the initiative petition process. Ms. Risner confirmed that the initiative does have some financial support however those persons involved in the initiative petition process are not being paid, and in response to a question of Council stated the park plan, developed by the Recreation Commission, had received basic approval from the Council, yet formal approval had not been taken pending the second reading of the ordinances approving the project, and pointed out that the plan for the park is set forth in the initiative as are the guarantees that the park and wetlands will be constructed and completed. Councilmember Forsythe noted that the Specific Plan Committee was called for as part of the Resolution denying the Mola project, the Committee to develop a City initiated plan for the Hellman property. Discussion continued. with regard to a question as to whether a change to the Committee assignment at this time would constitute not serving the best interest of the City in view of the pending Mola lawsuit, the Assistant city Attorney responded he did not feel a directive to develop an initiative plan within a specific period of time would necessarily be a change in direction since the initial responsibility was to develop alternatives for the property to be considered by the City, that the only potential risk, which does not involve the initiative process, is if the Committee developed a plan that would not provide a reasonable, viable use of the property, which could lead to potential exposure, and should that be the case the Council would be made aware of such risk and it would likewise need to be addressed in the impartial analysis. Discussion continued. I Councilman Laszlo moved that the Hellman Specific Plan Committee be charged with the responsibility to develop a conceptual or complete plan by December 1st, or possibly the 11-13-90 concept of what is being considered by that date. Councilmember Forsythe requested that the motion be amended to extend the time frame by two weeks. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion as amended. Councilman Hunt stated he would oppose the motion, that the record reflects his opinion that the previous plan was satisfactory and took a number of years to develop, and in his opinion did not I feel it was realistic to expect the citizens committee to develop a plan with detail and definition sufficient to pass on to the electorate within a relatively short period of time. Mayor Wilson said she felt an alternative ballot measure was unnecessary since the voters will have the opportunity to express their views on the Hellman Specific Plan Amendment Initiative. Councilmember Forsythe noted the B-2, lower density plan, was developed in a relatively short period of time, also that it was felt that the Committee could resolve the questions and concerns that were set forth in the Resolution of denial of the Specific Plan, and if so, that should be placed on the ballot for consideration. Councilmember Hastings spoke for allowing the voters a choice, and called for the question. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 8:29 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:39 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. There was brief discussion with regard to public comments on agenda items and the procedure to call for the vote on a motion. I ITEM "FF" - WETLANDS RESTORATION SOCIETY - BALLOT MEASURE Councilman Laszlo said the Wetlands Restoration Society had requested that their plan be considered to be placed before the voters. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration Society, made reference to housing construction in the County, a reported reduction of development projects by the Irvine Company, and approximately twenty thousand homes in the planning stage within the City of Huntington Beach that will affect traffic and access to the freeways and impact Seal Beach. He said the plan to preserve the wetlands, in keeping with the Council decision with regard to the hazards of the Hellman Ranch, would be presented by the Secretary of the Wetlands Society. Mr. Don May, 2333 Elm Avenue, Long Beach, said he wished to present some reasonable approaches to the Hellman Ranch property, however it is difficult to develop a solid alternative as long as the Mola Corporation has an option on the land, yet it may be more reasonable to implement an alternative based upon the findings adopted by the Council in denying the Mola project. Mr. May made reference to various hazardous conditions that he said the City has found to exist on the Hellman property making it unsuitable as a building site, therefore it would now be logical to implement the findings by placing a hazardous overlay zone on that property. He said the current Initiative situation would make it difficult to bring forth Specific Plans where they can not presently be perfected, and offered that there are numerous agencies interested in funding restoration however are unable to act until such time as the Mola option is withdrawn, making specific reference to the Orange County Recreation Department, also to the need of a number of projects, such as the Disney Corporation with their proposal in Long Beach, to achieve a certain amount of restoration. He stated it is the belief of the Wetlands Society that if a hazardous overlay is I 11-13-90 I considered it too should be placed before the voters since a direct initiative takes precedence over an action of the Council and the courts look more favorably upon the initiative process. He offered that there may be a number of proposals for the subject property that would be a financial advantage to the Hellman family and most likely compatible with the oil production use currently on the site. Mr. May recommended that a hazardous zone overlay be submitted to the voters as an alternative to the Specific Plan Initiative, which would allow various open space uses that would not be incompatible with the site and provide a stronger legal position to implement whatever Specific Plan that may eventually be developed. He also suggested the Planning Commission be directed to consider industrial, residential, commercial and/or open space use for the bluff area. In response to Council, the Assistant City Attorney advised that from a procedural point there could be no action at this time on the action proposed by the Wetlands Society, noting the necessity to proceed through the planning process with appropriate public hearings to change the zoning or amend the General Plan, unless the Council chose to do so with a four-fifths vote, which he advised he would not recommend in view of pending litigation, pointing out also that the Hellman Specific Plan ballot initiative would prevail if adopted by the voters even if the Wetlands proposal was accepted for consideration through the planning process. with regard to a charge that such action could significantly reduce the value of the property, the Assistant City Attorney reported there is case law on the issue of taking, specifically noting a Los Angeles case where the Supreme Court determined that if cities take certain actions that can be viewed as diminishing the value of a property, damages can be incurred. Mr. May said the Society had used caution in phrasing their proposal to not only avoid intimation that the property value would be diminished but to point out that the Hellman Ranch would be permitted to continue the current land use, and with regard to the Mola litigation he added that a developer proceeds with speculation at their own risk. He again stated that a development proposal or potential financing source could not make a firm proposal for wetlands restoration on the Hellman property until such time as the Mola option ceases to exist, and acknowledged that the Ports had indicated there would be funds for restoration however there would be difficulty in acquiring the land. Mr. Tim Roberts, Director of Finance and Operations, Mola Development Corporation, said that he found the comments of Mr. May inaccurate as to the understanding of the relationship in the property of Mola Development and somewhat legally questionable for the Secretary of the Wetland Restoration Society to strategize a positioning effort for Mola to lose the option on the Hellman property, also made reference to the Wetland Restoration Society court appeal to place affordable housing on the subject property. Mr. Victor Grgas, 15th Street, referred to the petition effort thus far to place the Hellman Specific Plan Initiative on the ballot, and said he felt it would be unfair to consider placing the Wetland Society or the Specific Plan Committee before the voters simply by request and Council action. Mr. Grgas inquired how the City Attorney could render an impartial judgment on a concept plan that may be developed by the Specific Plan Committee without the benefit of an environmental or financial analysis, or evaluation as to whether the plan could be carried out, also stated he found it interesting that the Wetlands Society would request the Hellman property be zoned for a hazardous condition where at least two soils and geotechnical studies determined that the property can be I I 11-13-90 developed, and although the Wetlands proposal may seem plausible it is based on assumption that Mola has an option on the property, rather than the joint venture partnership with Hellman, therefore it would be necessary to purchase Mola's interests for them to leave the project. Mr. Roberts clarified that Mola Corporation is a participating partner throughout the development of the three hundred twenty-nine I home project. Mr. Galen Ambrose spoke for placing the Wetlands Restoration Society proposal on the ballot. Councilman Laszlo requested that the Wetlands Society provide their plan to the Council for placement on an upcoming agenda for consideration. Councilmember Forsythe expressed her feeling that community support would be needed for the Wetlands Plan, that the intent of the Hellman Specific Plan Committee was to bring together representatives of all factions of the City to develop a plan that was felt to be geologically safe, environmentally sensitive, and financially beneficial to the City, and that she could not support placing a variety of initiative plans on the ballot. Mr. Scott Whyte, 4416 Candleberry Avenue, made reference to previous comments regarding the taking of property, stated a taking would require an analysis with a finding that a governmental action, such as the hazardous overlay zone, would fail to substantially further a legitimate government goal, where in this case the resolution denying the Mola project for reasons of safety would constitute such finding, substantiated by subsections of Government Code Section 66474, also a finding that the property owner is denied an economically viable use of the land, and said the Wetlands proposal, with development on the bluff areas, would seem to be an economically viable use. Mr. Whyte made reference to a recent court opinion I involving the issue of taking, and in the case of the Hellman property where the present use is oil extraction, there would be no taking. Mr. Ambrose stated the hazardous overlay zone was proposed at this time in an effort to allow the Specific Plan Committee to develop an alternative plan for the Hellman property. The Council informed Ms. Barbara Wright, Crestview Avenue, that there had been no provision for alternate representatives to the Specific Plan Committee where the regular member was unable to attend the meetings. Ms. Suzanne Andre, 1300 Crestview Avenue, recalled a conversation at an Orange County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks meeting where an individual interested in the Hellman property stated that as long as the Mola option exists there would be no need to discuss a further use of that site. She noted that during recent years many residents were involved in attempting to modify original Mola development proposal, ultimately supporting the compromise of the three hundred twenty-nine unit plan, however expressed her opinion that several years ago the Hellman land was improperly rezoned without consideration of the now known seismic, soils, and geologic hazards on the site, and suggested that the Committee and the City now proceed in concert with the adopted findings, considering all possible uses, to develop a plan for the Hellman property, and if rezoning is I necessary it should reflect the proper use of the land, and not be downzoned. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, concurred with the comments of Ms. Andre, adding that residents became involved with the Hellman plan as a result of concern with over-development, that there was an unwillingness by members of the Council to reduce the plan, and that a proposal of Mola to fund an initiative in the past had been rejected as that was felt to be inappropriate. She claimed that the present initiative does not provide a buffer to the existing residences as had previously been promised, simply backyard abutting backyard, that the ",' . 11-13-90 I original citizen group which collected signatures to support saving Gum Grove Park is partially responsible for the designation of more acreage for wetlands which was accomplished through communications to various state agencies. Ms. Watson announced that the group called Seal Beach citizens United has been reactivated, and as gathered from a number of conversations, claimed that the initiative petition being circulated is being misrepresented, and offered her feeling that it is inappropriate to place a developer sponsored initiative on the ballot. Ms. Joyce Risner, Driftwood Avenue, said as a member of the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission she had made a proposal to that body to support the restoration of Gum Grove Park in some way, the resulting recommendation was that if the city owned the land $180,000 would be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for donation to the Park restoration, also that other funding may become available through the County on a competitive basis as a result of park bond issues. She stated the Specific Plan Initiative does not propose to build on the fault, that the Plan is in compliance with the Alquist Priola Act, and although it is realized that liquefaction exists on the property, the opinion of geologic experts was that the lowlands could be compacted and developed under stringent construction methods. Ms. Jody Weir, Beachcomber Drive, noted her involvement with the initiative committee and training of those persons circulating the petitions, said it would not be inappropriate for a circulator to advise a voter that the petition would allow the initiative to be placed on the ballot, and spoke in favor of the support provided the initiative effort by Mola Development. Councilman Laszlo noted a September 21st reply to the Leighton and Associates report that claimed fault data was scarce and critical information was missing. No formal action was taken on this item. I I ITEM "GG" - SPECIFIC PLAN BALLOT MEASURE Councilman Laszlo said since Specific Plan issues in recent years have resulted in elections, he would suggest a possible ballot measure to place all Specific Plans to a vote of the people and that the City Council be designated as the body to initiate Specific Plans. Mr. Charles Antos, 17th Street, suggested that all existing Specific Plans likewise be placed on the ballot to be affirmed by a vote of the people as well as any amendment thereto. He also suggested an open space, parks, and golf course measure to require voter approval prior to any change of the General Plan or zoning designation, supported requiring voter approval prior to adoption or amendment of any Specific Plan, also asked that voter approval be required prior to an increase of General Plan or zoning density of any parcel of land designated residential. Mr. Laird Mueller, 8th Street, spoke in favor of placing the additional measures on the ballot, also for voter denial of the Mola Corporation sponsored Hellman Specific Plan Initiative. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, related his experiences regarding a prior initiative, and supported placing all of the previously mentioned measures to a vote. Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, asked that no measure be considered with regard to widening of Pacific Coast Highway. No formal action was taken. ITEM "HH" - VOTING MATERIALS - LEISURE WORLD Councilman Laszlo inquired if during the election campaign persons would be allowed to enter Leisure World and distribute literature, whether they be for or against an issue, also if Leisure World residents would be allowed to 11-13-90 distribute literature. Councilman Hunt responded that the elected officers of neither the Golden Rain Foundation or the individual Mutuals as an elected body will participate in any election activity, and that the regulations set forth in the By-Laws of the Golden Rain Foundation with regard to campaigning are applied equally no matter a persons political position. Ms. Betty Cheevers, Leisure World I resident, confirmed that she has distributed campaign materials, however directed to cease by Security. Councilman Laszlo charged that the citizens of Leisure World are being deprived their constitutional rights to hear all sides of an issue by restricting the distribution of election materials. Councilman Hunt noted that each owner of a unit in Leisure World is a shareholder, and as such make decisions as to what they will or will not allow on their private property, also offered that there is a procedure for the various groups in Leisure World to invite persons to speak. Ms. Elise Coury, Leisure World resident, offered that any information can be distributed through the mail as well as via the newspaper to each unit in Leisure World. Councilman Laszlo made reference to the cost involved to distribute information by mail, stated he felt this is a civil rights issue, that if Leisure World residents do not hear all sides they should not vote, and asked that the Golden Rain Board be requested to allow distribution of campaign materials. Councilmember Hastings asked if the restriction of distributing election literature by Leisure World property owners would be a denial of constitutional rights. The Assistant City Attorney explained that based upon review of past cases it would be necessary to research the By-Laws and practices of Leisure World, and possibly the provisions of the CC&R's, to I determine if there is any violation of constitutional rights, noting that the By-Laws and the CC&R's should be consistent, however CC&R's do not conflict with the constitution, and the constitution controls. He offered to do such research if that were the desire of the Council. Mayor Wilson stated that each resident signs an occupancy agreement upon moving to Leisure World, that they are a shareholder in the Mutual corporation rather than a property owner, and abide by the by-laws of the Golden Rain Foundation and the Mutual. Councilman Hunt noted there are a number of private, gated areas within the City, preferred by many people for security reasons, and that past research has determined the privacy of those areas to be constitutional. Ms. Betty Cheevers said she had a letter from Mr. Narang, Administrator, published in the Leisure World News, allowing the distribution of literature. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach, stated even though certain apartment complexes provide a security situation that is a minor percentage of the population as compared to Leisure World, claimed that there are many Leisure World residents that do not receive all available information, that the cost to mail is prohibitive for most persons unless it is paid by a large corporation such as Mola, and that only a few persons are reached in cases where one is invited to address I a group. Discussion continued. Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, compared the expenditure by the Mola Corporation to that of the proponents of the recent Traffic Initiative, noting that campaign literature opposing that Initiative was mailed to Leisure World residents, which can only be done with adequate funds, and the Initiative was defeated. Mr. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, agreed with Mr. Shanks, charged that the residents of Leisure World are used for political purposes, and suggested that the Leisure World representatives should strive to enfranchise voter rights. Ms. Jane McClOUd, 700 Balboa Drive, spoke regarding the ,. " , , . . 11-13-90 I influence of members of the Councilor Golden Rain Board on Leisure World voters and referred to a Traffic Initiative flier that printed a letter from the then Mayor encouraging a vote against Measure F, the flier funded by the developer, which she deemed to be unfair, and suggested the availability of reaching the Leisure World voters fairly needs to be looked into. Mr. Ambrose suggested a limitation of the amount of money that can be spent on election campaigns for measures be placed on the next agenda, possibly one or two thousand dollars. There was no objection to the request of Councilman Laszlo that the Assistant City Attorney research the possibility of limiting election campaign expenditures. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:39 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. I Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said he found the Leisure World By-Law discussion of interest, claimed there was a meeting scheduled recently to discuss the Mola development however an urgency meeting of the Golden Rain Board was called for the same time which preempted the Mutual Presidents from the program, that distribution of election literature is prohibited and candidates are not allowed to campaign, yet the Leisure World representatives have the opportunity to appear at the various groups to express their views, also that Mutual Presidents are fearful of the consequences of inviting certain persons to speak. He charged that the residents are renters therefore should be paying renters tax as do other landlords, and with regard to a past Council comment regarding Quimby Act funds, stated if Leisure World was not required to pay those funds it would either be because the City did not require such payment at that time or Leisure World is not within the city, therefor should not be entitled to vote. Mr. Stark said he recalled a candidate being questioned during the recent election with regard to his membership in an organization that had a legal action against the City, and if elected how he could participate in Closed Sessions discussions relating to such litigation, to which the reply was that he would remove himself from participation. Mr. Stark suggested that the Leisure World representatives should likewise remove themselves from Closed Session discussions involving the Mola Corporation, as he felt the strategy of the city in defending the their lawsuit is being carried back to Mola. Mayor Wilson and Councilman Hunt expressed strong objection to the allegations of Mr. Stark. Mr. John Nakagawa, 320 - 12th Street, said it is within his rights to develop a flier and deliver it door-to-door and to convey his opinion, which can be done at minimal cost, objected to the prohibition of distribution of campaign materials in Leisure World, offered that if Leisure World is allowed to vote on policies that affect him personally, he should be allowed voice his opinions to those residents. Mr. Nakagawa requested a constitutional review of the Leisure World By-Laws. Councilman Laszlo stated it was not his intent to request a constitutional check on the Leisure World vote at this time. I ITEM "II" - CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT It was the consensus of the Council to hold this item over to be considered at an adjourned meeting on Monday, November 19th at 7:00 p.m. ITEM "JJ" - ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY Councilmember Hastings moved to accept the proposal of Dr. stickle and authorize the preparation of the Baseline 11-13-90 Archaeological study at a cost not to exceed $500. Mayor Wilson objected to expenditure of City funds for this study, suggesting that it is customary for a developer to bear such costs. Councilman Hunt agreed, noting also that the Archaeological Committee has not requested the study be done. Councilmember Hastings offered that the proposal for this study was discussed previously, prior to formation of I the Committee, and requested a vote on the motion. A member of the Archaeological Committee, Ms. Linda stobbe, questioned authorizing the study and expenditure of funds until such time as an work outline of the proposal is submitted for consideration, and that it was her understanding the Committee was to make the decision as to whether an outside consultant was necessary. She stated her understanding was that the Committee was to consider all properties in City, not just the Hellman site, and to assist in the preparation of an Archaeological Element to the General Plan. Councilmember Forsythe explained that accepting the proposal of Dr. stickle or having the City Attorney conduct the document research was a determination left to the Council, that the documents would be provided to the Committee for their information, and that a cost of $500 would seem reasonable if the Committee is going to consider all of the vacant parcels. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. Ms. Vera Rocha said in response to comments made at a previous meeting she remains the Chairperson of the Gabrielino Indians and had letters to prove her status. She spoke in opposition to accepting the proposal of Dr. Stickle. Discussion continued. Mr. Tim Roberts, Mola Development, questioned the necessity to take action on this I item at this meeting, said he felt some members of the Council understood the study to be site specific, and noted that Mrs. Rocha has been assigned as the logical descendant to the Hellman Ranch property. Vote on the motion: AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried ITEM "KK" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1318 - APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL -URGENCY The Director of Development Services reported this item was generated as a result of a Planning Commission discussion on November 7th regarding the current lack of a specific appeal process for minor plan reviews, the proposed Ordinance providing that a determination of the Planning Commission 'or Planning Department may be appealed to the city Council. The Director stated from his experience it is customary in most cities to provide an appeal process to the final legislative body for any action. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to direct the Planning Commission to take action on the pending applications for expansion of the existing structures located at 15 Cottonwood Lane, 601 Ocean Avenue, and 123 Eighth Street. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, LaSZlo, Wilson None Motion carried Ordinance Number 1318 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PROVIDING FOR APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." 11-13-90 I By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1318 was waived. The Assistant city Attorney suggested amendment of Section 2 to read in part "Decisions by the Planning Commission concerning minor plan reviews pursuant to Section 28-2407.A.2 and any determinations by the Director of Development Services as to which there is no existing appeal procedure in the COde, shall be appealable if within ten (10) days of the date of the decision an appeal in writing is filed with the city Council by either an applicant or an interested party," also that Section 4 be amended to provide that the city Clerk schedule a public hearing on this matter within a period of forty-five days. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1318 as amended. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1319 - PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF PERMITS - EXPANSION - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - URGENCY Ordinance Number 1319 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 28-2407.A.2(i) OR SECTION 28-2407.a.2(j) AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1319 was waived. The Assistant City Attorney explained that the proposed ordinance would prohibit the issuance of any building permits for minor plan review until such time as permanent regulations are in effect. He suggested that in view of the Council action directing the Planning Commission to act on the three pending applications, that a new Section 5 be added to read "Notwithstanding Section 2 herein, the provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to applications for Minor Plan Review previously approved by the Planning Commission and to the pending applications for the expansion of the existing structures located at 15 Cottonwood Lane, 601 Ocean Avenue, and 123 Eighth Street." The Development Services Director clarified that concern had been expressed at the Planning Commission meeting regarding minor plan reviews, that the urgency ordinance reflects their position and is proposed to preclude submittal of plans under existing Code provisions pending adoption of new regulations. with regard to those pending applications he noted the Commission had been advised to consider those items pursuant to the Code as it presently exists unless there was a public health, safety or welfare issue that would override the Code, however the Commission felt the type of expansions to nonconforming structures that are presently allowed are not in keeping with the general development scheme for the entire downtown area, and that such expansions allowed under a minor plan review process should be subject to a greater public review process, possibly by conditional use permit. The Director reported there have been a number of changes over the years with regard to legal nonconforming residences, the most recent change made in 1985 at which time the minor plan review process was created and until that time there was no such process in the City, prior to that change either no expansions were allowed or allowed through a CUP process, at one point for only limited types of improvements. He said he felt the major concern of the Commission with at least two of the pending applications was that they are multi-unit apartment complexes with expansions of eight hundred to one thousand square feet of living space proposed, and by such expansion there is a possibility of increasing the number of persons residing in those units that would in turn increase parking needs. Members of the Council indicated their 1 11-13-90 understanding that the Commission concerns were directed to parking and density in the downtown area, and it was suggested that advertised pUblic hearings be held by the Planning Commission to seek the opinions of the residents of the community regarding expansions to nonconforming structures. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt urgency Ordinance Number 1319 as amended to incorporate I Section 5 as recommended by the Assistant city Attorney, that existing Section 5 and 6 be renumbered as Sections 6 and 7, and that the City Clerk provide notice of the public hearing on this matter as set forth in Section 6. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to extend the adjournment of the meeting until 1:00 a.m. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, LaSZlo, wilson Hunt Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - FIRE PREVENTION FEES The Acting city Manager noted the public hearing to consider proposed Orange County Fire Department fire prevention fees had been continued from the September 10th meeting until this date, and that Orange County Fire is considering additional modifications to the costs for general fire services and paramedic fees, therefore staff would recommend that this item be postponed until such time as the costs for all fire services can be analyzed. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to conclude the public hearing, that the item be postponed indefinitely, to be renoticed for future consideration. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 3-90 - VIDEO ARCADES/ AMUSEMENT DEVICES Councilmember Hastings requested that this item be postponed and that an expanded notice of public hearing be provided. Councilmember Forsythe reported there was considerable public input on this subject at the Planning commission level, explained that research was done in drafting the Ordinance, that there is provision that two machines or less within certain establishments in commercial zones would require review by the Planning Commission and more than two machines would require a conditional use permit under public hearing and noticed to property owners within three hundred feet. Forsythe moved, second by Laszlo, to declare the public hearing open, that the hearing be continued until the second meeting in January and that there be an expanded notice of hearing. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-90 - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - DENSITY/TANDEM PARKING The Director of Development Services reported the Zoning Text Amendment would allow the owners of nonconforming residential properties which are nonconforming solely due to density and tandem parking and desiring to expand their property by more than ten percent to seek approval from the Planning Commission under the conditional use permit process. He explained that currently if the property is over density, application can be made for less than ten 11-13-90 I percent under minor plan review or for more than ten percent under the conditional use permit process if parking requirements are not met, and for those properties that meet parking requirements through tandem parking there is currently no provision to allow expansion of those structures more than ten percent, therefore the Planning Commission has recommended that in those cases expansion be considered under the conditional use permit process. He noted the change would affect approximately six to eight properties, generally with two units, that were developed during the short period of time that the City allowed tandem parking. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 5-90 regarding additions to nonconforming residential structures which are nonconforming solely due to density and tandem parking. The Mayor 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. Marla wicorek, 208 - 4th street, spoke in favor of the Zoning Text Amendment, stated her plan would not increase density, that the existing three bedrooms would be relocated, one converted to a family room, the duplex having four existing tandem parking spaces accessible from the alley. Mr. James Funk, 215-1/2 - 10th street, offered that his residential property is similar to the previous speaker, however an expansion of up to two thousand square feet would be allowed for his property where no expansion would be allowed on the 4th street property, and stated the proposed ZTA would resolve existing inequities. The Development Services Director explained the ZTA would apply to expansions greater than ten percent of the allowable floor area through a conditional use permit. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1315 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-90 - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - EXPANSION - DENSITY/ TANDEM PARKING Ordinance Number 1315 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING SOLELY DUE TO DENSITY AND TANDEM PARKING (ZTA 5-90)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1315 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1315 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I APPEAL - VARIANCE 5-90 - REAR/SIDE YARD SETBACKS - PATIO DECK - 1733 CRESTVIEW AVENUE Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to continue the appeal to denial of Variance 5-90 relating to the rear and sideyard setbacks for a patio deck located at 1733 Crestview Avenue until the November 26, 1990 meeting, as requested by staff. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3985 - REVERSING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - VARIANCE 8-89 - 101 MAIN STREET - WATSON The Director of Development Services recommended that the title of the Resolution be amended to read "Reversing the Decision of the Planning Commission" rather than "Reversing 11-13-90 the Recommendation" and read Resolution Number 3985 in full entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 MAIN STREET." Councilman Hunt said his previously stated position on this item is unchanged, this property being one of few on Main Street where the property 'I owner does provide adequate parking and that the requested storage area would not increase the parking demand, which he said is a unique situation and rather than a special privilege is a denial of privilege. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 3985, denying the Variance. Councilmember Forsythe noted her abstention from voting on this item since she had participated in the Planning Commission consideration, and Mayor Wilson said she had been absent during the public hearing therefore would also abstain. Councilmember Hastings recalled there had been concern expressed before the Planning Commission that the proposed storage area could be converted to a different use at some point in the future that could require more parking. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hastings, Laszlo Hunt Forsythe, Wilson Motion carried Staff advised that proposed Code amendments concerning parking requirements for storage areas would be prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and city Council as previously requested by Council, also that the applicant in this case could reapply for the storage facility at such time I as regulations are adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "0" thru "CC" The Acting city Manager requested Item "V" be removed from the Consent Calendar, and Mayor Wilson requested Items "Y, Z, and AA be removed. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "V, Y, Z, and AA", as presented. Q. Approved regular demands numbered 81435 through 81644 in the amount of $652,587.34 and payroll demands numbered 42756 through 42969 in the amount of $229,779.83 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. R. Denied the claim for damages of Mr. John Spencer, and referred same to the city's liability attorney and insurance adjuster. S. Denied the claim of Puente Hills Nissan (Ward), and referred same to the city's liability attorney and insurance adjuster. I, T. Approved the specifications for asbestos abatement at the Marina and North Seal Beach Community Centers, Projects 620 and 621, authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids, and appropriated $30,000.00 from the General Fund Reserves to these projects. 11-13-90 u. Bids were received for Project Number 612, Sidewalk Repair, until 11:00 a.m., November 1, 1990 at which time they were publicly opened by the city Clerk as follows: I JDC Engineering B-1 Enterprise Corp. IPS Services, Inc. J & Z Kovac Ruiz Engineering F.A.V. Engineering Pinco Construction Co. Nobest, Inc. $31,054.14 34,242.87 35,432.52 37,365.00 39,777.00 40,077.75 43,891.9Q 63,029.30 I Awarded the bid for Sidewalk Repair, Project Number 612, to JDC Engineering in the amount of $31,054.14 and authorized the Acting City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. W. Approved the Agreement between Midway City Sanitary District and the city of Seal Beach to provide sewer services for the Navy Missile Assembly and Test Facility and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the city. Approved extension of the Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and Union oil Company of California (UNOCAL) for pier landing privileges at a rate of $120.00 per day, and other services, for the period commending December 6, 1990 and ending midnight, December 5, 1991. x. BB. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of September 10, 1990 CC. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 10, 1990. -AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS "Y" and "z" - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Hunt moved, second by Hastings, to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of August 13, 1990 and the regular meeting of August 13, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried I ITEM "AA" - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Hunt moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 27, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hunt, Laszlo None Hastings, Wilson Motion carried ITEM "V" - AWARD OF BID - HANDICAPPED RESTROOMS - NORTH SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER - PROJECT NUMBER 619 The Acting City Manager requested that this item be removed 11-13-90 from consideration for the reason that the state will not be awarding the necessary grant monies until July, 1991. Item "V" was removed from consideration by consensus of the Council. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3991 - REAFFIRMING SPECIFIC PLAN - DEPARTMENT OF WATER' AND POWER PROPERTY I Resolution Number 3991 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL REAFFIRMING THE ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PROPERTY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3991 was waived. Mayor Wilson expressed support for the existing Specific Plan for the DWP site, thirty percent designated for hotel and seventy percent open space/park, and stated it should be necessary to prove that the existing Specific Plan is not feasible before any change is considered to that use. Councilmember Forsythe reported a conversation with Mr. McGillis of the Department of Water and Power, that it appears they are interested in developing the property however want to retain the ground lease which may not be advantageous to a developer, and requested a brief update of the status of the site. The Development Services Director stated upon joining the City one of his first tasks was to prepare a request for development proposals for the DWP property in conformance with existing provisions of the Specific Plan, that negotiations have continued with the Department of Water and Power to develop a document that would be satisfactory to both parties since the DWP intends to retain ownership of the property and will be involved in negotiation of the long term ground lease, and at this point it appears agreement as to form and terms of the request for proposals may be reached within sixty to ninety days. He I advised that the Department of Water and Power has expressed concern that the provisions of the Specific Plan may not reflect the current economy of the Southern California region should a viable development proposal may ultimately be submitted to the city. The Director added the DWP was provided the information that had been presented to the Council by Mr. Dawson relating to the current Specific Plan and market economy, the DWP Advisory Committee also provided that information at their recent meeting, as well as a status report on the property, and that the Committee took an action to be presented to the Council by the Chairman. Councilman Laszlo reviewed the background leading to the development of the DWP Specific Plan, which involved citizens from the various areas of the city as well as the Coastal Conservancy over a lengthy period of time. He made reference to Mr. Dawson recently proposing his plan for the DWP site, and to that he read a 1977 news article with regard to past involvements of Mr. Dawson. Councilman Laszlo spoke in support of the existing Plan, developed by the citizens, as opposed to giving any consideration to the convalescent hospital proposal of Mr. Dawson. Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf Place, Chairman of the DWP Advisory Committee, reported by unanimous vote of those present, the Committee requested the city Council to reaffirm the existing Specific Plan for the I DWP site. He pointed out that after many years it appears the DWP is moving forward and the RFP may be ready to distribute within six months. Mr. Shanks offered that it could be conceivable that the projections of Mr. Dawson may be true, there may be no one willing to build the hotel, and in that case Mr. Dawson's proposal could be considered with any others, however until that time the Committee supports the Specific Plan as it presently exists. The Development Services Director reported between one hundred fifty to two hundred individuals and firms have indicated interest to either the DWP or the City in the Request for Proposals once ~ *~. t" 11-13-90 I they are available, noting that upon discussion with any of the interested parties the basic criteria for the project has been explained, that the arrangement would be a leasehold interest with the Department of Water and Power for development of the hotel site and the City would be involved with the leasehold regarding the park facilities. Councilman Hunt suggested that no action be taken on this item at this meeting, that it may be worthwhile for the Council to discuss the matter with the DWP, and in his conversation with Mr. McGillis it was indicated that although there has been interest in the property, there has not been particular interest in the Specific Plan criteria, that there was also concern as to the economic viability of the existing Specific Plan. Councilman Laszlo said at one time the DWP site was appraised at $3 million, which has since increased, and suggested that possibly the hotel development firm could acquire the property through eminent domain. Mr. Shanks responded that the prior City Manager researched that possibility, this property having been once listed as high priority public use by the Coastal Commission, then removed from the surplus property list by the DWP which is believed to be an action to prevent condemnation of the site by the Redevelopment Agency, therefore such action is unlikely to be feasible. The Assistant City Attorney explained that condemnation of land owned by another public entity is difficult because it must be established that the property is for a greater public use. Discussion continued. I with regard to whether an application, such as that proposed by Mr. Dawson, that is not in compliance with the Specific Plan would require an action of the City, the Assistant City Attorney stated that given the fact that Mr. Dawson has no equity interest in the DWP property, it would be unlikely he could submit an application for development pursuant to the provisions of the Code dealing with Specific Plans. Councilmember Forsythe noted that Mr. McGillis had advised that the DWP could not deal directly with a private entity, that the City would need to act as an intermediary. She indicated her support for the existing Specific Plan, questioned whether or not the Resolution proposed was necessary as she did not feel Mr. Dawson could pursue his proposal, yet if the current Plan is determined to be infeasible it could be reevaluated at a later date. Councilmember Forsythe asked to be kept informed of further communications with the Department of Water and Power. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 3991 as presented. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried I It was the consensus of the Council to continue the remaining agenda items, Resolution Number 3992, closure of Pacific Coast Highway turnpockets, Ordinance Number 1316, Vesting Tentative Maps, Resolution Number 3993, Congestion Management Program, Ordinance Number 1317, display of harmful matter, Resolution Number 3994, CEQA Guidelines, Resolution Number 3995, legislation on regional governance, and appointments to boards and commissions, until the regular meeting of November 26th. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS There were no Council items discussed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. 11-13-90/11-19-90 CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until November 19th at 7:00 p.m. to consider recruitment of a city Manager. The meeting was adjourned at 1:12 a.m. c_ I C~ Clerk and ex-off C y of Seal Beach Approved: ~ --t. ~~~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California November 19, 1990 The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Laszlo calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ProTem Laszlo Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt Mayor Wilson Absent: Also present: Mr. Archibold, Acting City Manager Mr. Barrow, Assistant city Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 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 It was the consensus of the Council to move the Closed Session forward on the agenda. CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters pursuant to provisions of the Government Code. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:17 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Laszlo calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter and pending litigation in the case of Mola Development versus City of Seal Beach, and that no action had been taken. I