Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1991-01-28 1-14-91/1-28-91 I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant city Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 1:45 a.m. The Council reconvened at 2:02 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Acting City Manager reported the Council had discussed labor relations and personnel matters. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Council until January 28, 1991 at 6:15 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 2:03 a.m. to adjourn the meeting for a Closed Session. Cl Ci the Approved: ~t.V~ Mayor Attest: I Seal Beach, California January 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:16 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 Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I CLOSED SESSION The Assistant City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter and to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) and (b), Mola Development versus City of Seal Beach. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:18 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 6:58 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously announced, and an additional matter regarding the oil spill litigation, and that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. 1-28-91 Clerk a of Seal Approved: ---g~ ~. ~~ Mayor I Attest: Seal Beach, California January 28, 1991 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:55 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. Mayor Wilson requested a moment of silence in honor of the Armed Forces throughout the world, and particularly those serving in the Persian Gulf. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo Absent: None I 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 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: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried PRESENTATIONS Los Alamitos Unified School District Mayor Wilson reported the School District requested that their presentation be held over until the next meeting. Fiscal ImDact ReDort - Hellman ProDertv Councilmember Hastings moved to hold this item over until later on the agenda or next meeting. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Norm Schutzberger, 228 - 15th Street, said he was a fifteen year resident and former member of the Civil Service Board. Mr. Schutzberger made reference to a recent fiscal analysis of the Mola development and the revenue flow to the city, the developer to pay $1 million to the General Fund, the developer to pay the maintenance of I 1-28-91 I the park for the first ten years, the annual net surplus to the city projected'at $805,000, for the second ten years when the city assumes the park maintenance, the net annual surplus to the City would be approximately $624,000, and after twenty years the General Fund would have a balance of over ten million dollars after all costs relating to this project have been met. Mr. Schutzberger suggested the General Fund money could possibly eliminate the utility users tax, to be used for repair or replacement of deteriorating infrastructure, construction of a beach groin and replenishment of sand, that as a result of the one hundred sixty-four homes to be located within the Redevelopment Project Area the property tax from those units will revert to the Redevelopment Fund, the present net value of which would be approximately $11 million over the life of that Fund. He noted that there are many valuable additions to this city as a result of redevelopment monies, as an example, purchase of the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way and development of the greenbelt, financial assistance to build the Learning Center for the School District, the Marina Park and Community center, Police Headquarters and City Maintenance Yard, the Mary Wilson Library and Senior citizen center, construction of the seawall in Surfside, and construction of the new sewage system. He added that delay of this project costs $57,000 per month, the lawsuit costs $450,000 in redevelopment monies, that awaiting an election this year will cost about $230,000, and he compared that to the $240,000 cost of constructing Marina Park and Community Center. Mr. Schutzberger urged adoption of the Initiative at this meeting. Councilmember Forsythe said in comparing the two fiscal analyses it appeared there have been funds added to the recurring revenues and a reduction of recurring costs, such as $172,000 Public Works costs, also reduction of citywide overhead from $60,000 to $23,000. She confirmed her intent to request the Finance Director to do an indepth review of the updated fiscal analysis. Councilman Laszlo reported having three financial reports prepared by Stanley Hoffman Associates for the Mola project, a May, 1989 report showing a $97,485 loss to the City with a four hundred twelve unit project, a June, 1989 report showing a $174,000 loss with three hundred forty units, and the latest report, which was paid for by the developer, projecting a $49,000 gain to the city with a three hundred twenty-nine unit project, which he questioned. Mr. Chris Verhulst, Seal Beach, pointed out that two of the reports mentioned did not include the $1 million to the General Fund, the ten year payment of park maintenance, or the tax increment generated to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Galen Ambrose said as a controller for a large corporation he was aware of ways to produce a positive financial picture, also spoke of the indebtedness of redevelopment agencies in other cities and continued development to cover prior losses. councilmember Hastings mentioned the importance of considering General Funds and Redevelopment Funds separately, and noted that although the Redevelopment Agency has provided certain benefits to the community, she understood the Agency to be millions of dollars in debt. Mr. Verhulst responded that the Agency presently owes the General Fund $1.2 million, due partly to projects such as the purchase and development of the greenbelt, police facility, library, etc., which does not generate a tax base, however the proposed one hundred sixty-four homes for the Hellman property does create a tax base from which the Agency will receive taxes until the year 2012, and in the case of the Zoeter site, redevelopment monies were to be used as debt service with the understanding that the Hellman property development would come about, therefore allow payment of the indebtedness to I I 1-28-91 the General Fund. Councilman Hunt pointed out that the Zoeter site frontage will be paid for through the funds generated from the commercial use, and ultimately the city will own the property, that the parcels on which the pre- schools are located are being paid for from redevelopment monies generated to the City, as are the greenbelt, police facility, public works yard, etc. Councilman Hunt spoke of Stanley Hoffman Associates as a reputable firm with a national clientele whose reputation is dependent upon their fair and professional analysis, and noted that the figures in the most recent financial report are different from previous reports for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Verhulst, and a conclusion that the dollar benefit to the City until 2012 will be approximately $10 million and $10 million in tax increment, even though tax increment is restricted as to what those monies may be used for. Mayor Wilson noted that Redevelopment monies do free the use of the General Fund for other purposes. Mr. Ambrose said he felt there should be an analysis showing the cost of roads, congested freeways, water, etc. I Bixbv Plan Presentation Councilman Laszlo reported the Bixby Ranch Company has presented plans to the City requesting a zone change and vesting tract map, the plan to consist of a hotel, restaurant, a park on the Arco site, ninety homes easterly of Seal Beach Boulevard, seventy-six homes in the vicinity of Candleberry and Lampson Avenue, one hundred twenty-five low income units adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard in the area of the Mobil Station, and expansion of the golf course to twenty-seven holes. He offered that Bixby has reported holding three community meetings and the general consensus resulting from those meetings was the plan described, that according to their consultant the proposal will have no impact on traffic volumes, however there would be four-way signals at Seal Beach Boulevard at st. Cloud, at Birchwood/Lampson and Candleberry/Lampson, and another signal likely at the Arco site. Councilman Laszlo noted his involvement as a member of the city Council in county and regional affairs, specifically as a representative to the various agencies that deal with aviation issues. He recalled that at a recent SCAG Aviation Workshop there was direction that SCAG staff formulate a contingency plan for the closing of military bases in the region, the Naval Air station at Point Magu, the Armed Forces Reserve Center at Los Alamitos, March Air Force Base, and the Marine Base at EI Toro, and in the case of the Los Alamitos Base that would mean general aviation. He read excerpts from a letter of a prior unsuccessful congressional candidate who had pledged to work towards making the Los Alamitos site a modern general aviation facility. He also pointed out that the Los Alamitos facility is the designated Disaster Support Area for the entire Southern California region. Councilman Laszlo said safety and noise are a concern with the Bixby proposal in relation to the existing flight patterns as set forth in the 1984 Los Alamitos Army Airfield Master Plan, also if houses are allowed to be constructed in the vicinity of the runways there is a strong possibility that the military will leave and the Los Alamitos site will be used for general aviation. He claimed that Bixby will use their influence in any way possible to obtain approval to build their project, that in his opinion it is irresponsible for the Bixby Ranch Company to propose the construction of homes under the flight paths. I I 1-28-91 I WATER CONSERVATION Mr. Keith Coolidge, Public Affairs Manager, Municipal Water District of Orange County, was invited to discuss the status of water conservation as a result of the current draught. Mr. Coolidge stated the District provides imported water for twenty-nine Orange County cities and districts, and that the mandatory rationing plan, effective February 1st, will be a thirty percent reduction of available imported water, the net effect on Seal Beach residents will be a ten percent reduction, or forty-five gallons per day. He noted that the current five year draught is worse than that of 1976-77, that the storage levels are very low, and as an example one of the major lake reservoirs has a capacity of 3.5 million acre feet and is presently less than one million, and the snow pack is approximately fifteen percent below normal for the year. He reported the State Water Resources Board is commencing hearings to determine what the statewide response should be, one consideration to be a mandatory limit of three hundred gallons per household or possible reduction to about forty-five percent of the State Water Project which, in turn, could require a higher stage conservation effort by March or April. He explained that seventy percent of Seal Beach water is from an underground basin, thirty percent imported from the State Water Project or the Colorado River, and those sources are impacted by the draught and an increased allotment to the State of Arizona. Mr. Coolidge noted that although voluntary conservation has been good, he requested that consideration be given to adopting a mandatory water conservation ordinance, establishing stages of conservation should cuts greater than ten percent be needed. He explained that the reduction of imported water means the City could purchase ten percent less than the past year and for any amount over the reduced allocation the charge would be three times the rate, however if less water is purchased there is a $100 credit for each acre foot conserved. with regard to a building moratorium as a means of conserving water, Mr. Coolidge noted that Santa Barbara previously took an action to not connect to the state Water Project as a means to control growth, which unfortunately led to that City having no water and there is now consideration of constructing a desalinization plant to produce water at approximately $2000 per acre foot as compared to $230 per acre foot. Councilman Hunt stated that Seal Beach does have a conservation plan which sets forth stages, and through recent conservation news articles there is already evidence of significant water use reduction. The Acting city Manager announced that water saving kits are presently being issued to the residents. Mr. Coolidge was thanked for his presentation. I I COLLEGE PARK WEST - RECREATION VEHICLE PARKING Mr. Mike Breul, 205 Harvard Lane, reported the need for off- street storage for recreation vehicles and boats in College Park West, and stated there is a possible location that was once a basketball court, paved, and separated from the homes by the channel and fencing. He said his initial contact was with the Recreation Department regarding the ownership of the property, at their suggestion he distributed fliers to the residents and that responses have indicated an interest in such facility that would provide approximately seventeen spaces. Mr. Breul reported CalTrans has responded favorably to his inquiry regarding use of the land however does require a response from the City. He asked if the city would be willing to allow staff time to provide direction as to how to proceed, that it is not the intention for the City to incur costs of any repair or improvement to the area, that the interested parties would assume the cost to repair 1-28-91 the paving, fence, add barbed wire and a gate, obtain insurance, naming the City and CalTrans, negotiate a lease with CalTrans, and form a nonprofit homeowners association for the operation and maintenance of the storage area. with regard to zoning of the property, the Director of Development Services stated the property along the freeway is owned by CalTrans and does not have a zoning designation I therefore under the Zoning Code that land would automatically fall within the low density residential classification which would not permit a recreation vehicle storage use. He suggested the Council could authorize staff to proceed with a General Plan amendment and zone change to designate that property as Public Land Use which would then allow this type of facility. He noted there would be a need to discuss and receive agreement from CalTrans to enact such zone change. Mayor Wilson reported receiving one objection to the storage area, citing concern with gang activity. councilmember Hastings raised the question as to what criteria there would be to prioritize use of the storage area and what the charge would be. Mr. Bruel responded that he had received twenty-eight responses to the flier, that the intent had been to allow use of the storage area on a first-come, first-served basis at approximately $500 to $600 per space initially, thereafter it would be on a non-profit basis at a cost to cover maintenance and operation only. He explained that this area has not been used for basketball activities for approximately five years and that there are basketball courts in Edison Park. Councilman Laszlo suggested that the City retain some authority over the operation of the storage area should problems arise at some future time. Mr. Frank Cross, property owner adjacent to the proposed storage area, said there were a number of I problems when the basketball courts existed, their removal brought improvement, however over time other activities have surfaced with more cars, noise, and trash, then graffiti. He noted his numerous calls to the Police Department regarding activities and disturbances, and even though the city has placed a gate to restrict vehicle access to the area and adjacent storm drain, there continues to be motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Cross stated although the idea is worthwhile, the area would serve only a few and should be located elsewhere, suggesting Edison Park, where there could be greater use, and given the gang activity he did not feel the storage area should be approved. At the request of Mayor Wilson, the Development Services Director offered to schedule a meeting with residents of College Park West, the Flood Control District and CalTrans to discuss the proposal. PUBLIC HEARING - SURFS IDE RIGHT-OF-WAY ANNEXATION Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider the Surfs ide Right-of-Way Annexation, and consolidated agenda items "F" through "I", all relating to this item. The city Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported receipt of two communications, copies of which had I been provided the Council. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and explained that the request of Surfs ide Colony is to change the General Plan to reflect the requested zone change from S-P Parking to Residential Low Density to allow for the incorporation of an additional twenty-five feet of the existing fifty foot Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way as part of the residentially zoned adjoining parcels (1.1 acres), with the remaining twenty-five feet utilized for roadway access to the rear of lots B-1 through B-70. He reviewed the resulting changes to the development standards for Surfside Colony. 1-28-91 I Mayor Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Bob Kendrick, A- 64, Surfside, President of the Board of Directors, explained that Surfside has leased the abandoned Santa Fe Pacific land for approximately thirty years for the purpose of parking, patios, and garages for the adjacent properties, the remaining twenty-five feet used for an additional means of ingress and egress for the Colony, and a portion utilized as a parking lot. He reported there was unanimous approval at the 1989 shareholders meeting to propose an offer to purchase the land from Santa Fe, that the property was obtained for less than three million dollars, the monies advanced by the corporation against its assets with the intention to recover those funds through the sale of portions of the land to the adjacent property owners for parking purposes, with the balance of the purchase price to be paid by the remaining property owners. Mr. Kendrick noted that there had been threat of this land being purchased by an outside party for increased development. Councilmember Hastings commended the Colony and their attorney on the recent resolution of the conflict with the Coastal Commission. Ms. Ella Rowe, Surfside, said it was her understanding that if approved, homes could be built on one hundred percent of the property, to thirty-five feet in height and within twenty-five feet of the Highway, or an addition of up to nine hundred square feet. She requested that there be provision for setbacks and avoid a thirty-five foot box-like appearance along Pacific Coast Highway. The Development Services Director explained that the existing setbacks in Surfs ide do not allow one hundred percent coverage, there are setbacks on the, sides of the property that will remain, that the action of the Planning commission with regard to the proposal under consideration would allow the structure to be built to the rear property line at the thirty-five foot height limit, also if new construction were proposed within that area the existing garages that are located on the property line would be required to be moved to three feet from the property line. with regard to the thirty-five foot height limit, the Director explained that building heights are currently measured from the average grade of the area covered by the building, and the proposal is that future height measurements be taken from the mid- point of the lot from the street level, he noted current Code requires 2.5 foot front, 3 foot side, 3 foot rear setback for "B" row, with the provision for lots one through seventy that the upper stories may cantilever to the rear property line, the front setback is the same for "C" row, with 10 foot sideyard and 3 foot rearyard setbacks. Ms. Rowe again spoke for further setback requirements, said the vote taken at the stockholders meeting related to purchase of the property, not its use, claimed that the city does not take into consideration recommendations of the Colony's Architectural Committee, stated Colony residents are not aware that their garages will be required to be moved three feet, and questioned what will happen if some property owners choose to not purchase the additional land. with regard to architectural design, the Director suggested that the Colony could develop guidelines for architectural design in Surfside, which the City would respect, the Zoning Ordinance then providing the development standards. In response to a question of Councilman Laszlo, Ms. Rowe confirmed that the zoning changes were reviewed by the Surfs ide Board however said not by each property owner. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that the issues being considered were noticed to the public in general and have gone through the public hearing process. Mr. Kendrick responded that the two hundred sixty shareholders would not I I 1-28-91 have approved an expenditure of this amount for anything other than residential zoning. He explained there were no misleading impressions when the vote was taken to make the expenditure, and that the use of this land and zoning of the property was presented three years ago in the original plan. He agreed with the comment regarding a potential for a box- like appearance from the Highway, noted an attempt to impose some architectural relief for those residences, and the architectural committee would like greater input to the City, that the setbacks are no different from what currently exist, and the height issue is being resolved. Mr. Art Gallucci, member of the Surfs ide Board of Directors, stated his agreement with the staff recommendations, and offered that the residents are in agreement and understood what they were voting for. Mr. John Rigger, B-51, Surfside, added his agreement with the statements in favor. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4007 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2A-90 - LAND USE ELEMENT Resolution Number 4007 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2A-90, AMENDING THE "SUMMARY TABLE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES IN ACRES" OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO DEPICT THE INCREASE OF 1.1 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND WITHIN THE CITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4007 was waived. The Development Services Director recommended the "Now Therefore" clause be amended to delete the words "subject to the following conditions" as well as the number "I", and that the word "and" be added to read "...approve General Plan Amendment and the Summary Table..." Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 4007 as amended. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4008 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2B-90 - HOUSING ELEMENT Resolution Number 4008 was presented to council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2B-90, AMENDING TABLE 16 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO REPRESENT THE INCREASE OF 1.1 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND WITHIN THE CITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4008 was waived. The Development Services Director recommended the same changes be made to the "Now Therefore" clause as was made to Resolution Number 4008. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Resolution Number 4008 as amended. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1324 - APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 1-90 - I SURFS IDE COLONY Ordinance Number 1324 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 1-90, CHANGING THE ZONING OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE SURFSIDE COLONY FROM S-P PARKING ZONE, (S-P), TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, (RLD)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1324 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1324 and that it be passed to second reading. 1-28-91 AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1325 - APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 7-90 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - SURFSIDE COLONY Ordinance Number 1325 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 7-90, AMENDING SECTIONS 28-500 THROUGH 28-506 AND 28-600 THROUGH 28-604 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE SURFS IDE COLONY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1325 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1325 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:53 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. AGENDA AMENDED Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to amend the agenda to consider Item "L" at this time, Ordinance Number 1326 calling a Special Municipal Election and Certification of the Initiative Petition. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I CERTIFICATION OF PETITION - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1326 - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION The City Clerk presented the report relating to the certification of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Initiative petition, the provisions of the California Elections Code, and the options of the City Council relating to the call of a Special Election. The Clerk certified that the petition filed December 17, 1990 was deemed to be sufficient to meet the fifteen percent requirement of Elections Code section 4010 however noted that the petition did not contain a request that the ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a special election as required by Section 4010, therefore under section 4011 the Council would have the option to either call a Special Election at this time or at some future meeting to submit the Initiative to a vote, or consolidate the Special Election with the next regular municipal election to be held in March, 1992, or request a report on the effect of the proposed initiative pursuant to Election Code Section 4009.5. The City Clerk reviewed the various documents presented for consideration in the event the Council chose to call an election at this meeting, requested direction as to whether the full text of the Initiative or a summary thereof should be printed in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet, and that an appropriation be made to cover the cost of the Special Election. In response to Councilman Laszlo, the City Clerk advised there were sixty-seven persons that had requested their names be removed from the Initiative Petition. Mayor Wilson moved to adopt the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Initiative without alteration. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. Councilman Hunt recalled his opposition to this same project more than a year ago and his support for a plan with two hundred sixty-nine residential units with a 1-28-91 golf course, the argument at that time being that the golf course plan was economically unfeasible, and at that meeting Mr. Mola had offered $1 million and other benefits, and based upon those additional benefits to the city he determined he could no longer support the two hundred sixty-nine unit plan. Councilman Hunt noted that Mr. Mola has now offered, if the Initiative Ordinance is adopted at this meeting, to provide I the five acre park free, a cost of approximately $750,000, that adoption would mean that the revenue stream to the City would commence earlier, additionally there has been an offer to withdraw all lawsuits and appeals, and that Mola would assume the defense of any legal action by a third party as a result of adoption of the Initiative Ordinance. Councilman Hunt stated that delay in adopting the Ordinance for even five months could mean a $1 million loss to the city, which could be particularly important in view of the concern with the upcoming budget and the possibility of cuts or raised taxes. Councilman Laszlo showed a map tracing the Newport/Inglewood fault on the Hellman property, and stated the project proposed by the Initiative calls for construction of residential units within fifty feet of that fault. He read excerpts from a October, 1989 news article claiming the Newport/Inglewood fault to be among the most hazardous in the united states, running from Beverly Hills to Newport Beach through densely populated areas and on sandy soil, a 1989 Coastal Commission staff report making reference to unforeseen hazards from seismic activity and liquefaction, a Western City magazine article which reported there are certain fault zones where nothing can be built, and a California Mines and Geology publication drawing a comparison of damage to structures based upon the distance from an earthquake fault. Councilman Laszlo stated as a member of I the City council he felt responsible for the safety of the citizens therefore he could not vote for the proposed project. Councilmember Hastings referred to the right of the people to vote, yet additional benefits have been offered by Mr. Mola's attorney in return for adoption of the Initiative at this meeting, which she called a subtle bribe. She noted the Initiative Committee collected signatures on petitions under the intent that the issue be voted upon, however are now reversing their position by seeking approval of the Initiative by the Council because of the cost of a special election, and asked why that was not a prior consideration. In referencing the Initiative Committee newsletter, Councilmember Hastings objected to members of the Council using their influence to collect petition signatures for a developer that has brought a legal action against the City. Councilmember Forsythe noted that denial of the project has been criticized for what has been said to be the Council's unprofessional geology review, however pointed out considerable information in her posession from the State and U.S.G.S. with regard to building on this type of land, the lowlying lands, as opposed to the entire parcel, not safe to build housing as well as being cost prohibitive. She pointed out that a committee was formed to develop a plan for the Hellman Ranch that would be of financial benefit and I environmentally sensitive for this city, however that effort was pre-empted by the Initiative. Councilmember Forsythe read excerpts from the information she had referenced: "that the experience with the engineering techniques is fairly limited, that laboratory and theoretical suggest they should work but they have not been subject to an earthquake under field conditions, that the reinforced slabs might keep a home in tact during liquefaction but the structure may end up tilted, and while deep driven pilings might preserve a house it might not offset the loss of several feet of soil around the house, actively subsiding areas within portions of the . , , 1-28-91 I zone, the Newport/Inglewood zone, whether due to withdrawal of fluids, etc., also presents special problems to builders, the fact that much of the area along the zone is only a few feet above sea level increases considerably the problem, land that has been used for oil extraction is especially prone to subsidence, the engineering profession has long known and too often ignored that the most dangerous earthquake hazards can be largely avoided and that earthquake deaths or damage can be prevented or minimized with just a little knowledge of geology, and the facts about building in fault zones have been known to geologists for years, they have also known and meticulously mapped the locations of many of the most dangerous fault zones in the seismic areas of the western states, yet because of pressures from developers and land owners, because of ignorant or cynical government officials, outmoded building codes and zoning laws, and because of the public apathy and short memory, buildings continue to be constructed, bought, and sold in fault zones." Councilmember Forsythe stated she could not support placing homes on the low-lying lands of Hellman Ranch, that it should be placed to a vote, and offered the referenced materials to any interested person. Mayor wilson stated she has long felt that this matter should be placed to a vote, however her preference would be to save the cost of special election since this issue has been discussed for the past five years, questions answered and issues mitigated. Councilman Hunt offered that various state and federal agencies with professional personnel have established specific regulations and have indicated it is satisfactory to build on this land given the current technologies available. He said whether a unit is fifty or five hundred feet from a fault would have little effect on the damage that would occur, and made reference to the recent San Francisco earthquake where the majority of damage did not occur in the area of a fault yet on land subject to liquefaction, similar to the Hellman property, however current technology will make the proposed homes much safer than those that presently exist in the city. Councilmember Hastings again spoke for sUbmitting this issue to the voters, and noted that election costs could have been less had the issue been placed on a previous ballot. Councilman Laszlo recalled that the Coastal Commission staff had initially recommended that the project not be approved, and should the project receive approval, questioned whether the developer will be available and take responsibility in the event of an earthquake. Councilmember Forsythe made reference to the Coastal Commission staff opinion that alternative project designs are available that would avoid housing development on high and moderate liquefaction zones and still allow for economic use of the land, that residential development on some portions of the property may be consistent with Commission guideline 30252, and that a more thorough analysis holds potential to identify a project. Also a December, 1989 report stated that despite the incorporation of the recommendations relating to the mitigation measures, there remains the unforeseen possibility of hazards from seismic activity and liquefaction, and the Commission found that the applicant and successors shall assume the risks of development and waive any claim of liability on the part of the Commission for damage to life or property which may occur as a result of the permitted development, and the applicant's assumption of risk shall be recorded on the deed. Mayor Wilson also recalled the Coastal Commission stating that the project was mitigated far beyond what was required. I I Vote on the motion to adopt the Initiative Ordinance without change: 1-28-91 AYES: NOES: Hunt, Wilson Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Motion failed Councilman Hunt moved that the Initiative Ordinance be submitted to a Special Election at the earliest possible date. Councilman Laszlo moved a substitute motion, to postpone I taking further action until the report authorized by Election Code Section 4009.5 is received, and that the City Attorney be directed to present said report no later than the February 25th regular meeting. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Councilman Hunt noted the intent of his motion was to call a special election for April 30th. The City Attorney clarified that the report pursuant to Section 4009.5 was requested by the Council at the January 14th meeting, and explained that the report will consist of an analysis of the initiative's consistency with the General Plan, the binding effect of the initiative and other legal issues. He added that on February 25th the Council would continue to have the three options as set forth in the staff report, to adopt the Initiative Ordinance, call a special election, or postpone the call of a special election to be consolidated with the March, 1992 election. Vote on the substitute motion: AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried I It was the consensus of the Council to hold over agenda items ilL" through "P", relating to the call of a special municipal election, until February 25th. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1322 - COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELL REGULATIONS Ordinance Number 1322 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH REVISED REGULATIONS GOVERNING COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIRWELLS (ZTA 6-90)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1322 was waived. The Director of Development Services reported this item was considered on January 14th, and that answers to questions posed by Mr. Mark Thompson had been provided to the Council. Councilmember Forsythe moved to adopt Ordinance Number 1322 as presented. Mr. George Henderson, 705 South Shore Drive, stated he was unaware of the proposed regulations until recently, and through his attorney had submitted a letter to the City Council in opposition to the change of regulations, and voiced his objection to the possibility of having to reapply I to the City for his roof deck and stairwell that had previously been approved. with regard to reapplication, the Development Services Director said he believed the fee for a minor height variation is $10, and in the case of the South Shore property he believed that the roofing material is in compliance, and the stairwell lies in the middle of the home, therefore the Planning Commission would look for compliance with the square footage both horizontally and vertically and, if the area is larger than the stairway, consider whether it is a detriment to the neighborhood, and if not, they have the authority to allow the structure to remain. He noted the 1-28-91 I commission would review each case individually and determine what changes would be necessary, if any, with notice provided to neighboring properties within three hundred feet. Mr. James Cook, Seal Beach, noted at the time of the moratorium on this matter there were approximately ten properties that were grand fathered and are not required to meet the new criteria. The Director offered that those plans that were grandfathered would be allowed to be built, however dependent upon the design, would require a review during the year grace period for compliance with the new regulations. Mr. Cook inquired when the amortization period would begin. The Assistant City Attorney confirmed that those properties would be subject to the amortization period for further review or revision, the proposed Ordinance taking effect thirty days from adoption, however the amortization period for the grand fathered properties that are completed or have commenced construction may need to be looked into further. He also noted those properties had been identified in an ordinance adopted by the council. Mr. Mark Thompson, 1305 Sandpiper Drive, requested further discussion of the amortization provision of the proposed Ordinance and of the staff report, and noted his understanding that he would be allowed one year to apply for a variance and at that point the amortization period would be an independent process to be determined by the Planning Commission, yet upon reading the staff report it appears there would only be one year to remove, remodel, or receive a height variance, with additional time for an appeal, and based upon the language of the report questioned where the ordinance allows the Commission to extend the amortization period. Mr. Thompson also questioned a statement that the one year period would be based upon analysis of factors to determine what a reasonable period would be to recoup the investment in a covered roof access stairwell. The Director stated the question could not be answered until the Commission commences review of the minor height variation and decides what the appropriate basis is for their determination on a case by case situation depending upon the age, cost and utilization of the structure, and whether or not any change is even deemed necessary. Mr. Thompson said he would therefore have no guarantee that those procedures will take place during Commission review, and made specific reference to the wording of section 28-2407(5) (b). The Assistant city Attorney pointed out the Section 28-2405 gives the Commission the power, after a public hearing, to fix the date on which the non-conforming building was established and determine conditions and time limits for abatement, and suggested that the Ordinance could be amended to recite that language if desired. It was confirmed to Mr. Thompson that there have been occasions in the past where persons were required to modify non-conforming structures. Mr. Thompson suggested that if policy is established to require modification of non-conforming structures in this case, should there not be such policy for all non-conforming structures. The Director responded that the Planning Commission has conducted hearings on that particular issue, is making recommendation that a change to the Code be adopted, also that covered roof access stairwells be reviewed by the city to determine if they meet the intent and desire of the community, that the Council has the right to change the proposed Ordinance prior to adoption, and likewise may be amended in the future after the appropriate public hearings. He explained that there are a number of existing policies with regard to non-conforming structures, that allow additions or modifications through the building permit, minor plan review, or conditional use permit process, also confirmed that a non-conforming structure is allowed to remain unless there is application for change to that I I 1-28-91 structure. The Director pointed out that the proposal is to review the existing structures to determine if they are compatible with the neighborhood, and should the Commission determine they are not, that body has the right to require modification to the particular portion of the structure to meet the requirements of the Code, and the council has the right to review that decision upon appeal. In response to Council, the Director stated he could not recall other I instances where the City has placed a stipulation requiring certain types of previously existing conditions to be reviewed with the possibility of an abatement procedure, and in this case it is considered non-conforming. Mr. Thompson stated he felt the Council is considering adoption of a policy that it has not as yet accepted, and inquired if there would be structures other than his and possibly Mr. Henderson's that would be subject to the retroactive provision. The Director responded that it is likely there are several structures that would not meet the criteria, as an example a stairwell located along an exterior wall, in which case there would be opportunity to apply for a minor height variation, and again pointed out that the commission may allow the structure to remain if it is determined to not be a detriment to the neighborhood, also confirmed that there are such structures in the downtown area. Mr. Thompson said he felt this is an attempt to enact discriminatory zoning on a few individuals that could subject the city and/or individuals to a liability for violation of civil rights. The Assistant City Attorney explained that it is a common feature of local control for cities to adopt regulations that make certain structures non-conforming, and provide for a reasonable amortization period for uses that are subsequently deemed to be non-conforming. He offered that adoption of the I proposed Ordinance would not subject the members of the Council to liability, that it is not believed to be constitutionally vague or depriving anyone of a property right, simply that these structures must conform to a minimum requirement or alternatively receive approval from the Planning Commission where the burden would be upon the property owner to prove the investment, that they have not been able to recoup their investment, which is a major factor, over the period of time suggested by the City, emphasized that the amortization period in these cases is much different from that applied to an entire structure, and again noted that the Commission would have the option of extending the amortization period. Mr. Thompson said his issue was not with the Ordinance adopting new regulations, that his concern was with the amortization period, and suggested that the amortization be deleted and considered as a total policy review of all non-conforming structures rather than punish those who have followed current Code. The Assistant city Attorney again explained that this does not amortize a use, it is to amortize and allow modification of a structure to conform, extend the amortization period, or allow the structure to remain without change. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, stated she had unknowingly purchased a legally non-conforming home and duplex, that there are new homes that are legal non-conforming that are being sold, and I suggested that this may set a dangerous precedent and should not be retroactive. Ms. Lisa Lang, Seal Beach, inquired as to the legal ramifications on lenders and the value of a property. Mr. Jerry Anderson, 1301 Sandpiper Drive, agreed that there should be no amortization period, rather the structures should be removed or modified upon the effective date of the regulations. He noted that the Code did allow a covered stairwell access to a deck, but it did not allow a room, third story, or a dome, that he had presented a petition containing more than three hundred signatures in support of the height limit, and that he, rather than the 1-28-91 other speakers, is the victim by being an adjacent neighbor to one of these structures. I At the request of Council, the Assistant City Attorney suggested Section 2S-2407(5) (b) be amended for clarification purposes to include the language that is likewise contained in Section 28-2405, a sentence added before the last sentence to read "In addition to it's authority pursuant to Section 28-2317(c), the Planning Commission may fix a date upon which the nonconforming structure was established and determine conditions and time limits for abatement." Councilmember Forsythe again moved to adopt Ordinance Number 1322, as amended. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Hunt, Wilson Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 11:40 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:49 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4005 - ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM - REOUESTING INCLUSION OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS Resolution Number 4005 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM THE IMPROVEMENT OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4005 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4005. I AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "0" thru "Y" Mayor Wilson requested that Item "S" be removed from the Consent Calendar as she was absent from the November 19, 1990 regular adjourned meeting. Laszlo moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "S", as presented. Q. Approved regular demands numbered 82292 through 82648 in the amount of $1,086,586.98, payroll demands numbered 43722 through 43910 in the amount of $229,041.49, and payroll demands numbered 43911 through 44082 in the amount of $207,957.29 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. R. Approved the minutes of the November 13, 1990 regular meeting. T. Bids were received until January 3, 1991, 11:30 a.m., for one Gas Exhaust Analyzer, at which time they were publicly opened by the city Clerk as follows: I Sun Electric Corp. $18,647.56 Awarded the bid for one Gas Exhaust Analyzer to Sun Electric in the amount of $18,647.56 and authorized the Acting city Manager to execute the purchase order. 1-28-91 U. Bids were received until January 3, 1991, 11:00 a.m., for Lampson Avenue Median ISland Irrigation MOdification, Project NUmber 616, as follows: Bopark Enterprises, Inc. Marina Ryco Construction, Inc. Arbor services Mariposa Landscapes $25,125.00 33,195.00 34,343.00 34,400.00 49,987.00 JI Awarded the bid for Project Number 616 to Bopark Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $25,125.00 and authorized the Acting city Manager to execute the contract. V. Approved Year sixteen orange County Housing Community Development Contract No. C40939, Day Care Assistance, Contract No. C40940, North Seal Beach Community Center Rehabilitation, and Contract No. C40941, Mary Wilson senior Center Rehabilitation, and authorized the Mayor to execute same on behalf of the city. w. Accepted the resignation of Donald Eisenberg from the Environmental Quality Control Board representing Councilmanic District Four, and declared the position vacant. x. Denied the claim for damages of Elke Moskalenko and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. I Y. Denied the claim for damages of John Spencer and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried AYES: NOES: ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "s" - MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to approve the minutes of the November 19, 1990 regular adjourned meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo None Wilson Motion carried COUNCIL ITEMS HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN BALLOT MEASURE Councilman Laszlo requested that this item be held over and placed on the next Council agenda. I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - ORDER OF BUSINESS Councilman Laszlo suggested that Oral Communications be moved to the beginning of the agenda, limited to a period of thirty minutes, that City Council Items be listed next, that a second Oral Communications be provided at the end of the agenda, and so moved. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Mayor Wilson indicated her disagreement with moving city Council Items, suggesting rather that the Consent Calendar be moved forward on the agenda. Councilman Hunt objected, and suggested that the Council follow Resolution 1-28-91 Number 2874 adopted in 1979, that sets forth the order of business and matters of procedure, and noted that public hearings and legislative matters should be given priority. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Motion carried I Councilman Hunt suggested that section 11.a as set forth by Resolution Number 2874 be amended to provide that those persons addressing the Council under Oral Communications be limited to five minutes each unless extended by the Council. The motion was amended to also limit each member of the Council to fifteen minutes under Council Items. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Mayor Wilson moved to place the Consent Calendar immediately after Council Items. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Hunt Motion carried Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, that Proclamations be considered after Waiver of Full Reading. ---- AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried I I COUNCILMANIC BOUNDARIES Councilman Laszlo requested consideration of revising the boundaries of Council Districts Two and Four to place the Bixby Ranch Golf Course within District Four, the area north of Lampson Avenue and east of Seal Beach Boulevard, and so moved. He noted this action would place the helicopter flight paths over District Four. Mayor Wilson referred to Section 515 of the City Charter that requires appointment of a committee to consider redistricting each tenth year, and questioned the object of this action at this time. In response to Council, the Assistant City Attorney made reference to their previous opinion that since this consists of vacant property only and does not affect the one man, one vote rule, it would be constitutional, however is a determination of the Council as to whether this would be contiguous, compact territory, fair and logical. Councilman Hunt stated he felt this matter should be withdrawn as the city is required by law to consider redistricting once the 1990 census information is received, that the existing boundaries are constitutional and in compliance with the Charter by being contiguous and compact territory and represent fair representation on the city Council. He argued that the vacant land that is presently in District Two is contiguous to the populated area of that District, and that the Council may only change the boundaries if they are unconstitutional, unfair and illogical at this time, which he claimed they are not. Councilman Hunt suggested that action be taken to form the Redistricting Committee. Councilmember Hastings seconded the motion. Discussion continued with the Council voicing their personal viewpoints. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo Hunt, Wilson Motion carried 1-28-91 Pursuant to Council's action, the Assistant City Attorney stated an Ordinance would be prepared for consideration of the Council and staff will be requested to prepare the legal descriptions. At the conclusion of further discussion, Councilman Hunt requested an accounting of the hours devoted to prepare this item for further Council consideration. BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE I Councilmember Forsythe requested that this item be held over until the next Council meeting. APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Environmental Oualitv Control Board Councilman Hunt nominated Ms. Doris Hoffman, EI Dorado Drive, as the District Five representative to the Environmental Quality Control Board for the unexpired term ending July, 1994. Beach Commission Councilman Hunt nominated Mr. Clyde Brown, Del Monte Drive, as the District Five representative to the Beach Commission for the term expiring July, 1993. wilson moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the above appointments. AYES: NOES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried COMMUNICATION In response to a January 22nd communication from Supervisor Harriet Wieder, it was the consensus of the Council to meet in a study session with the Supervisor and County staff on Monday, March 11th at 6:00 p.m. BUDGET WORKSHOPS After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to schedule a budget workshop for Monday, March 4th at 9:00 a.m. Councilmember Hastings requested the budget preparation guidelines that were provided the department heads. I RECLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES It was the consensus of the Council to postpone consideration of this matter until such time as the personnel procedures are before the Council. STATUS REPORT - GAS FLARE - HELLMAN PROPERTY Noting that the gas flare on the Hellman property is out, it was the consensus of the Council to receive and file the January 14th report from the Director of Development Services. PROPOSED RESOLUTION - TIME LIMITATIONS - CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Based upon the prior action taken at this meeting regarding City Council meeting procedures and time limits, the proposed Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TIME LIMITATION FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS" was withdrawn by unanimous consent. I GENERAL PLAN UPDATES with regard to the October 8th, 1990 report from the Director of Development Services regarding General Plan updates, Conservation, Noise and Safety Elements, Councilman Laszlo asked that this matter be held over until the next meeting. 1-28-91 I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS At the request of Council, Councilman Laszlo agreed to hold over until next meeting a report regarding his trip to the Coastal Experimental Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, to view the proposed model of the modernization of the Naval Weapons station. Councilman Hunt inquired if there were objections to releasing to the public the answers to various questions that had been posed to City staff by Mr. Chris Verhulst. There was no' objection. Councilman Laszlo made reference to the Specific Plan Ordinance and his understanding that there were areas where Specific Plans were to be in place. The Assistant City Attorney responded that he believed there were five areas of the City zoned for a specific Plan, that a portion of the Bixby property is within that zone and a portion is not. Councilman Laszlo inquired if the Bixby application for zone change and more specifically the vested tract map would be legal since he understood the City is to initiate a Specific Plan. The Director of Development Services responded that city Ordinances allow for certain areas to be designated for Specific Plan use, and the portions of the Bixby property for which applications were received for the zone change and vesting tentative tract map are areas that do not have a current Specific Plan designation, those areas having recreational golf or C-2 use designations. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, suggested that the Council request a report on Sunset Aquatic Park when meeting with Supervisor Wieder, as she has changed the uses from what the Council had previously considered and approved. Mr. Antos asked that when daytime meetings are held, and possibly major issues are discussed, they should be considered at evening meetings. He spoke in favor of placing Oral Communications at the beginning of the Council agenda. Mr. Antos reported receiving a parking citation at an hour of the day that he could prove his whereabouts, that he understood there is a city policy where there is an opportunity to discuss appeal of the citation with the Police Department on Wednesdays, however the appropriate personnel is not available for that purpose, only to complete paperwork to go to court. Councilman Laszlo said it was his understanding that such issues could be discussed with the Traffic Sergeant, and asked Mr. Antos to provide the Council with a copy of the City policy. Mr. Joseph st. John, Catalina Avenue, commended the Council for their action relating to the Initiative, and stated it was his belief that despite the litigation and threats the majority of residents of the city support the Council position on the Hellman Ranch development. Ms. Carla Watson, spoke on behalf of Seal Beach citizens United, reported their efforts to communicate with various agencies, walk neighborhoods, visit Mola developments, share various information that was collected, and stated the plan that emerged was not what had been promised, no buffers, no height limitation, too many homes located in the lowlands, etc. She said upon denial of the plan it was expected that the developer would submit a new plan, sensitive to the community needs, instead the developer filed a legal action and named members of the City Council. She said some citizens have followed the model set by the development company, looking to amenities, rather than impacts, and at one time some were lured by the golf course until the small condos and traffic problems came to light. Ms. Watson said she found it sad to see former I 1-28-91 elected officials working on beha~f of the developer, yet there are many good people passing the petition and favor the plan. She said Citizens United do not believe that development by initiative is the way to conduct city government, and that the Initiative cannot be changed once adopted, she also supported the rejection of the Mola plan, and a citizens committee to design a plan to meet the I desires of the community and unique way of life. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration society, stated if anyone , signed the Initiative with the belief that it was the Wetlands Plan or supported by the Society, they were mislead, that the Wetlands Society does not support the Initiative. He spoke for postponing placing the Initiative to a vote until March, 1992, which would allow the citizens the opportunity to study the Initiative thoroughly. Ms. Wendy Rothman, Seal Beach, commended the Council for the time and effort they have devoted to the community, stated she felt most citizens are trying to do what is right, that most people want nearly the same things, a fiscally sound city, parks, open space, and recreational areas, yet the difference is that the developer is backing the Initiative Committee, using a public relations firm, paid employees, and an outside firm that prepared the Initiative. She said she found the Initiative document troubling, that it is no longer the B-2 plan, questioned if an initiative should be allowed that would deprive the citizens of their rights, and suggested that it would be inappropriate to take a position on the Initiative until the report is received from the City Attorney regarding potential legal problems, noting also that an independent financial analysis has not been conducted. Ms. Rothman stated that besides the three hundred twenty-nine homes, an additional seventy-five acres I of Hellman property has been included in the Initiative which could allow for one hundred twenty-five multi-family units or thirty-one four-plexes or sixty-two duplexes, however a decision on the remaining land should be left to the city for some future time. She offered that the development company neglected to give the signers of the Initiative the required notice that they were mandating the City to call a special election at a cost to the citizens, which she said brings forth questions of the Initiative itself. Ms. Rothman read excerpts from an independent legal review of the Initiative, at her request, that claimed legal uncertainties, confusion, an inappropriate way to adopt land use regulations, and a process that lacks flexibility and community control. Ms. Rothman again requested that the Council refrain from taking a position on the Initiative until such time as all of the facts and information are known, specifically the analysis of the City Attorney, and suggested that everyone work together and make compromises if the B-2 plan is what is favored, rather than adopt the Mola Initiative. Mr. Mario Voce, Seal Beach, commended Councilmember Forsythe for her Council representation, and expressed his opinion that those, such as Mola, claim to be environmentalists then corrupt the environmental movement for their own interests through corporate gains, citing as I an example Arco advertising for clean air while planning to place three hundred fifty.oil pumps offshore. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 1:18 a.m. , I Approved: Attest: I I 1-28-91 lerk and ex-of of Seal Beach ~AAA) '1... ~~ Mayor