Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-07-17 7-l0-89 / 7-l7-89 lerk and ex 0 of Seal Beach of the I Approved: ~iA 1- ~ Mayor Att.st/}~,& ~ C~ty Clerk Seal Beach, California July 17, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:07 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Ms. Massa-Lavitt, Interim Development Services Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Grgas proclaimed August 8th, 1989 as "National Night Out~ and urged the citizens of Seal Beach to support the Neighborhood Watch Program. At the request of Council, the-proclamation honoring William "Walking Willie" Croaker was held over until the next meeting. 7-17-89 CONTINUED HEARING - HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT The City Attorney clarified that the public testimony portion of this hearing was closed on June 19th, continued to allow Council deliberation and responses of the developer if requested. The City Attorney recommended that reference in the title and text -of -proposed Resolution -Number 3824 to "draft. or "final. Environmental Impact Report should be 1 amended to add the word .Supplemental", noting that under consideration is the Supplemental EIR for the project, the original EIR having been approved in 1987. The Interim Development -Service-Director commenced the report of -staff by providing the Council with a list of changes to the documents and attachments thereto under consideration. Changes to Exhibit "A~, Findings, to p~oposed Resolution Number 3824 were: Section C-4, Land Use, amended to read "Alternative B2 -would retain all 10.65 acres of Gum Grove park...": Section C4.b, Substantial Evidence, amended to read "Gum Grove Park (10.65 acres)...": Section Gl, Noise/Findings, -amended to read "A 8-foot concrete masonry wall...., Section G2 amended to read "A 8-foot concrete masonry wall...., Section 4A, Substantial Findings, amended to read .A 8-foot concrete masonry wall": and Section G, A.2.a, Statement -of Overriding Considerations, amended to read ....(Gum Grove Park, 10.65 acres)...". Changes to Exhibit "B", Mitigation Monitoring Program, to proposed Resolution Number 3824 were: Section 1, Introduction, third paragraph amended to reflect .10.65 acres of Gum Grove Park" and "37.9 acres of open-space/ wetlands": Biological Resources, Table 1, regarding incorporation of appropriate buffers, amended to reflect that the developer is responsible for mitigation, the Coastal Commission and Director of Development Services responsible for monitoring, 1 and scheduled for completion prior to final tract map approval/recordation, with a clarification needed from MBA as to whether the developer is responsible for the buffer to the wetlands: and the mitigation of Noise amended to reflect the City of Seal Beach as an additional enforcement agency for animal regulations. Proposed Resolution Number 3820, Attachment .A., Public, City Parks recommended to be amended to reflect 13.74 additional proposed acres and total acres of 70.94, Recreation, addressing Gum Grove Park, amended to reflect 0.15 additional proposed acres and total acres of 10.67. Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained she was not aware of the reasoning for separating out the community and Gum Grove Park in this manner. Councilmember Risner suggested that Gum Grove be referenced as special use, as it was once categorized in the General Plan, or under the city park category, rather than the recreation use category, with the exact acreage specified. The City Attorney noted that the amendment to the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element refers to the community park including Gum Grove P~rk as active and passive recreation, the Gum Grove falling within the passive recreation category, and stated it would be at the discretion of the Council to change the reference for Gum Grove Park. Discussion followed. The City Attorney confirmed that the special use category would not be I confined to parks. Councilman Hunt spoke in support of the recreation category-which would allow greater flexibility of future use, and suggested that consideration of the category be left to the Recreation Commission. , Councilmember Risner moved to -include -the -10.67 acres of Gum Grove Park under the City Parks-category of the-General Plan Land Use Element, consistent with the other parks within the City, rather than the recreation category. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. The Interim Director clarified that the recategorization would include Gum Grove Park of J 7-17-89 I 10.6.7 acres. and. 13.74 acres. of community park, however, does ...not, include.~he.additiona~,five acre~. . With regard to.~he r~vised .acreage figures, she.explained.that in refining the subdivision..map the boundaries have been. established. . accurately, thus ,the...fractions. of ..difference. of. acreage, and confirmed that.there are. no. substantial changes. to the.. ,c.onfi.guration of the, boundaries of,_the property..that has been under lease from the Hellman heirs for"a number of years.. In response...to Mayor Grgas, the Council .indicated :. consensus to, eliminate .the category..of recreation. use,. , . inpluding all such use under the city park category. '.. - . . AYES: ....NO)i:S: ~ ...... q. '. '''' I. ;.. .1.. ," ".' .. IoJ.. . Grgas, Hunt"Laszlo, Risner, Wilson, .', ., ,..No!le " . . . ,. .. . '00' .,Motion carried " .... ,. '" .. . '._' 1\'. '.. L. .,,.. .Proposed.Resolution.Number 3821, Atta~hment "A~,.Community Parks amended to .reflect Hellman as 24.39 acres, the..same amended acreage reflected, in.the paragraph added to the. Community. Park category of the Open.Space/Recreation/. conservation..Element.. . '" I . . . . .. t.. ". . With,regard to fence heights reflected.in Exhibit ~A".to Resolution Number',3824, the Director. explained ,that the six .and seven.foot fence he~ghts originally set forth in . Sections Gl and..G2, were amended to eight .feet as allowed by current Code and would apply to. the property adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard, that six feet would be an .adequate height for the.present however it was, felt the eight ,foot height ,would be..appropriate in planning for the .future and .alleviate the need for the property owners to request.the additional height. Councilman Hunt stated his preference for the six foot height, leaving as many options to the property. owner and the developer as possible. Councilmember Risner spoke in.suppo~t of eight feet,.suggesting that construction of that height initially will eliminate the potential for varied heights in the future, and in addition _ to noise .generated from Seal Beach Boulevard with this wall also backing the_animal shelter and .the Police Station, there would be resolution ~f noise problems ~hat pave posed som~ difficulty to mitigate, thus insu~ing better, livability. In ,response .to Council., Ms. Massa-Lavitt confirmed.that eight foot .walls have been used in other communi_ties and most ,often include landscaping. , Councilman Laszlo noted that if six feet ,is allowed, the prop~rty owner will then .bear the qost ~Q add the extra height, the wall also serving as ~ deterrent to ,traffip noise. Councilmember Wilson .stated sh~ would .not object to the eight foot walls. Mr. Mola advised.that they had determined the dimension ba~e~.upon the sound study although the eight foot height would be accepable ~o them, however requested that some flexibility be allowed for d~~ign and elevation variation of the wall, possibly'.a minimum of six feet and maximum of eigh.t. Risner moved, .sec'ond~ :by Laszlo, _to, .establish the ~in-imum wall height of six .feet and. maximum of eight .feet.. .. I AYES: NOES-: . .. .. .. -.... . Grga~, I{unt, Laszlo" Risner, Wils.on None. , _" .Moti.on carried Mayor Grgas made ~ef~rence to section Dl.d of. the 'EIR Findings relating to a deed re~tri~tion o~ similar enc_um_brance on the wetlands/open spape area,. -noted previous discussion p( the Cit~ having an. option. to acquire. that property, an~ asked. if t~e languag~ of that. S~ction allows adequat~ f~exibility to allow ~h~ City the .first right ~f refusal. in the event that land were to become available. The City Attorney. .explained the 'document- under consideration 7-l7-89 .merely,.sets fo,rtp the. environmental. mitigation measures and . the basis for..same,,'suggesting. that more .precise conditions would .be set .forth,.in the conditions.,of the....tract"map; Mayor..Grgas.,stated"he..wished that..to .be considered as',a. .condition..to, the. tract .map.". Councilman .Hunt said..he..had hoped ,there..would..be .some"foJ;m of. development agreement' available for.,consideration where.' the. issue just.,mentioned and o.then ,could be..addressed. Mr.. Stepanicich. explained that . a.. number .of .items that have. been.,discussed. will be included,.as,.conditions of the t.entative..tract map,..that' the certij:ication ,of.. the E.IR..and amendments. .to the ,General..Plan would be approved through adoption of the Resolutions before the Council" ,the...Specific..Plan amendments approved by . Ordinance,.and would have second reading, on August 7th, and at that time the conditions presented with the tentative map could. be reviewed, prior to adoption of.the.Specific"P.lan . amendment.. He said he felt most .all. of ..the..items that have been .discussed..could. be included. .as, condi t4.ons. of the .. tentative map: wi th,. the:-!!xception ofi, thehaddi tional"fi ve acres, a separate issue which could .possibly..be ,handled. through a letter of agreement with the developer as to the ,procedures..for .acquisition of .that property. 'He..explained that a..fo~mal development agreement .wOuld.most..likely not be before .the..Council .until after ,approval .of the .tentative map, however would include a..condition. that the .fiinal..map would -nQt be._considered until a development agreement were approved.., In. response'.to .Council, the City Attorney confi~med that no building could take place, on the .site ..until ,the Specific Plan .is adopted..and..the tract map ., approved. with regard .to.the.time frame,fo~.the.final map, Mr.. Mola explained .the .engineering .phase will take between four to six months, during that time period they will be ..going. through .the.Coastal Commission, and if everything goes well -the final.,map .could b.e befiore .the Council.between 'December. and February. .. .' . .Mayo~ Grgas.noted tnat-the.conceptual approval of the '~B.2" plan was with .his .understanding the additionaL-five .ac~es was significant to that .appr.ovaL,. and that .he would look to receive something .fJ;om.Hellman.confirming.the availability of that .land prio~. to approving the..tentative map. Councilman Hunt ..concurred that the availability of the. additional -five .ac~es was an absolute necessity for.his' considerations. . Councilmember Risner noted that the .five acres may be .in ,a.location different than what .was .previously conside~ed, and.questioned how.and.when the so~l conditions ~f the specific .location can be .obtained,.voicing her- concern .should.the soil.be.contaminated and need ~o.be .hauled off-site at.a .considerable cost, .also -questioning the procedure should .there be no suitable .land ,.available. The City Attorney ~esponded ~hat to do the appropriate- studies to determine .if the land .were.suitable for ~ark use would require more than a two week period, therefore a letter of agreement setting forth the procedure for having the pr-operty .offered.-by -Hellman,.. without -committing .the .City to acceptin~-the ~ffe~, .would seem to .be .an acceptable method. He noted that should the City determine not to accept the offer,. that would ,not affect other approvals, such as .the tentative tract map and Specific Plan ~hich would be binding, and although the tentative map is subject to conditions,: tne five .acr.es is .outside of the scope of .the .- subdivided land and would b~ an additionaL benefit~rovided. Mr.. Stepanicich confirmed that .if .the CounciL chose to not approve the modified "B..2" plan, .the original -"B'.2" concept could be reconsidered, the -resuLt being a time delay. to change-and reintroduce the Specific Plan adopting Ordinance. In response to Mrs.. Risner,. Counci-lman Hunt- confir-med .that he would not support the modified "B.2" plan without the 1 I 'I 7-17-89 I additional five acres and other.benefits, that his next preference 'would be the original plan, then "C.I". He added his thought that the probability of encountering problems with the 'condition of the soil is remote, and in the event tliere were, Mr~ Mola could not develop his plan given 'the proximity of the existing wells to the development. Noting that at.some time in the future the oil wells along Seal Beach Boulevard will no longer be producing and be abandoned, Mayor Grgas asked that consideration be given to providing a right turn lane into the project. Mr. Mola suggested tha~ such condition could be placed on the map. Councilman Hunt requested the developer .to discuss 'with Hellman the possibility of the City acquiring that land once the_ oil production ceases. Mr. Mola noted that the oil production .area along Seal Beach Boulevard is approximately eigh~y feet in depth, most likely not adequate for lots, , another oil production lot on the property facing First 'Street. In response. to Council, the City Attor~ey advised ~hat the City would not necessarily have the first right of purchase of those parcels howeve~ wou~d. have the right of acquisition througn condemnation powers, suggesting that at such time as they are no longer used for production purposes there could be discussion with Hellman' for acquisition by the City. With regard.to long term planning for a right turn lane, the developer advised that a deed-for future dedication is not uncommon. In response, to Councilman Laszlo's question regarding alternative methods of oil extraction and effect on this project, Mr. Mola explained that secondary recovery is usually accomplished by water or steam flooding of the oil sand, accelerating the oil recovery, which often reduces the number of wells, pointing out that.secondary recovery methods have been taking place on the property for a number of years. He noted that the reason the exact location of the five acres is presently unknown is largely due to the uncertainty of where new recovery wells may be drilled. 1 I Mayor Grgas stated he wanted assurance that the City reserves the right to put a roadway from First Street to Westminster Boulevard in the. future if desired, even though it does not materially affect the plan under consideration and was' not a mitigation requirement of the EIR. Councilman Laszlo made reference to Section- El.d of the EIR Findings and asked when and who would determine the fair-share contribution of the developer to the future north/south connecter road. The Interim Director stated the City Engineer would be making that determination. The City Attorney added that could be a condition of the tract map, the pro rata contribution based upon the traffic volume created by this development on the total capacity of that roadway, the condition also reflecting the formula for determining the contribution. Mayor Grgas asked if construction of a wall around the animal Shelter, in addition to the wall bordering the project, would be effective in reducing the noise generated from that facility. The Interim Director responded t~at noise attenuation would be improv~d through the thickness of the wall,. however suggested that a noise study would be necessary.to evaluate the benefit of a double wall. The Mayor suggested that the construction of a second wall be evaluated, the cost of which could be borne by the Agency. Mr. Mola stated they are aware of the noise factor from the animal facility, that they have eliminated lots that would realize the greatest impact, and offered that a'solid section of eight foot wall in that area would be acceptable to him. 7-17-89 Co~~cilme~~r R~~ne~ asked how dra~~ag~ from existing ,Hill properti~s ont~,the:Hell~an.land.wil~,be .handled. ,The .Iri~er~m Q~rec~qr _~tated off-site drainage.~or ~pe Hellman _prop~~ty and tQ~ ~djacent Hill p~operties ~ould be .:. accompli~hed th~ough ~,drainag~.p~a~ approyed.by staff,and would-~e a condition of the map. Mr. Evans explained, that -they,nav~ a~d~ess~d-~4 ~ccommoq~te4, the,legal.drainage from the Hill.p~ope~~i~s, hqweve~ .tpe,il~egal d~ainage will need ,to be ,rec~~~led,~y t~e Hill ~roperty. owne~s. ~ith.regard to the require~ent tha~ qou~ing p'a~s b~.coQ~tructed,at ,least 8.5 feet above 'sea.level, Ms. Massa-Lavitt advised that the amount o~ ,f~~l ,ne~es~~~y tq.~eet .th~t r~quirement will ,not be known un~il the gr~d~ng pla~ is,sqbmitted., Councilmember Risner referred fo the Mitigation,~on~toring Program, Biological 'Resources, regarding removal of infect~d " .etic~iyp.tus 'trees anti. :~n~<i~e!3,. ,a:nd sQgg~sted ,a requir,ement be ~dd~q .t~ re~lect the'ad~ise of tQ~ CjtY.~s consultant that any infected wood be.packeq ~nd r~moved_in ~ccordance with Vector Control District recommendations .to avoid sp~ead of :the lorighqrn~ bo!=er:., Ms_. ~as,sa-~~v:i.!;t s\lggested ,that ,could be a'qo~qi~ion pla~~q on ,the ,ma~~ ,In fesPQn~e tQ Co~ncilman .Laszro, she reported the consultant had based their ,EIR .fIndings, 'o~ 'an' ea["~hquake n!ag.nit~.de- of 7.5,.. .Co.uncilman .~aszlq no.t'ed, ,preV:ious !ii.scuss.ion. at. th.e Planning ,C,ommission lev~l of acce~s ~o ~~~ proposed c~~uni~y for political activities sixty days prior tp an ~1~9ti~n, and ,stat~d he would iike consideration. of a longer period such-as one hundrea eighty~ daY/3',: al,s~ the" .possibili ty of._ establishing an architectural review board to insure the_qualit~ of . " construction'of the project as a whole. With regard_to a development 'agreemen,t',' t.h.e C,ity Attorn!'!y siiggest!!d ,that, it should'be completed and approved prior to approval of the final, map." ,tha.t to b~ a condition of the tentative map which also should set forth the issues to be addressed_within such agreement,. the deveipPm~nt. agreement' r~quiring a public hearing before the Commissio~ and Council pursuant to State law. Mr. Stepanicich added that an initial draft of the development agre~me~t is currently being prepared by.~he developer whi~h wil~ be submitted tp.him, reviewed,. and revised until agreement is reached., ,With. regard to CC&R's he. recalled that; t~e condit~on!3 of the original tentative map were,quite specifi~ as ~o ~h~~ would be included in that document, the CC&R's,receiving separate approval from the deve~opme~t ~greemen~~ '. - . . .! .' Councilmember.Risner'stated-there'is question'as to how the thirty foot ~uffer zl;me, between the new. homes, and the: . existing residences will be handled, where some residents along Crestview from ~eal ~each Boulevard,to the.Gu~ Grove area were under the impression that would be an,accessible buffer area for them to encroach into Gum,Grove park, the concern being that tha~ lan4 is.p~oposed to be deeded to and become a part of t~e rear.yard~ of the new residences ,rather than a thirty foot buffer with sideyard fencing up to the existing residences, which-is not acceptable to tho~e residents. She asked 'if the buffer'could be dealt.with, through th~ CC&~'S t6~provide for that land to be maintained through the Homeowners Association, SQ that the area,can be aestheticaily retained as a buffer zone and not included in the rear-yards. Counc~lman Hunt recalled prio~ discu~sion of the buffer zone and_his understanding.that the buffer would be:~ e~tension o~ the lots generated.by the developer and have certain restrictions, however the area would belong to the property. owner yet .would generate 'premium monies to the -~evelqpei, '~hich -he said he.pre~umed was part of ,the basis for the concessions made to the City. He added that he felt if -a situation is created in the community where certain residents are given special privileges, the Council I I I 7-l7-89 1 would not be properly representing the citizens. Mrs. 'Risner re'sponded. tll"at '.the Mola' representatives nave been working witli these'specific.residents,.and ~hat there was no discussion of this-land being included in the rear yards at the June'19th-meefing. Mr. Roberts of Mola Development stated~tne Duffer is mearit to buffer the'existing homes from the ..future -development; tnat. they had ..designed a thitty foot bUffer;"initially,considered to'incllide a'trail system' however-rater'determined-that'was not workable in the manner 'in'wnich it was intended,.tlierefore tney'reverted to the -'straight'buffer concept,.the'thirty'feet part of the.planned lots in-tnat area. 'He noted tna€ based lipon the constraints of the-thirty. foot buffer, there is question as to who is going .to'maintain it, who is gaing to 'own it; who is'going to secure it, and who would,assume liability, therefore their Corporation determined. it should be a part of the lots 'with deed"restrictions requiring 'the area to be'a landscaped buffer forever: Mr. Mala.explained that given the long, narrow area of the buffer, it poses a security problem, the -maintenance. issue another major consideration, 'also if the . .Homeowners Association were charged'wit~ the responsibility -.of maintenance~ accessibility and liability then becomes an ,issue. He recalled-that when the golf.course was'being "considered a wall was-proposed wi~h.gates to al19w access to the'golf.course, however with houses backing-the area and -'fences bacKing both.properties, the security. issue is a prime concern. Councilmember Wilson ~aid she felt the buffer 'would. create problems for all concerned, that the thirty feet should be made part of the residential lots, and cited.current problems with burglary, etc. of the residents 'of that area that may be.worsened with an open.buffer zone. Councilmember Risner noted her .experience with'an open type of fencing, suggesting the use of chain link or wrought iron for the rear yard of the new homes, allowing a view of the buffer by.ail'adjoining properties, and again noted the obj~ction.to the sideyard fencing up.to the. existing properties, and asked if the Homeowners Association could be charged with. the maintenance'of all interior landscaping, including the buffer. Mr. Mola explained that all properties will be under the guidelines of the Homeowners Association and in a case where the rear yards and buffer are not properly maintained, the Association would take care of the problem and 5ackcharge the property owner. Mayor Grgas also expressed concern with regard to security, and noted that if it were posted for no'trespassing the Association would then ooject to providing the maintenance of an area to which they do not have access. Ms. Wendy .Morris; 1729 Crestview. Avenue, stated she~ and the neighbors she had spoken with, could not believe that the thirty foot buffer'would'be allowed in the rear yards of the new residences, the understanding, based upon negotiations with the Mola representatives, having been that the buffer would allow access to the Gum Grove area by the present residents. She als~ charged that ~n certain .areas .the buffer is considerably less than thirty 'feet, .the tract map showing tnree of the lots'only one. hundred eighteen feet in depth \ inCluding the'thirty foot buffer. Mr. Mola responded that the buffers will be worked out in conjunction with the tentative map, that the tentative map is for the purpose of discussion and is not precise, the buffering merely an idea and can De handled' in any manner the City chooses, their concern being the quality of what goes-on, and pointed out that there are yet a.number of phases for. further discussion and review. 'In response to Councilmember Risner who noted .'that ,the lots were' to be at least one hundred 'feet deep with a 'thirty foot buffer, the Interim Director advised that she had. not checked the dimensions of each of the individual . lots as yet. 'Councilman Hunt stated he'did not. believe the 1 I 7-17-89 depth of lots had been agreed upon, citing as an example the request that the setback along Seal Beach Bo~levard be increased to twenty .feet and it was indicated that the City would be willing to make some minor concessi~ns to accomplish that request. Mayor Grgas pointed out that minimum lot standards are fifty by one hundred 'and it was his recollection that the thirty foot buffer would be within the individual lot backing to the Hill, whatever it's depth. 1 Councilmember Risner questioned the setback requirements and the .resulting lot size after the buffer zone and setback. Mr. Mola invited Ms. .Morris to attend the Planning Commission meeting at which time the tentative.map, '. elevations, and housing footprints will be .considered.- With-the consent of the Council, Mayor Grgas declared a recess at 9:13 p.m. 'The Council.recoQvened at 9:26 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. '. - Mayor Grgas noted a request from the audience to discuss the ,'Environmen~al Impact Report and requested the City Attorney to review the appropriate procedures with regard to public comments. .Mr~ 'Stepanicich advised-that public testimony had been-closed by the City Council, that if there were comment with regard-to an error in the Resolution adopti~g the findings that would be-acceptable, however if the comment related to adequacy of-the EIR or supplement thereto it would not be appropriate to.take additional testimony. Mr. Galen Ambrose 'stated the Wetlands Group have not had-an opportunity to respond to the ,answers to their questions regarding the'inadequacy-of the EIR and-the answers, and that he had been informed he could do so at the time the tentative map is considered. The City Attorney noted that the questions posed by the Wetlands Group had been submitted within the allowed period of time,.that it had been. suggested that comments could be made prior to th~. conclusion-of the public hearing, the public hearing now 'closed for further public testimony.regarding the EIR. Mr. Stepanicich ~uggested that at the time ~he t~ntativ~ map is considered and if it is believed th~ ~p involves potentially significant environmental effects that have not as yet been addressed by the e~vironmental documentation, comments could be made at that time. _With regard to further environmental study of the additional five ~cres, the City Attorney explained that ~t such time the city decid~s to .acquire and improve that property, there woul~ be ,an environmental review and possibly a new EIR, however pointed out at this time there has been no decision.to acquire that land. He again noted that there has been a.lengthy period for public testimony and comments, ~nd that the C~ty_has made,full and complete response to com~ents that ~ere made as part of the final EIR. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3824 - CERTIFYING FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .Resolution Number 3824 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL B~ACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AS A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT." .By unanimqus consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3824 was waived. The City Attorney recommended the ninth paragraph of the Resolution be amended. to read "The environmental effects, mitigation measures, and mitigation monitoring program are listed in the attached. Exhibits "A" and "B." Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3824 as amen~ed to reflect the changes presented_by the Interim Director of Development Services, amendments of the City Council and the I I 7-17-89 I City Attorney. In response to Councilman Laszlo, the City Attorney clarified that responses were made to comments relating to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the previous speaker indicating he was not pleased with the responses that were. made,. and explained that under the procedure established by State law there is provision for comments and responses' to those comments, thereafter certification of the EIR. He noted that once the hearing is closed-it would be unfair to allow further testimony by an individual when others are aware that the hearing has been closed and are not afforded the same opportunity. AYES:- NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None . Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3820 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT la-88 - LAND USE ELEMENT Resolution Number 3820 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT la-88, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT DEALING WITH THE HELLMAN .SPECIFIC PLAN AREA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3820 was waived. The City Attorney recommended that reference to "Exhibit A" be de~eted. from the "Now Therefore" paragraph and read "Attachment A". Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3820 with the changes presented by the Interim Development Services Director, the Ci~y Council and the City Attorney. Councilman Hunt again asked that there be some assurance that if, in the future, the 37.9 acres designated for wetlands are not utilized for that purpose that that acreage might become available to the City. The City Attorney advised that that issue could be addressed with the tentative, tract map, and suggested that the developer discuss with the property owner what kind of options could be granted, noting also there should be consideration by the City as to whether they want to consider such option at this time. Councilmember Risner asked if the wetland acreage consideration should be postponed until after the Coastal Commission takes action. Noting the intent of the request to have the property owner grant an option on that property to the City, Mr. Stepanicich again explained that the City may desire to address that issue with the tentative map because once the Coastal Commission approves the plan there would not be any further discretionary approval by the City other than the issuance of building permits. Councilmember Risner asked if the statement in Attachment "A" to the Resol,ution that "although the City supports this project proposal, it is not envisioned that the City will either own or maintain the wetlands area" would preclude Councilman Hunt's request, and if there were other parties that would be interested in owning and operating the wetlands, would the City still desire the first option, and if that were kn~wQ.t~ the Coastal.Commission perhaps funds for restoration would not be realized. The City Attorney concurred that all of those issues must be taken. into consideration. ~ouncilman Hunt noted that at some point in ti_m_e th.e we.tlands ,acreage may have some va.lue to the .- developer, and in that case he would like to see the' City have the option to obtain that acreage at some reasonable cost if it became available. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 7-17-89 RESOLUTION NUMBER 3821 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT lb-88 - OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT . . Resolution Number 3821 was presented to Council entit~ed "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH -RECOMMENDING-APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Ib-88, AN AMENDMENT TO. THE OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full. reading. of Resolution Number 3821 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to. adopt Resolution Number 3821 with the I amendments previously presented. . - AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner,'Wilson None Motion carried . . -ORDINANCE NUMBER 1279 - HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Ordinance Number 1279 was presented to Council for first _reading_entitled "AN.ORDINANCE.OF THE- CITY-COUNCIL OF- THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO.THE HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full readIng of Ordinance Number 1279 was waived. The City Attorney recommended that the fifth "Whereas" clause be amended to read "that this.amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of.Chapter.3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976", deleting reference to the Seal Beach Local Coastal ,Plan. - .Staff confirmed that Section II-l had been 'amended to ref~ect the 26.6 acres of parkland. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1279 .as amended, and that it .be passed to .second. reading:. AYES:. NOES: . Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None . . Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1287 - CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 1 Ordinance Number 1287 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE I, SECTION 2-1 OF THE' CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, RELATING TO COUNCIL MEETINGS." By unanimous.consent, full reading. of Ordinance Number 1287 was waived. 'Risner moved, second-by Hunt, to adopt Ordinance Number 1287-as presented. In.response to Councilman Hunt, th~ Mayor explained the proposed change of Council meetings is the result of a request of the School Board to alternate meeting days to allow the citizens to attend both Council and School Board meetings, also-a recent newspaper-editorial suggesting same. Councilmember Risner noted'the second and fourth Mondays have.tradit~onally been the meeting days for the Council, the change to the first and third Monday.having been done to accommodate conflicting meeting times'for a member'of the Council. . AYES: . NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1288 -.PROHIBITING FIRES and BARBECUES ~ PUBLIC. BEACH ,. , Ordinance .Number 1288 was presented to Council for first reading entitled- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF' SEAL BEACH I PROHIBITING FIRES AND BARBECUES ON THE BEACH AND AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." . By unanimous consent, full reading-of Ordinance Number l288.was waived. After brief discussion, the Mayor asked staff to provide Council with a report with regard to procedures for allowing fires or. cookouts in the.. area of. the beach for special' activities. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1288 and that it be passed to second reading. 7-17-89 AYES: . 'NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None. Motion carried I . 'RESOLUTION NUMBER 3872 and ORDINANCE NUMBER 1289 - AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 - RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Risner moved, second by G~gas, to continue consideration of Resolution Number 3872 and Ordinance Number l289 until the regular meeting of August 7th. AYES: .NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ..RESOLUTION NUMBER 3873 - OPPOSING GENERAL AV-IATION - HUNTINGTON FLATS . - - - - . Resolution Number 3873 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING GENERAL AVIATION OFF THE SHORELINE OF ORANGE COUNTY KNOWN AS HUNTINGTON FLATS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3873. Councilman Laszlo noted that the _ Airport Site.Coalition did eliminate the Los Alamitos Reserve Center, the Naval Weapons Station, and Bolsa Bay from the list of potential airport sites, and although there was a consensus to eliminate Huntington Flats there has been no formal opposition to that location, and stated he felt Seal Beach should record its opposition through the proposed Resolution. Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3873. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3874 - SEAL BEACH/LOS ALAMITOS AGREEMENT - INFORMATION SHARING - PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS Resolution Number 3874 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF SEAL BEACH AND LOS ALAMITOS TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENTS ON EACH OF THE CITIES AND TO COMMUNICATE WITH REGARDS THERETO." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3874 was waved. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3874 as presented. Mr. Charles Antos, 210 - Bth Street, recommended additions .to the Resolution: I) prior to adoption, said agreement shall be submitted for public review and comment at a regular-City Council meeting; 2) minutes and/or reports' .shall be submitted to City Council for appropriate action if any; and 3) no final and/or binding decisions on the City of Seal Beach resulting from this agreement shall be entered into prior to submittal for public review and comment at a regular City Council meeting. Mr. Antos stated his reason for requesting the amendments was that in the past the citizens were not informed on a regular basis as to the progress of actions relating to the Zoeter School site, which then required a ballot measure to acquire as much of the site as possible. The Council informed Mr. Antos that the proposed Resolution was the agreement, providing for the cooperation and sharing of information relating to proposed developments. The City Attorney explained that it is not believed a binding decision could result from this informal process, and that.any w~itten agreement would be required to be considered by the City Council. Councilman Hunt reminded Mr. Antos that acquisition of the ballfield at Zoeter was considered at length under public hearing, the second portion of the site likewise considered in open forum and through an election, that negotiations were held with the LoS Alamitos School District with regard to acquiring the 1 7-17-89 frontage parcel of the site, and that all actions resulting from those negotiations that could be openly discussed, were made public. After brief discussion, the motion to adopt Resolution Number 3874 was amended to add Section 5 to the Resolution to read "Tnis agreement shall not authorize ' either city to enter into any agreements 'with respect to matters covered hereunder without the'approvaY of the respectiveCity'Counci"I's.",.., '_.,' ,", __" : ,. AYES: NOES: I, Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None ' ' . , Motion car.ried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3875 - 1989 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES - ISSUANCE AND SA:LE -. ' -' . .. - _.' . Resolution Number 3875 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION 'OF THE 'CITY COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY- 'dE' SEAL 'BEACH, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ITS 1989 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES,' APPROVING OFFICIAL' STATEMENT, TERMS OF. SALE,. NOTE 'PUR'CH}(SE AGREEMENT; APPOINTING .BOND . COUNSEL- AND' FINANCIAL CONSULTANT; PLEDGING"REVENU.ES' .AND ENTERING INTO CERTAIN TAx' COVENANTS 'IN' 'CONNEC.T'ION WITH' SAID NOTES.". , By -unanimous consent-,- full re'adlng 'of Resolu.tion Number .3875 .was wa'ived.' . The Fi"nanc'e'DIrector prese'nted' his report relating to .the rg89 issue 'ana noted an adjustment of 'the. TRAN amo-unt to $1.8. minion 'rather -th'an .$'1.9_ .given a slightly improved cash flow over las~ year~"'In ~esponse to Council, Mr. Thomas explained tne decline-of interest'rates would in turn lower the cost of the issue as well as the investment return, that it ,is hoped there will be a two to three point' spread,'noted'tne intent of the TRAN is not. necessarily for the interest earned but. to strengthen the City's cash flow until the first allocation-of property tax is received. He stated also that it is assumed that the change in spread is dependent upon the cost of borrowing money,' therefore. the timing and :the' number-.of i"ssue.s' being marketed are critical to the sale. Mr. Thomas reported ~he City's bond.rating last year. was two, having been downgraded for the past.two years as the resuti of the anticipated reimbursement from FEMA for the pier' reconst~uction, and expi::es'sed optimism -that the 'rating will' increase.' Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3875 as presented. '. ..." ,. I AYES: NOES': Grgas, Hunt, Laszlp, Risner, Wilson. . None . , ' . . Motion carried RESOLUTION NuMBER 3876 - AOUATIC'ACTIVITIES - HOURS and. LOCATION ." ' .. ... . . Resolution Number 3876 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING' HOURS AND LOCATION FOR AQUATIC ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-8'OF CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE I, OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution. Number 3876 was waived. Hunt moved, second by.Laszlo, to hold this item over until the next meeting as requested by Mayor Grgas and'Councilmember Risner. .' , AYES: .. NOES:- Grgas, H~?t,' ~aszlo, Risner; Wilson None. . Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR -.ITEMS "0". throuqh "P". Wilson moved~- second by Risner, 'to approve the '-rcecommended action for items on-the'Consent Calendar as presented. . .... ... . ' 0.: Approved regular demands numbered 75235 through.75460 in the amount of $612,741.51, and payroll demands numbered 35792'through I 1 I 7-17-89 35997 in the amount of $204,769.87 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. P. Supported the nomination of Kenneth H. witt for Vice President of the Association of California Water Agencies. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Mayor Grgas requested that the District One appointments to the Ad Hoc Airport Committee and the Environmental Quality Control Board be held over. Councilmember Risner requested that the District Three appointment to the Planning Commission be held over. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilman Hunt reported he had heard that there is an individual in the community that would like to sit on the Retail Sales Committee, and suggested that the Council now allow the Committee to establish their own guidelines and determine the number of members. Discussion followed. Councilman Laszlo suggested that the City Manager solicit the feelings of the Committee regarding additional members and report back to the Council. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Seal Beach resident, expressed his opposition to Mola Development bulldozing and taking away his open space, creating more traffic, keeping home prices down, adding more people in the stores, said he thought it unfortunate that members of the community found it necessary to negotiate with Mola Development, also that he felt many people will be unhappy if the project is built. Mr. Ambrose stated the Specific Plan is being misused, that it should address all of the concerns of the City rather than piecemeal. He spoke of new office space and new homes as not generating the needed sales tax. Mr. Ambrose also spoke in support of alternatives provided by the Wetlands Restoration Society, wetlands with seventy-nine homes on twenty acres, wetlands with retail sales, possibly a market, and said there is need for responsible businesses in the community. He said if something is to be built on the Hellman land he hoped it would-be-limited to twenty acres of highland and that light industrial or retail sales be considered that would generate sales tax. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to discuss a matter of pending litigation, Helmers versus Seal Beach and personnel negotiations. with consent of the Council, Mayor Grgas adjourned to Closed Session at 10:24 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:38 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matter of pending litigation and received a report from staff regarding labor negotiations. 7-17-89 / 8-7-89 ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, 10:39 p.m. AYES: NOES: second by Wilson, to adjourn the meeting at Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I erk and ex-o of Seal Beach of the Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California August 7, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:0B p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City-Engineer Ms. Massa-Lavitt, Interim Director of Development Services Capt. Garrett, Police Department Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the 1 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: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried