HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-08-07
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
8-7-89
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Grgas announced that the Closed Session would be held
prior to consideration of Items "J, K, and L" relating to
employee compensation.
1
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Grgas proclaimed William "Walking Willie" Croaker the
title of Honorary Citizen of Seal Beach in recognition of
his endurance walk of 3,245 miles to Washington D. C.
Councilmember Wilson presented the proclamation to Mr.
Croaker who accepted with appreciation, and described in
some detail his past experiences to raise public awareness
of cancer detection, his meeting with President Bush in
Washington D. C., and plans for future activities in the
Soviet Union, England, China, and various locations in the
United States. Mr. Don SchUltz, Mayor of Hawaiian Gardens
and President of the Cancer Awareness Foundation, presented
a picture of Mr. Croaker with President Bush and a
certificate of appreciation to the City Council for their
support of his efforts, as well as certificates to the Seal
Beach Police Association, Kiwanis, Rossmoor Center Merchants
Association, Thrifty Drug, Rossmoor Pastries, News
Enterprise, Seal Beach Journal, Orange County Performing
Arts, and the Golden Rain News.
1
Mayor Grgas prOClaimed August 19, 1989 as "Volunteer
Firefighter Recognition Day" which was accepted by a
representative of the Volunteers with appreciation.
PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-349/VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP l3l98 - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Grgas declared the public hearing open to consider
Tentative Parcel Map 86-349 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
13198 relating to the Hellman property. The City Clerk
certified that notice of the public hearing had been
advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no
communications had been received either for or against this
item. The Interim Development Services Director presented
the staff report and recommendations of the Planning
Commission. She reported that in considering the thirty
foot landscape buffer at the east and west ends of the
parcel, a separation between the existing residential area
from the new subdivision, the Commission recommended that
the buffer be included in the individual lots of the new
subdivision, landscaped by the developer however maintained
by those property owners. As a point of clarification, Ms.
Massa-Lavitt noted that a condition of the map is that the
City would be a party to the CC&R's for Code enforcement,
therefore the City, as well as the Homeowners Association,
would be allowed access to the landscaped buffer for repair
and/or maintenance purposes if necessary, the cost of which
would be the responsibility of the property owner. The
Interim Director reported the streets in the subdivision are
to be private, parking on either side, with gated entrances
to each of the three interior neighborhood areas, and in
that regard there had been considerable discussion at the
Commission level as to accessibility to the community for
political activities, the condition of approval requiring
that access be allowed pursuant to the time frames set forth
within the California Elections Code for the specific
political activity, the Commission adding the requirement
that two-thirds of the Homeowners Association would vote on
the requirement of open gates for political purposes. Ms.
Massa-Lavitt noted that the wetlands is 36.69 acres, Gum
Grove Park 11.25 acres, and the community park 15.02 acres,
explaining that as the map is further refined the acreages
change -slightly and become more accurate. She also
1
8-7-89
mentioned that the park is proposed to be developed in
stages and relates directly to the phasing of the
subdivision, the conditions specifying which portions of the
park will be completed in relation to the entire
development. The Interim Director explained that the
Specific Plan provides that the Director of Development
Service shall have approval over the Precise Plan, which is
a site placement of structures on the lots in conformance
with development standards of the Specific Plan, however the
condition specifies that should there be any deviation from
the development standards of the Specific Plan, the
deviation(s) would be presented to the Planning Commission
for consideration and recommendation to the Council. She
noted that noise generated from the Animal Shelter had been
a concern with a suggestion that an additional sound
attenuating wall might be a consideration in the area of the
Shelter, and advised that such condition has been included
as part of the noise study that will be prepared to
determine the overall noise impacts to the subdivision, and
should such study determine a heavier, thicker, or higher
wall is necessary, that would be required to be constructed
by the developer. Staff confirmed that Resolution Number
3823 would be amended to reflect the correct number of
dwelling units per acre, that the Parcel Map and Vesting
Tentative Map would be considered under one public hearing,
and that the conditions would be reviewed individually.
councilmember Wilson said she felt it important to know the
cost to the City and -the exact location of the additional
five acres before proceeding with the development proposal.
The staff confirmed that proposed Resolution Number 3822
would be corrected to reflect the location of Mola
Development in Newport Beach rather than Huntington Beach.
Mayor Grgas invited members of the audience wishing to speak
on this item to come to the microphone and state their name
and -address for the record. Ms. Frances Johnston, Coastline
Drive, suggested the Council take pride in providing the
wetlands area for the City. Mr. Gordon Shanks, 215 Surf
Place, spoke rega~ding the buffer area proposed behind
certain properties located in the vicinity of Surf Place and
Coastline Drive. He stated that nearly ten feet of his lot
is outside his property line, and pointed out that the owner
of the new residences would be restricted as to the use of
the thirty foot buffer, even though they would hold title,
that-it had been his understanding that the City or the
Homeowners Association would own and maintain the buffer,
and that for a number of years he has requested-resolution
of the issue of the land behind existing properties,
possibly through purchase. With ~egard to Mayor Grgas'
inquiry as to the authority of the City in the case of
encroachment onto the Hellman land by existing property
owners, the City Attorney advised that the City could not
unilaterally change property lines, however a boundary line
adjustment could be accomplished with concurrence of all
effected property owners, also that a property line
adjustment would not be an appropriate condition to be
placed on-the proposed map. Mr. Shanks continued and stated
the two potential developers of the site have said that
through some means arrangement would be made for the
existing property owners to maintain what they presently
have. Councilman Hunt responded that the perimeter fence
will be placed on the legal property lines which will in
turn create the buffer zone, and it was his understanding
that under the original plan with the golf course, the
encroachment would have been acceptable, however that
privilege did not carryover to the alternative plans.
Councilmember Risner said she was not aware of any
consideration to allow purchase of the encroached property,
1
1
1
8-7-89
I
even under the ponderosa proposal, also that there was never
an assumption that the City would own the buffer, or that
such encroachment would be allowed. She asked the developer
if there had ever been consideration of giving the
encroached land to the property owners or allowing the
purchase of same. Mr. Mola responded that when they entered
into negotiations with Hellman and agreement was reached, it
was his understanding the Hellman attorneys notified the
existing property owners of their encroachment, and it had
not been the intent of Hellman or Mola Development to sell
those parcels to the encroaching parties, however it was
their intent to construct fencing acceptable to the property
owners. Councilmember Risner said she had worked towards
increasing the buffer area, which is now thirty feet in
addition to the hundred foot depth of the new lots, the
fence proposed to be placed at the top of the buffer with an
open type of fencing used for the sideyards. Mr. Shanks
again stated that the buffer and bluff area is unusable
land, that the encroachment did not raise concern with the
proposal for golf course or wetlands in that area, however
does with backing residences that will hold title to the
thirty feet. Mayor Grgas pointed out that it is important
to understand there is no easement behind the subject Hill
residences, that there are a number of encroachments onto
the property presently owned by Hellman, and posed the
question of responsibility in a case of liability. In
response to Mayor -Grgas' question as to the City's power to
require the developer to convey the land within the
encroachment to the property owner, the City Attorney again
clarified that the map provides for the division of the
property and that the City can not require transfer of the
subdivider's property to an adjacent property. In response
to Councilman Laszlo, the Director explained that the
purpose of the buffer area is to -provide a landscaped strip
separating the new residences from the existing residences,
and it is the intent that the buffer area will be the
property of the homeowner. Mr. Mola reported there are
approximately six existing homes that would be affected as a
result of encroachment. Councilman Laszlo said he could
understand that a jagged property line would not be
desirable, however if the encroachment problem could be
resolved by some means, possibly through formation of an
assessment district by the homeowners to purchase that land,
a more consistent property line would be realized. Mr.
Shanks stated it was felt that a significant reason for the
buffer was to resolve the encroachment problem, however as
proposed it serves no practical purpose. Mrs. Risner said
it had not been her objective that the buffer be in the
backyards of the new residences but to have the Homeowners
Association charged with the responsibility for the buffer
with no fencing, however the Police Department did not
support the buffer as such nor did a majority of the
Council, and pointed out that the location of structures on
the site is largely dictated by the location of the
wetlands. With regard to the impact on existing residences,
Mr. Mola again pointed out that the encroachments are onto
Hellman owned-land, and noted the willingness of Mola
Development to construct appropriate fencing for the
existing properties. Mr. Decker MCAllister, 145 Surf Place,
described his lot as pie shaped with little back yard, the
property line of the westerly neighbor edging the bluff,
angling towards-his home and out again to the easterly
property, and suggested the property lines could be
straightened by fencing between the easterly and westerly
properties, the difference constituting approximately ten
feet. Mr. McAllister recalled observing what was thought to
be tidal flow onto the Hellman site in years past and asked
if the City had verified that the Hellman's actuaily own
I
1
8-7-89
that land. Mr. McAllister acknowledged that his property
does encroach although the fence line has existed since the
1950's, also that he would not have the proper rear yard
setback with the buffer area and new fenceline. He
confirmed that his property line is an inverted angle with
the fence in a straight line, also that there have been no
additions to the property that would cause the rear yard
setback to be illegal. In response to Council, the City 1
Attorney explained that setbacks are measured from the
property line therefore a nonconformity would not be created
by an action at this time. Mayor Grgas questioned if the
property under discussion as it exists is nonconforming
since there has been no verification that the property was
in compliance with Code at the time of development. Mr.
McAllister added his willingness to purchase a small strip
of the land at the ~ear of his property, if possible, in
order to correct the angle of his property.
Mr. Roberts, Mola Development, said that when the buffer was
first considered it was meant to provide an area of flex
between the existing houses with some soft landscaping and a
buffer from the new houses, from a planning standpoint
providing minimal impact to the existing residences, a
benefit to the most people affected. He noted that at one
time incorporation of pedestrian trails had also been
considered and evaluated for the area. With regard to the
property just discussed he noted that adjustment of lot
lines sounds simple, yet questioned what the adjustment
would do for that particular lot as it'ripples down the
property and what impact it would have on the new lots, also
if encroachments are allowed on some six lots, -would that
create encroachments for the new homes onto the thirty foot
buffer. Mr. Roberts offered that there is need for I
collective planning in a fair and equal manner, not in
special case instances, when you develop edges, thus the
buffer was considered a means of softening the impact of the
future development and providing consistency of edge
treatment. He pointed out that there are also encroachments
along Gum Grove Park that have not been addressed. In
response to a question of Council relating to installation
of a wall on the property line in the case of encroachment,
Mr. Roberts stated it is uncertain whether it would be
necessary to install a wall-or change a grade, that
determination to be based upon the engineering phase of the
development and the requirements of the Code, their
requirement being to not destroy the integrity of the
existing lot. He added that there are potentially four
fences that could be detailed on each lot, the first one
hundred feet of the lot could be solid block or wood, the-
thirty foot of buffer fenced with chain link or other type
of open fencing, the-fencing of the rear properties, if the
resident desires installation of that fence by the
developer, would be either wrought iron o~ block wall -with
pilasters and caps, and explained that the owners of the new
lots will be allowed to design their individual backyards
and place a fence within the one hundred foot depth if it is
desired. Councilman Laszlo made reference to the easterly
buffer area and the desire of some residents to have the I
thirty foot buffer walled, however the Police Department did
not support that proposal, and suggested that from Seal
Beach Boulevard to the Gum Grove, an area of approximately
eleven homes, a wrought iron fence be placed at the rear of
the new lots, therefore allowing visibility and openness of
the landscaped buffer. Mayor Grgas reiterated the Police
Department concerns with liability and crime potential as a
result of the thirty foot right-of-way to the rear of the
residential dwellings. Councilmember Risner recalled
comments from a resident of that area suggesting lighter
8-7-89
1
landscaping, however the Police Department concern was based
upon a heavily landscaped area, and noted the remaining
problem of access by current residents into Gum Grove Park.
Mr. Roberts responded that if the area were to be grass with
light landscaping, that would change the intent of the edge
treatment which is meant to minimize the visual impact on
the new and existing homes, and the area would no longer
provide that buffer. Councilmember Wilson recalled the
proposal in considering the golf course plan to extend Gum
Grove to Seal Beach Boulevard and objection was raised to
the light landscaping proposed, and questioned how a thirty
foot buffer could now be justified in the same area. Ms.
Wendy Morris, Crestview Avenue, responded that there was
opposition to the extension of Gum Grove because the
developer had reduced the Park to 4.7 acres and the thirty
foot wide extension was proposed to Seal Beach Boulevard in
order to increase the acreage and obtain credit for 6.8
acres of park, however residents felt the extension was
merely a buffer to the golf course.
with unanimous consent
a recess at 8:46 p.m.
with the Mayor calling
of the Council, Mayor Grgas declared
The Council reconvened at 9:01 p.m.
the meeting to order.
I
Captain Garrett, Police Department, advised that the
Department's issue with the buffer zone is safety, that the
type of landscaping, unless heavily landscaped, or the type
or location of gates was of little concern. He clarified
that if there is public access to the area there would
likewise be a need for vehicular access and the ability to
respond, their concern being with the ability of people to
move freely within the area and with the potential access to
adjacent residences.. Councilman Laszlo suggested that
wrought iron fencing would provide adequate visibility of
the area, and expressed his feeling that allowing the buffer
area within the new lots merely increases their size to
benefit the new property owners, yet access to Gum Grove
Park is being denied the Crestview residences.
Mr. San.Filippo, 801 Avalon Drive, voiced his support for
the original plan,.-and suggested that the homes proposed
behind the Hill properties be eliminated or moved. He spoke
of the risk of constructing homes in a high liquefaction and
fault area and the potential for liability. Mr. San Filippo
said increased access to Gum Grove Park will in turn
increase traffic on the residential streets, expressed his
opinion that there should be no outside access to a buffer
zone, and stated his objection to any type of pathway behind
his property. Mr. San Filippo spoke in support of the
developer's efforts to lessen the impact of new residences
on those that presently exist. Councilman Hunt acknowledged
Mr. San Filippo's support of the original golf course plan
however noted there was not a majority support for -that plan
therefore the "B.2" plan must now be refined to make it the
best that it can be. He also advised that the City did seek
the opinions of professional experts and has followed the
requirements set forth by State law in considering the
constraints of developing the Hellman site and protection of
the residents thereof. At the request of Council, the City
Attorney stated that with regard to approval of the Specific
Plan and General Plan.amendments and the Tentative Tract
Map, those are discretionary decisions of the Council which,
as a body and individually, are protected under immunities
established by State law.. He explained however that the
City must follow the mandato~y requirements of State law
with regard to spacing of homes from a fault as established
I
8-7-89
by the Alquist Priola Act, requirements for seismic safety,
etc., those requirements being complied with in the approval
process of this project.
Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration Society, stated he
felt the EIR does not address a number of issues or provide
adequate answers, and with regard to liability he said that
the experts provided by the Society have stated they would
not build on or near the fault zone. Mr. Ambrose said the
Council was not required to approve the tract map as they
were not required to app~ove the EIR, that his first concern
was with envi~onmental issues, that houses should not be
constructed on the low lands due to the earthquake fault and
other conditions of the property, that a large earthquake is
considered between 8 and 8.5 and given the last quake of
that magnitude in 1857 another can be anticipated within the
one hundred forty year period between 1967 and 2027, and
that it has been said the Newport/Inglewood fault may be the
most hazardous to life -and property in the nation. Mr.
Ambrose referred to the Specific Plan process as piecemeal
planning, not requiring the developer to address impacts on
the entire area, citing specifically traffic impact to the
405 freeway. He again suggested that the tract map not be
approved, that the property be maintained in its natural
state with wetlands, and possibly-seventy-nine homes on the
remaining twenty acres adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard or a
retail sales complex. Councilmember Risner explained that a
Specific Plan-applies to a specific parcel of property, the
General Plan applies to the City as a whole. Ms. Sally
Hirsch, 1325 Crestview Avenue, Chairman of the Save Gum
Grove Park Group, said that the Group would request the
following conditions be added: 1) that the emergency access
road be kept in Gum Grove park; 2) that parking be kept in
the Park for use by all persons, including handicapped; 3)
insure that a public hearing is held prior to adoption of
the Gum Grove Park restoration plan before the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the City Council; 41 that infected
trees be given a reasonable time after irrigation is
installed to fight off the longhorn borer and if irrigation
does not repel the infestation then replace the trees with
like trees, not other varieties of trees; and 5} that the
size of the replacement trees needs to be addressed. Mr.
Ambrose again objected to the manner in which the intent of
a Specific Plan is being used. Mr. Mario Voce, Catalina
Avenue, agreed with the comments made by Ms. Hirsch, and
stated he was opposed to placing the future of Gum Grove
with the Recreation Commission and he would support
formation of a citizens committee, consisting of persons
with a special interest in that area, to follow through with
the resto~ation, -offered his assistance to do so, and said
at some-point their Group would like to introduce a
California native wildflower program into the grass areas of
the Park. Councilman Laszlo indicated support for a Gum
Grove advisory committee, also suggested that the Gum Grove
Committee could be allowed to give input to the Recreation
Commission. Councilman Hunt said he felt Gum Grove Park has
been a failure given the amount of money that has been spent
over the years-and benefit to the public. He spoke in favor
of the restoration, and suggested that the Recreation
Commission should look at the Gum Grove issue objectively
and possibly obtain some professional assistance to develop
the best plan for that area. Councilmember Risner stated
preservation of the wilderness aspects-of -the Park is of
greatest importance, the area not meant to be an organized
recreation facility, that she felt certain that when Mola
presents plans-for that a~ea to the Recreation Commission,
community-input will be considered, and she did not feel it
has been a failure.
1
I
I.
8-7-89
I
Mr. Robert Jaramillo, 205 Surf Place, expressed his
opposition to the tract map under consideration, and stated
under the original plan he had envisioned a golf course and
condominiums that would be affordable, and said he did not
support what is proposed to be a buffer area. Mr. Jaramillo
advised that his property encroaches onto the Hellman land
approximately six feet however it was his understanding the
fences have been in place for at least twenty years, and
asked why he did not have the right to purchase that strip
of land for a reasonable amount if it is to be a buffer
area. Mr. San Filippo again addressed the Council and
stated he opposes any plan that encroaches existing
properties, and that the residents of Surf Place and Avalon
Drive do not support this plan. He again voiced his
preference for the golf course plan that would produce
revenue to the City while providing for wetlands and open
space. He also questioned the need for a Redevelopment
Agency and suggested it be disbanded. Ms. Wendy Morris,
1729 Crestview, inquired as to what will be done with the
crude oil pipeline that exists behind the Crestview homes,
also the water wells in the area of lot 201. The Interim
Director replied that the oil line will be relocated, most
likely at the time of grading, and that it is shown on the
parcel map, that the two or three water wells on site will
be capped pursuant to State and Building Code requirements.
with regard to the relationship of the water wells to the
oil production on-site, the Director offered to look into
that question. Also, with regard to noise mitigation for
the oil wells opposite the First street extension and the
proposed park, the Director advised that those wells are up
to one hundred twenty feet from the closest new residence,
that the developer will be constructing walls with
landscaping on the north side of Hellman Ranch Road that
will attenuate most noise. that there will also be a further
noise study prepared for the development that will identify
noise generated from those wells and if it is found there is
need for electrifying the motors or further sound
attenuation, that will be done by the developer. Ms. Morris
asked that that be made a condition. She said she had hoped
that the buffer area would resolve some of the problems as a
result of drainage from Crestview properties going onto the
Hellman site, and noted that if the buffer is part of the
new homes, an easement would need to be granted to the
existing homes since those properties drain to the Hellman
property, a situation that is potential for dispute between
property owners. She suggested the problem be resolved by
the thirty foot buffer and connected to existing drainage at
the easterly end of Gum Grove. The City Engineer confirmed
that through the Grading Plan, Landscape Plan, etc. the
drainage from all affected properties will be checked to
insure that the drainage is proper. The City Manager
explained that drainage law is clear, relates to
ground/surface drainage, that a downhill property owner has
an obligation to accept drainage, that an uphill property
owner has an obligation to not change a natural water course
that may cause damage to the downhill property, therefore
there are grading laws and engineering standards that the
developer will be required to adhere to. He pointed out
that it is illegal to drain a swimming pool onto another
property. Ms. Morris suggested that if the grading is done
properly, the easterly portion of the buffer could be a
grass strip which would allow police access through a gate
from the cul-de-sac parallel to Seal Beach Boulevard,
through the Gum Grove and exit at Avalon. She continued,
speaking to the buffer area and the understanding that it
would provide access to Gum Grove from the existing
residences, and stated the proposal that the buffer area be
I
I
8-7-89
within the rear yards of the new lots was never discussed as
a consideration of the "B.2" plan. Ms. Morris read the text
of a petition presented to the Planning Commission, said to
contain nine signatures, which in part stated 'the residents
of Crestview Avenue between Gum Grove Park and Seal Beach
Boulevard do not consider the proposal on the tentative
tract map by the Mola Company to have an adequate buffer,
the buffer being the backyards and sideyards of the proposed
new homes, during negotiations the buffer was understood to I
be a wide -strip for access for.all adjoining private
properties.' She stated the Crestview residents do not
support the buffer as proposed, that there is also concern
with the type of trees that may be planted in the thirty
foot strip and the leaves that will fall into the adjoining
rear yards. Ms. Morris stated that Mr. Mola had told her
that if her neighbors could come to agreement as to what
they wanted, with Council approval they would accept it.
Councilmember Risner pointed out that although access from
the Crestview properties into Gum Grove may be desirable,
that would in turn allow those persons frequenting the Gum
Grove access to the homes, noting also that access from Seal
Beach Boulevard is also not desirable, and again, the
developer constructing the new fencing for the existing
properties, with the pathway requiring yet another. Ms.
Morris spoke in-support of her suggestion to provide a turf
area with-a continuous wall from Seal Beach Boulevard that
would dete~ entrance from the Boulevard yet provide Police
access from the first cul-de-sac. The City Manager
explained that in the original plan the emergency access was
proposed as a hard surface area, possibly grasscrete, and
all weather accessible. A question was posed as to who
would maintain the area and assume liability under this plan
where there is adjoining residential. Discussion continued. 1
Ms. Morris said access to Gum Grove through the buffer area
was offered to her. Mr. Roberts of Mola Development said
the issue was discussed as a planning idea. Ms. Dorothy
Geisler, 13811 Thunderbird Drive, inquired as to why there
was no mitigation included for the impact to Seal Beach
Boulevard from Westminster to 405 Freeway. The City
Attorney explained that off-site improvements are based on
p~orata impact from the development and the proposed
improvements, the-method for determining the amount of
contribution. The Mayor added that pursuant to State law a
project is required to mitigate its impact, and even though
there could be argument as to-whether State law is adequate
in considering impacts that may be thought to be greater,
such as on a regional basis, the law requires that the
contribution be based only upon the impacts of the project.
Be explained that consideration is now being given to
looking at projects that may produce some marginal impact
and requiring those developments to provide a fair share
contribution towards future improvements. Mayor Grgas
advised that the City can not arbitrarily require
improvements that are not directly related to the project.
Councilman Laszlo -noted that the developer will be making a
contribution towa~ds the proposed roadway to Westminster
Boulevard, with possible participation by Rockwell. Mr.
Matt Mikkelsen, 125 Surf Place, presented a petition I
containing seventeen signatures, similar to the one
previously presented, specifically on behalf of the -
residents of Surf Place and Catalina Avenue, relating to the
buffer that was understood would-be thirty feet in width and
accessible to all adjacent private properties. Mr.
Mikkelsen reported attending a meeting during which the
buffer as stated by another speaker was offered. Ms.
Suzanne Andre, 1300 Crestview Avenue, agreed that the
accessible, thirty foot buffer had been promised by the
developer, and stated the area being proposed is not a
8-7-89
1
buffer. She noted and reminded the Council of their
position that the plan proposed would not be approved unless
the acreage for baseball diamonds is secured. Mr. Ambrose,
Wetlands Society, said that when construction on the twenty
acres, as he had proposed, is commenced the remaining
wetlands area should be cleaned at the same time. He
offered that if the -plan under consideration goes forward
Gum Grove will be no more than a strip of trees rather than
a wilderness area, also that if that area is replanted it
should be done with native trees such as sycamore and oak,
and stated wildflowers will not grow under eucalyptus trees.
Mr. Ambrose said -that the flood zone for the property has
not been adequately addressed because it is currently vacant
land. He recommended that the present plan not be approved,
that the Wetlands Plan be considered, thus eliminating the
problems associated with the buffer area and access to Gum
Grove Park. with concurrence of the Council, Mayor Grgas
declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Grgas declared a recess at 10:44 p.m. The Council
reconvened at 11:04 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting
to order.
1
With regard to the thirty foot buffer, Councilmember Wilson
spoke favorably of the Planning Commission recommendation,
stating her feeling that it would not seem logical to leave
the area open and accessible, the Police Department having
expressed their concern with security of the area and the
City having sole responsibility after ten years. She spoke
for including the area in the new lots, with the requirement
that it remain open, landscaped by the developer, and
maintained by the property owner. After listening to the
discussion at this meeting, she offered that if a fence is
placed at the one hundred thirty foot lot line, a path into
Gum Grove could be provided by and from the existing
residential lots. Mrs. Wilson supported the amount of park
acreage under this plan, however noted the City's
responsibility for maintenance and policing after the ten
year period, said the proposal for access for political
activities has merit however the issue should-be decided by
the resident homeowners association. She noted the
importance of knowing the location and cost of the
additional five acres before proceeding further, suggesting
that night lighting from the park and ball diamonds would
create as many problems as would the driving range had it
been approved. Councilmember Wilson said she felt other
types of eucalyptus trees should be considered for replacing
the infected Gum Grove trees, such as the variety that is
found-along freeways. She questioned if Condition 3 of
Resolution 3822 adequately covered the electrical easements
along Bolsa Avenue, and if the Coastal Commission and other
agencies establish the wetlands acreage at less than is
proposed by this plan, asked if there is provision for
agreement that the remaining acreage revert to the City.
Councilmember Risner said she would comment on the
conditions as they are individually reviewed. Councilman
Laszlo stated what had been thought to be a buffer between
the existing and new residences is now thirty feet of
additional depth to the new lots and an enrichment to the
developer, and that he would be making a proposal to
possibly recover some of the additional revenue that would
be realized by the developer. He inquired as to what will
go into the park and where facilities will be located.
Councilman Hunt commended the Planning Commission for their
diligent review of this plan and the conditions thereto. He
said he agreed with Councilmember Wilson's comments with
regard to the-buffer, however expressed concern regarding
the specificity of the five acres and assurances that the
I
8-7-89
price that is ultimately paid for those acres will be fair,
assurance that the property will be made available and the
conditions thereof. With regard-to access for political
activities, Mr. Hunt noted that the properties within the
proposed development are private, gated to control access by
unauthorized-persons, as-are a number of areas in this
community, suggested that caution be used in dealing with
the access issue as it may impact private property rights of
another, and that he would support allowing those residents
to make the decision on this issue. In response to Council
inquiry regarding park acreage, the Interim-Director advised
that the acreage shown on the map is correct however may
change somewhat at the time of the final map when lines are
more closely defined, that presently Gum Grove Park-is 11.25
acres, the community park is 15.02 acres, for a total of
26.27 acres of public parkland, and does not-include-the
additional five acres or 36 plus acres of wetlands, the
total open space and parkland acres to the south of Hellman
Ranch Road being 63. She clarified that Gum Grove Park is
located at the south of the project adjacent to Marina Hill,
the wetlands are northwest of the development adjacent to
Hellman Ranch Road,-and the community park is located south
of Hellman Ranch-Road, -north of the project and
approximately the center point of the development.
Mayor Grgas noted concerns that specifics regarding the
additional five acres are yet-unknown, the location, the
price, and -condition of the specific property. He reported
that City staff and Councilman Hunt met with -Hellman
representatives who indicated their desire to work with the
City on obtaining the five acre site, however-certain issues
were raised by Hellman, one of which being that the location
may not be the same today as it would two or three years in
the future due to their oil production activities. The City
Attorney reported as a result of conversation with the Mayor
regarding this issue, amended language -of Condition 4 of
ReSOlution Number 3822 is proposed to read nprior to Final
Map approval, a Development Agreement shall'be entered into
with respect to the development of Parcel Numbers 1 and 2.
That as part of the Development Agreement with the
applicant, five (5) contiguous acres of land located on
Parcel No. 4 with reasonable access to Hellman Ranch Road
shall be offered to the City for purchase for park and
recreation purposes. The Development Agreement shall
specify the method for determining the purchase price of
such property which shall be based upon the fair market
value of such property, taking into account any
characteristics of the property (such as the presence of
hazardous waste or materials, if any)- which would be
considered by an appraiser in valuing the property.n He
explained that the purpose of such condition is to relate
the Map to the Development Agreement, where the Council had
felt the five acres was an integral part -of project
approval, thus requiring the Agreement to be entered into
prior to the time of approving the Final Map. He added that
this condition provides that the acreage, even though the
exact location may be unknown, will have reasonable access
from the main roadway, -the Development Agreement to
establish the methodology for establishing the price of the
acreage based upon fair market value and the characteristics
of the property. Mr. Mola indicated he would have no
objection to the condition. The Mayor noted that the
Planning Commission had made recommendation to consider a
small baseball facility on the park site in the interim to
obtaining the-five acres for that purpose, and stated his
preference that that not be considered. Councilman Hunt
suggested input be -received from the Recreation Commission,
also that some reasonable cap be placed on the purchase
I
-I
1
8-7-89
I
price of the five acres and if it were to exceed that
number, the developer could possibly be requested to provide
the difference, and noted that there may also be a need to
factor an inflation rate if the property is not paid for
within two to five years. Councilmember Risner recalled
that a previous letter indicated a figure of approximately
$120,000 per acre. Mr. Roberts of Mola Development
acknowledged that to be an approximate figure. The City
Attorney advised that it may not be in best interest to
place a cap on the purchase price at this time, citing lack
of knowledge of the precise location of the site and costs
that may be associated with cleanup due to the oil
operations, suggesting it may be advisable to postpone that
determination until the Development Agreement is considered,
at which time there will need to be a concept of what the
costs will be and further, such cap could impact further
discussions and negotiation. With regard to obligation of
the City to approve the final map should agreement not be
reached on the five acres, the City Attorney stated that if
agreement can not be reached on the Development Agreement
there would then be a basis for not approving the Final Map,
all of which are based upon good faith discussion. He
explained that if the terms of the offer was an over-
inflated purchase price, unacceptable location, -etc., that
would be basis for not approving the Development Agreement
and not going forward with the Final Map. Councilman Laszlo
suggested that possibly consideration be given to one
baseball diamond and a soccer field on the five acres rather
than two ball diamonds. As previously suggested, Mayor
Grgas said he felt the Recreation Commission would receive
public input as to the Park development, and again clarified
his preference that a ball diamond not be placed on the
community park site, even as an interim facility.
Councilmember Risner noted the need for baseball diamonds in
the community, and suggested two diamonds and a snack shack
on the additional acreage. Mr. Mola stated that if the Map
is conditioned and a Development Agreement follows
specifying that the property be purchased based on a fair
market appraisal, all parties would be aware of what is
expected. -He said if the original location of the five
acres is -preferred, that is what the City will get, yet
Hellman should be allowed the flexibility of moving the
location, at their cost, during the period of their oil
operation activities. Mr. Mola proposed that if agreement
were reached with Hellman to lease the site for one dollar
per year, he -would doubt the City would pursue purchase at
this time, yet there would be a formula in place to purchase
the land in the future that would be fair market value for a
park. He explained that since the use is specified as park
rather than something of greater density, and since any
appraisal prepared by MAI will require specifics as to soil
conditions, location, and use, that becomes a protection for
the City-as well as the Hellmans, and suggested that the
City obtain two appraisals, if they do not agree get a
third, which will provide a good basis for price. He said
he felt straight negotiation for the purchase price would do
a disservice to both parties. Mr. Mola stated he felt the
agreed upon $l million that will be given to the City will
more than cover the purchase price of the property and
installation of ball diamonds. He added that an alternative
could be that the City require Mola Development to provide
the five acres, Mola Development would retain the $1 million
and negotiate the land price. Discussion followed with
regard to using the appraisal process for evaluating the
land price, and the intention under which the $1 million was
offered. Mr. Mola recommended that the Council-not consider
this issue in relation to acreage costs, that it be dealt
with as park land in the City for the purpose of appraisal,
I
I
8-7-89
therefore competing only with other park land in the City,
using an average on which to base the acquisition price.
Mayor Grgas recalled that methodology was applied to the
Zoeter School appraisal, and Councilman Hunt said his
concern is that the City can not afford to pay an amount
even near the Zoeter appraisal amount for the five acres.
The City Attorney pointed out that in terms of the
characteristics of the property, the Zoeter property on I
Pacific Coast Highway was an immediately developable site,
much different -from the property under consideration in this
case. -He stated he did not believe that the appraisal would
be as simple as it may be thought, complicated because of
the nature of the property, that there is not a simplified
formula merely for park purposes, yet there would be
acceptable methods -used by an MAI appraiser that would take
into account the-deficiencies on the property-and the-
improvements that would need to be made to make it usable.
Mr. Mola said the reason he felt the appraisal method would
be the best mechanism for the City to use is that the five
acres would be designated as park land, which may lead to
the City obtaining the property at a lesser price. He added
that the Hellman's are willing to assist-with this and
future development of their property, that they want to be
flexible with regard to the location due to the oil
production, and again offered that the City-may prefer to
lease the land for an extended period of time. Mr. Mola
pointed out that the oil production areas of the property
currently have -no zoning. Mayor Grgas said he would support
the language provided by the City Attorney until such time
as the-Development Agreement is prepared, where more defined
language as to the process, mechanisms in case of disputable
value, and more specific direction for appraisal may be
considered. Councilmember Risner asked if language could be 1
added -to Condition 4 that would allow the City to follow
through with the Condition at the discretion of the City.
The City Attorney explained that the Condition is mandatory
in requiring that the Development Agreement -provide the
method for evaluating-the property based upon fair market
value while taking into account the characteristics of the
land, therefore if that provision is not within the
Agreement and approved, there would be no development of
that property. He added that consideration has been given
to the appraisal method, two and possibly three, however the
language proposed would be sufficient at this time.
Councilmember..Risner moved to amend -Condition 4 of
Resolution Number 3822 in its entirety, inserting -the
language proposed by the City Attorney relating to the
additional five acres. Councilman Laszlo seconded the
motion.
In response to Council, the City Manager explained that
costs that may be attributed to soil condition problems on
the five acre parcel will be factored in at the-time of
appraisal, that the Council has-yet to-determine what-monies
will be utilized to purchase the acreage, and pursuant to
the language proposed, the Development Agreement will need I
to address the date of purchase, etc. Mayor Grgas-stated
that once a base price is established there are-means to
address increases in cost over time and can be-resolved
through discussion between the parties, his greater concern
being the initial base price, therefore there should be
language in the Development Agreement, lease option, and/or
purchase agreement that will address increases should the
land not -be purchased-until a future-date. Councilmember
Wilson asked if Condition 4 should include-language that
would require the property to be contiguous-or adjoining the
development, or accessible from First Street. Mr. Roberts
8-7-89
responded that the location is yet unknown due to the
incomplete design for secondary oil recovery, the location
to be determined at a later date.
I
The City Attorney again read the revised language of
Condition 4. Councilmember Risner noted previous mention of
not using the $1 million to purchase the subject property,
and suggested it would be possible to loan a portion of
those monies to the Agency for the purchase to be repaid
from the tax increment. Mayor Grgas pointed out that the $1
million will not be received until seventy-five percent of
the project is constructed, that he felt it would be
inappropriate to spend $1 million from the General Fund if
other monies could be substituted, such as Redevelopment
monies, however a loan could be a consideration.
Councilmember Risner stated her understanding that the $1
million was for the purpose of parkland improvements, and
that her concern with placing those monies in the General
Fund without specific designated use, is that it could
effect the Gann limit. Councilman Hunt said it was his
impression that the $1 million would not be used for
anything where other monies could be used, rather that it
would be a relief for the residents against increases in
future years.
Vote on the motion to approve the revised language of
Condition 4 of Resolution Number 3822:
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
None Motion carried
I
In response to Council, the Interim Director reported there
is a requirement for approval of the Precise Plan by the
Planning Director, and should there be deviation from the
development standards of the Specific Plan those deviations
would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City
Council, however there is no specific condition requiring
approval by an architectural committee. Councilman Hunt
stated he believed the language discussed at the Commission
was significant deviation. Councilman Laszlo said he felt
the citizens want assurance that this will be a quality
project, that quality materials will be used, and that he
has been-advised the -best -way to accomplish that is through
an architectural committee review, possibly a committee of
three. The Director confirmed that there is value to
architectural or development review boards, and if this were
to be a custom lot subdivision an architectural review
committee would be appropriate, however in this case there
are single family lots being developed with tract homes
therefore it is felt to add another layer of the approval
process would-not be necessary. The City Manager reported
his experience with architectural committees in other
cities, that they have not been effective in assuring the
quality of construction, and in fact resulted in a lesser
quality product due to added cost to the developer. The
Mayor pointed out the ability of the-Planning Commission to
review the issue of -using quality materials, as well as
review and approve the Precise Plan, construction drawings,
etc. which are yet to come before any permits are issued,
and further, the developer must certainly realize the need
to develop a quality product given the price that will be
asked for the units. Mr. Mola advised that the project
architect has received at least fifty awards over recent
years, that all of the consultants are top quality
professionals, and that they would not design a less than
quality product. He noted that the market dictates the
quality of the product, that the construction costs for this
development will be in the $60 to $70 per square foot range
I
8-7-89
where a tract house is approximately $40. He stated it is
difficult to have an architectural review board given the
various design opinions, and that the basic assurance of a
quality product lies with the city Codes and City
inspections. With regard to the style of architecture of
the project, Mr. Mola stated it is proposed to be a
Mediterranean theme throughout, some variation of
elevations, tile roofs, that the building plans will most I
likely be in the City before approval of the Final Map,
submitted to the Building Department, reviewed by the
Planning Director and City Manager, and provided to the
Council for review and comment. The Interim Director
clarified that the Planning Commission would also be
provided a set of plans for individual informal review and
comment.
The City Council commenced review of the conditions of
approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. Prior to Grading
Permit Conditions, Item one, staff clarified that the
Engineering Department will check the grading and drainage
plans~ Item 3, trapping of animals, the developer advised
they would contract for a professional trapper, seek a
recommendation from the City for same, as well as suitable
areas to relocate specific animals. Councilman Laszlo asked
that the record reflect that steel claw traps are not to be
used. The City Manager noted that the Fish and Game and
other agencies will also have requirements for trapping and
relocation. With regard to Item 23, the Interim Director
suggested Item 19 of the Prior To Grading Permit Conditions
would be the appropriate section to place the verbiage
Rincluding offsite oil wellsR as discussed by the Planning
Commission. With regard to front yard landscaping, Mr.
Roberts advised there will be a requirement that the I
homeowner(s) landscape within a certain period of time. Mr.
Evans explained that with zero lot line housing and a
Homeowners Association a developer will sometimes provide
front yard landscaping which in most cases the new homeowner
removes, however with housing of this price range most
homeowners prefer to provide landscaping that affords their
own identity. He noted that most CC&R's require an
architectural review board to oversee landscaping plans,
also require that landscaping be installed within a certain
period of time. He also confirmed that sprinkler systems
are not provided. In response to Councilmember Risner, the
Interim Director stated from her experience in more than
fifty percent of projects the developer is required to
provide landscaping. Councilmember Risner asked Council
consideration of requiring the developer to provide some
minimum landscaping. Mayor Grgas agreed with the
developer's statement that most homeowners would remove the
landscaping and provide their own, that such a requirement
would be more appropriate for a lesser priced subdivision.
Mr. Mola noted that in the past they have also provided
patio areas which the new homeowner subsequently removed,
and that it is in the developers best interest that
landscaping be installed in a timely manner.
Prior to Final Map Approval Conditions, Item six, with I
regard to driveway lengths and setbacks, the Interim \
Director reported the development standards of the Specific
Plan reflect the same setbacks as the Hill properties, and
recalled that the standard front setback is eighteen feet,
most likely insufficient for a car to park on the driveway
pad and allow room to open the garage door, and that it is
likely there will be a CC&R condition that will prohibit
parking on the apron. Mr. Evans confirmed each residence
will be equipped with a garage door opener. Item 6-P, staff
advised that the City Engineer will determine bus stop
8-7-89
I
locations, and that the Department of Development Services
will approve the architectural design thereof~ Item 9-D,
parking of non-automotive vehicles, boats, etc., it was
clarified that a small boat would be allowed in the sideyard
setback, which is ten percent of the lot or in this case
five feet. Mr. Evans advised they would be drafting the
CC&R's for submittal and review by the City Attorney and
Planning Director, which will-most likely contain stricter
language relating to parking and storage of non-automotive
vehicles, boats, etc., than is set forth in the Conditions.
With regard to regulations governing streets within the
project, the City Attorney advised that since the streets
will be private not all Vehicle Code regulations would
apply, and with regard to regulations governing recreational
vehicles, the CC&R's will be reflective of the provisions of
the Code. By unanimous consent, Item 9-I, right of entry,
was amended to read R...all governmental entities and their
officers and employees...R
With regard to Item IS-X, animal shelter noise attenuation,
Councilman -Laszlo reported the Shelter is in need of an
animal quarantine structure, which could be located at the
rear of their site and also serve to reduce the noise from
the Shelter. He moved that a condition be added to require
a $10,000 contribution of the developer towards construction
of a quarantine facility. The City Manager reported there
has been some discussion -regarding a storage facility at the
Shelter however he was not aware of a desire for an
additional holding facility. Discussion followed, and
question was raised as to whether there is adequate area on
the Shelter site for such facility. There was no-second to
the motion. Mr. Roberts said Mola Development would commit
to considering a contribution for such improvement. with
consent of the Council, Item 15-X was amended to read
R...thickness of wall or walls required...R
Prior to Building Permit Issuance Conditions, Item 8, staff
explained that fire flow means pressure or pounds per
minute~ Item 15, it was confirmed that there would be the
ability -to close the windows for noise attenuation. Item
20, $l million payment to the City, Mayor Grgas questioned
how this and other issues will be addressed in the
development agreement. The City Attorney suggested that one
means could be to tie the phasing of construction to the
specific requirements of the project. The Mayor stated of
concern to him with regard to acquisition of the five acres
would be the use of tax increment monies to purchase and
improve that property, particularly the time period
associated with the flow of those monies, and spoke for the
Development Agreement providing a time frame for completion
of the phases of development. Councilman Hunt suggested
reference along the line of the two hundred sixty-sixth
dwelling unit or as otherwise defined in the Development
Agreement. Mr. Roberts responded that the proposed formula
is that one half of the park would be completed with the
eighty-sixth unit, the second half of the park to be
completed upon completion of half of the project, and when
development reaches the seventy-five percent stage
sufficient project inflows would be realized and allow the
transfer of the funds to the City. Councilman Hunt noted
that if the City encountered a funding problem for the five
acres and if the cash flow to Mola Development was
sufficient, possibly some aid to the City could be
considered. The Mayor cited as an example if the purchase
and improvement costs for the five acres were $1.5 million
and there was a desire to raise an additional $l million for
other purposes, if amortized over a twenty year period the
net tax increment flow to the Agency would need to be
I
I
8-7-89
approximately $300,000, therefore it would be the desire
that a known time frame for the flow of tax-increment be
provided, however added that there should be some
flexibility to receive the $1 million earlier than the two
hundred sixty-sixth unit. The City Manager noted that the
phasing of the development with regard to the Agency
boundaries are of great-importance. Mr. -Roberts reported a
draft of the Development Agreement has been provided to the
City Attorney for review, which includes a perceived
conceptual staging plan, and could conceivably be used for
underwriting purposes.
With concurrence of-the Council, Item 19 was amended to read
....ensure that noise from arterial highways, the existing
three (3) oil wells in the northern portion of the property
as well as off-site wells located-north of Hellman Ranch
Road does not exceed.... With regard to the $l million
payment, Item 20, the Mayor clarified that this issue would
be discussed as part of the Development Agreement.
General Conditions,-Item 6, a convenient bus stop, the City
Engineer advised that the staff would consult with the
Orange County Transit District regarding their
recommendation-as to the location and number of stops. The
City Manager noted that currently only Seal Beach-Boulevard
and Pacific Coast Highway have bus routes, and that one stop
does exist at the entry gate on Seal Beach Boulevard. The
second -sentence of Item 10 was-deleted and amended pursuant
to language provided-by the City Attorney to read .Such
district shall be limited to those property owners within
this projectR and the third sentence of Item 13 was amended
to read ....landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
homeowner's association/property owners. Councilmember I
Risner-pointed out the benefit of Condition 13 to the City
where the Homeowners Association will bear the cost of
landscaping and maintaining said landscaping on the north
side of .A. Street for a considerable period of time. She
asked if the City would be responsible for the landscaping
when .A" Street is widened, and if that would then relieve
the Homeowners of that requirement. The City Attorney
responded that the Condition as worded does not address that
issue at such time as the roadway is expanded to four lanes.
Item 19, was corrected to read ....complete the connection
from .A. Street to Regency Drive and the connection shall be
completed.... Councilmember Wilson asked if a time limit
should be placed on Item 23, proportionate share of roadway
design and installation costs. With regard to the same
Item, Councilman Laszlo asked if the developer could be
required to place a deposit or bond for -the proportionate
share of costs. The City Engineer advised that the
developer will bear the costs for a traffic study of that
area to determine-the pro rata share. The City Attorney
added that -payment of the proportionate share will need to
be satisfied by the time of the Final Map, or an agreement
with adequate security to guarantee that payment will be
required.
I
With -regard to Item-27, Councilman Hunt suggested that I
before refurbishment of Gum Grove Park is commenced it would
be advisable-to seek the advise of a professional to look at
the size of the park, what presently exists, as well as the
historical aspects, and develop a plan for replanting, for
companion vegetation to the eucalyptus trees, parking, etc.,
something that is superior to what currently exists.
Councilmember Risner -agreed, noting that the improvement
plans are required to be submitted by the project proponent,
therefore it would be in the City's interest to utilize,
through the developer, the expertise of proponents landscape
8-7-89
I
architect. She referred to Item 27-A.I, and suggested there
be clarification as to whether the developer will put in the
improvements and receive credit in lieu of a $150,000
payment, noting her preference that the developer make the
improvements. The City Attorney suggested that this item be
addressed in greater detail in the Development Agreement.
Mr. Mola noted that when the grading and landscape plans are
implemented, it is very likely Gum Grove improvements could
be accomplished by them at considerably less cost and
greater continuity. He reported with what they have in
mind, adding water, replanting and cleanup pursuant to the
botanist report, he felt those improvements, along with the
landscape architect costs, could be accomplished within the
estimate.
I
Councilmember Risner asked that Item 27-A.2 be amended to
read ....improvement plans to Gum Grove shall be submitted
by the project proponent and approved by the City of Seal
Beach after public hearings before the Parks and Recreation
Commission with recommendations to the City Council...n
Councilman Laszlo said he wanted a body in addition to the
Parks and Recreation Commission to review and approve the
plan. Mr. Mola suggested that if there were public hearings
before the Parks and Recreation Commission, that two or
three members of the Council be appointed to act in
conjunction with the Commission to approve the plan. The
City Attorney suggested revised language of Item 27-A.2 to
read .Prior to issuance of building permits, the improvement
plan for Gum Grove-Park shall be submitted by the project
proponent and approved by the City Council after receiving
the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission
who shall hold a public hearing on the plan.n In response
to a concern expressed by Mr. Roberts regarding the time
frame for approval, the Council assured him that the
Commission would consider the plan in a timely manner. Mr.
Roberts suggested approval prior to the eighty-sixth unit,
the first phase of the community Park. The City Manager
confirmed that Public Works personnel will work with the
Recreation Department on this matter, however all
departments are a resource to that Commission, that the
Department will make the recommendations on recreation
items, Public Works on their items. The City Manager
pointed out that Item 21 of the Prior to Grading Permit
Conditions provides a time frame for the improvements to Gum
Grove.
Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the revised
language of Item 27-A.2 as stated by the City Attorney.
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
None Motion carried
I
Councilmember Risner asked that Item 27-A.3 be amended to
read ....to remove severely affected trees and stumps....
and that Item 27-A.4 be amended to read n...All severely
affected trees...n After brief discussion, the City
Attorney suggested that the City may want to rely upon the
expert opinion of the botanist due to the potential danger
of older trees infecting the new trees. No action was
taken. with regard to replacement trees, Councilmember
Risner stated she would-support any species of eucalyptus
that would be acceptable for this climate. There was no
objection of the Council to revise the language of Item 27-
A.4(3) to read .Or other eucalyptus or other appropriate
species recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission
after consultation with the Parks Division of the Public
works Department.n
8-7-89
With concurrence of the Council, the last sentence of Item
27-A.5, .the project proponent shall also provide removable
bollards at the entrance, a park bench and drinking
fountain~, was deleted, since the park improvement plan will
address those issues.
In the same Item Councilmember Risner asked that there be a
clarification that vehicle as well as pedestrian access will I
be provided. The City Attorney clarified that the park plan
would address access to the area, suggesting however that
the word .pedestriann be deleted from Item 27-A.5 to read
.access shall be provided.....
With concurrence of the Council, a second sentence was added
to Item 27-A.5 to read nThe trail system and emergency
vehicle roadw~y shall be included in the park plan..
In response to Council with regard to Item 35 the City
Attorney suggested additional language to read DFive (5)
acres shall be made available to the City prior to approval
of the Final Parcel Map in accordance with Condition No. 4
of such Parcel Map.D
Councilmember Risner asked that the words Deity-widen be
deleted from Item 33 relating to access for political
activities, and replaced with nmunicipal election.D Mayor
Grgas noted his-objection to the requirement for a two-
thirds vote, suggesting this item be amended to reflect a
nmajorityn vote, also that Item 33 apply only to municipal
elections since the time frame is relatively short and
campaign funds are limited, and where State and Federal
election campaigns may extend for a period of eight months
or more, -thus allowing the residents of that area the right I
to determine access for those election activities. In
response to that comment, Councilmember Risner suggested
that the first sentence of Item 33 be further amended to
read n...for purposes of municipal political activity...n
Councilman Hunt stated his preference that the CC&R's only
require that an election be held by the residents to
determine whether or not they want to allow campaigning for
municipal elections. Councilman Laszlo stated he did not
feel it is right to allow those residents to decide whether
a political candidate can access the development, which he
said subrogates the right of free speech, democracy, and the
political process. He said denying access to candidates and
for all elections should not be allowed, and alleged that
this is caused as a result of Leisure World. Councilmember
Risner said she -felt the Planning Commission had given
indepth consideration to this issue, and although there is
no desire to prohibit -access of political candidates, the
wording allows the Homeowners Association to decide how the
access will be aChieved, and spoke in favor of the two-third
vote requirement. Mayor Grgas explained his reasons for
supporting a majority rather than two-thirds vote of the
Homeowners Association based upon his personal experience.
Councilman Hunt spoke in favor of the majority vote, and
stated that the allegations of Mr. Laszlo regarding access
and campaign activities in Leisure World were not correct. I
He pointed-out the number of areas within the community with
locked gates, whether they be houses, apartments, etc.,
which he said is a property right. Discussion followed.
Mayor Grgas moved to amend the General Conditions Item 33 to
read DThe CC&R's shall include a requirement providing for
accessibility of the subdivision to the public for purposes
of municipal political activity which specifically relates
to the election at hand at the time of both referendum and
initiative activity, as well as prior to a scheduled
8-7-89
I
municipal election. Said time frame shall coincide with the
time frames iterated in the California Elections Code
Division 5 and Division 14 as amended. Such CC&R
requirement shall be modified only by a majority vote of the
property owners within the subdivision and approval of the
City Council.n Councilmember Risner seconded the motion.
Councilman Laszlo said he could not support a project that
denies the political process to any citizen in Seal Beach,
therefore he would not support any further motions on this
development. Members of the Council pointed out that Item
33, as worded, does provide for a democratic process, that
it is known that it is not unconstitutional to have a closed
community, and that Leisure World is not the issue of the
discussion. Councilmember Wilson stated that the many
people who have purchased residences in a closed community
have done so for the security, and if a poll were taken of
Leisure World residents she felt that the majority would
support the existing procedures. She said it is untrue that
the people of Leisure World can not be reached or that
access can not be gained, that being obvious from the
distribution of literature at the last election. Discussion
continued. In response to Council, the City Attorney
verified that the regulations that will govern access would
be addressed in the CC&R's or the Homeowners Association By-
Laws.
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson
Laszlo
Motion carried
I
A new Item 27 was added to Prior to Grading Permit
Conditions to read nplans shall be submitted to the City
Engineer indicating where grading activity may affect
existing lots, plans shall indicate where retaining walls
are necessary. Where necessary, the developer shall install
retaining walls.n With consensus of the Council, Prior to
Final Map Conditions, Item Q was amended to read npedestrian
access gates for residents of the new subdivision shall be
provided...n, Prior to Building Permit Conditions, Item 16,
was amended to read "...venting of the well at least 15 feet
away from any foundation.n After brief discussion, Item 17
of Prior to Building Permit Conditions was amended to read
n...a limitation on heavy earth moving activities to between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m."
In response to Council, Mr. Mola said if the process moves
forward within a reasonable time frame they would expect to
commence grading the first quarter of next year, possibly
around March, and the Interim Director reported that smoke
detectors are required for the new units. This concluded
the Council's review of the Conditions to the Parcel Map.
I
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1279 - HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Ordinance Number 1279 was presented to Council for second
reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HELLMAN
SPECIFIC PLAN.n By unanimous consent, full reading of
Ordinance Number 1279 was waived. Wilson moved, second by
Risner, to adopt Ordinance Number 1279.
Councilmember Risner inquired if there was a condition that
the wetlands plan would come back -to the Councilor
Commission. The City Attorney advised it will be considered
by the Planning Commission.
With regard to Ordinance Number 1279, Councilman Hunt made
reference to the last statement of Exhibit Section II, Land
Use Development Plan, and asked if the language relating to
8-7-89
the five acres for a City park was sufficient since it is to
be a certainty rather than a possibility. It was confirmed
that the language provided in other documents, the
Conditions previously discussed and the Development
Agreement, is adequate. Mr. Hunt also made reference to the
fifth paragraph of Attachment A regarding hydrological
factors of the wetlands, and questioned the reference to
nsiphon which.passes beneath the channel". Mr. Evans I
confirmed that it does not pass under, but goes around the
channel, and that there presently is no water as it is not
flowing. After discussion, the word nsiphon" was changed to
nculvertn, nbeneathn was changed to "betweenn, and the words
"or any feasible means that provides tidal fluctuationn was
added to the end of that sentence. Councilman Laszlo stated
although he felt this plan has some merit, he could not vote
for something that subrogates the election process in Seal
Beach.
Vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance Number 1279 as
amended:
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson
Laszlo
Motion carried
Councilmember Risner asked that the record reflect that Mr.
Laszlo supports the plan with the exception of the election
access condition.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3822 - APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-
349 .-.HELLMAN PROPERTY
Resolution Number 3822 was presented to Council entitled nA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-349.n By unanimous I
consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3822 was waived.
Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number
3822 as previously amended.
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson
Laszlo
Motion carried
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3823 - APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 13198 - HELLMAN PROPERTY
Resolution Number 3823 was presented to Council entitled nA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP l3198 LOCATED IN THE
HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA.n By unanimous consent, full.
reading of Resolution Number 3823 was waived. Wilson moved,
second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3823 and the
Conditions attached thereto as amended. Councilmember
Risner inquired it is specified in any of the documents that
the preference would be wrought iron rather than chain link
for the lateral fences separating the sideyards in the
buffer zone. Mr. Evans responded that the fencing will be
shown in the landscape plan. The.rear yard fencing of the
new residences was mentioned as it relates to privacy and
possible swimming pool enclosures.
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson
Laszlo
Motion carried
I:
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3872 and ORDINANCE NUMBER 1289 - AMENDMENT
NO. 5 - RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Pursuant to the action of the Redevelopment Agency, no
action was taken on Resolution Number 3872 or Ordinance
Number 1289.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1288 - PROHIBITING FIRES and BARBECUES -
PUBLIC BEACH
Ordinance Number 1288 was presented for second reading
entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PROHIBITING
8-7-89
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. Wilson moved,
second by Risner, to adopt Ordinance Number 1288 as
presented.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
None Motion carried
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3876 - AOUATIC ACTIVITIES - HOURS and
LOCATIONS
Resolution Number 3876 was presented to Council entitled nA
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.n By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 3876 was waived. Councilman
Laszlo requested a list of other cities that impose
boundaries such as those established by this Resolution.
Mayor Grgas pointed out that the intent of the Resolution is
to protect swimmers and other beachgoers from injury as the
result of other activities. He also reported he had
suggested to staff that if certain activities are restricted
to specific hours and locations that surf fishing be
reconsidered under the same type of regulations due the
potential for injury. Councilmember Risner suggested that
the verbiage of the Resolution be looked at in terms of
clarity, possibly what is allowed as opposed to what is not
allowed. It was the unanimous consensus of the Council to
hold this item over until the next meeting.
I
RESOLUTIONS NUMBERED 3877/3878/3879 - SALARIES/WAGE
SCHEDULE/BENEFITS
It was the unanimous consensus of the Council to hold these
items over until the next meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS nMn throuqh nTn
Councilman Laszlo requested that Item nMn be removed from
the Consent Calendar, and Councilman Hunt stated he would
abstain from voting on Item. liNn, the July 10th minutes, as
he was absent from that meeting. Councilman Grgas expressed
appreciation for the report regarding the signal timing for
Pacific Coast Highway cross streets. The City Engineer
reported that as of this date Caltrans advised the signal
timing would be changed within the next two days.
Councilman Hunt asked if a similar report could be prepared
for Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Jue advised that coordination
of the two signals at the 405 overpass with the City's
system north of the freeway had also been discussed with
Caltrans, and a future meeting will be scheduled regarding
same. Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the
recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except
Item nMn, as presented.
I
N. Approved the minutes of the regular
adjourned meeting of July 10, 1989.
o. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting
of JUly 17, 1989.
P. Approved regular demands numbered 75461
through 75694 in the amount of $847,356.46,
and payroll demands numbered 35998 through
36209 in the amount of $283,937.14 as
approved by the Finance Committee, and
authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
8-7-89
Q. Denied the claim for damages of Cibella
Wilenius and referred same to the City's
liability attorney and adjuster.
R. Denied the claim for indemnification of
General Telephone of California and referred
same to the City's liability attorney and
adjuster.
S. Denied the claim for damages of Rachel
Dolinajec and referred same to the City's
liability attorney and adjuster.
T. Received and filed the report from the City
Engineer regarding Pacific Coast Highway
cross street signal timing.
I
AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
NOES: None Motion carried
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM nM" - MINUTES -.JUNE 19th
Councilman Laszlo stated at the meeting of June 19th he had
requested that the record reflect his objection to the
meeting that was held and recorded by the News Enterprise
that included the Mayor, Dennis Courtemarche, Gary Johnson,
and Jim Funk to formulate the nC.ln plan, and moved to
approve the June 19th minutes as amended to reflect that
addition. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson
None
Risner
Motion carried
I
REPORT - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
At the request of Councilman Laszlo, this item was held over
until the next meeting.
REOUEST FOR APPEAL - BIXBY RANCH COMPANY - MOBILE OIL
CORPORATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 9-88
Councilmember Risner stated she felt that the request from
Bixby Ranch Company for the right to appeal the Conditional
Use Permit approved for Mobil Oil Corporation should be
honored, however a clarifying staff report should accompany
the letter of request. Mayor Grgas noted that there are two
issues, that they did not have the opportunity to be heard
at the Commission in opposition to the coin operated car
wash, and the issue of Bixby granting a license for ingress
and egress across Bixby property, the communication
indicating -they would not grant such license, therefore it
appears there is sufficient basis for a rehearing. The City
Attorney advised that the appeal period to the City Council
was not met, however the matter could be referred back to
the Commission for rehearing. Risner moved, second by
Wilson, to refer this matter to staff and to the Planning
Commission for rehearing.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson
None
Laszlo
I
Motion carried
APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS
Environmental Oualitv Control Board
Mayor-Grgas requested that the District One appointment to
the Environmental Quality Control Board be held over.
8-7-89
Ad Hoc-AirDort Committee
Mayor Grgas moved to appoint Mr. Bob Kendrick as the
District One representative to the Ad Hoc Airport Committee.
Councilman Hunt seconded the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
None Motion carried
I
Planninq Commission
Councilmember Risner requested that the District Three
appointment to the Planning Commission be held over.
I
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
In response to a question of Councilman Hunt with regard to
complaints directed towards the Irisher, the City Manager
reported the complaints are presently being handled through
the Police Department and the Development Services
Department, and at this time there does not appear to be a
need for Council consideration. Councilman Laszlo made
reference to the new cameras being installed for
cablecasting and said he wanted assurance that the lighting
would not produce a glare or heat. The City Manager advised
that the new cameras are far superior to those presently
used and it is not anticipated there will be any change in
the present lighting. In response to an inquiry of
Councilmember Risner, the City Manager reported that
complaints regarding the Rum Runners Restaurant are being
investigated by the Police Department and the Development
Services Department, that litigation may be pursued against
the previous owners for allegedly stating that there was a
valid entertainment permit, which there is not, that the
staff is also investigating whether they qualify as a
restaurant based upon the percentage requirement for food
service, and confirmed that the Rum Runners would be
required to go before the Planning Commission for a
Conditional Use Permit. With regard to the Surfs ide/Coastal
Commission litigation, the City Manager reported the next
court date is October, between now and October the Surfside
Board will meet again to discuss the issue, and stated it
was his understanding that the Judge in the case attempted
to impress upon the Board the problems that could result in
returning to court as compared to the benefits of
settlement.
I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Beverly
Casaras, Marvista Avenue, complimented the Interim Director
of Development Services for her efforts in regard to the
Mola project. She said the intent of the Planning
Commission in placing a two-thirds vote requirement on
changing the CC&R's for the Mola development was to assure
that the homeowners understood such change was of the same
gravity as raising taxes. Ms. Casaras agreed with comments
made by Mr. Laszlo with regard to the lack of access for
political purposes to Leisure World, unless a candidate is
approved by the Golden Rain Foundation, the policies of
Leisure Worlds resented by the community. Councilman Hunt
responded that the comments were incorrect, that such
comment promotes divisiveness in the community, and said the
Golden Rain Foundation does not take a position with regard
to pOlitical activities. Councilman Laszlo commented
regarding a past effort to request Leisure World to secede
from the City. Discussion followed with members of the
Council expressing their views. There being no other
communications, Mayor Grgas declared Oral Communications
closed.
8-7-89 / 8-21-89
ADJOURNMENT
With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Grgas adjourned
the meeting at 2:47 a.m.
Approved:
lerk and ex of J.
of Seal Beach
of the
I
Attest:
Seal Beach, California
August 21, 1989
The City Council of the-City of Seal Beach met in regular I
session at 7:29 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to
order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Grgas
Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development
Services
Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk
WAIVER OF- FULL READING
Wilson moved, second by-Hunt, 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
CLOSED -SESSION
No Closed Session was held.