Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-09-25 9-25-89 Seal Beach, California September 25, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ProTem Wilson Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo I Absent: Mayor Grgas, Councilmember Risner By unanimous consent of the Councilmembers present, the absence of Mayor Grgas and Councilmember Risner from this meeting was excused. Also present: Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Ms. McGlynn, Recreation Supervisor Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk PRESENTATION - CAMP MARINA Ms. Kathleen McGlynn, Recreation Supervisor, described the Camp-Marina Program, introduced for the summer 1989 recreation season, eight one-week camps, each having a different theme with the activities coordinated to the specific theme. Ms. McGlynn introduced the Camp Marina staff, Scott Homer, Jana Andersen, and Erin Fekjar, who 1 conveyed their experiences regarding specific aspects of the - Camp, and Cindy Watts who was not present. Each spoke in favor of continuance of the Program. The staff displayed a friendship quilt that was made by the Camp participants. Ms. McGlynn stated it is the intent of the Recreation Department -to conduct the Camp during the December and Spring--school breaks, -and--next -summel'. -- The Recreation staff was complimented for their efforts toward this Program. PROCLAMATION Mayor -ProTem Wilson proclaimed the week of October 8th through October 14th as nFire Prevention Weekn.and urged all citizens to visit an Orange County Fire Station on Saturday, September 14th. The week of September 17th through September 23rd, 1989 was proclaimed nConstitution Weekn by Mayor ProTem Wilson. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHING-DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Mayor ProTem Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider establishing a development impact fee for commercial, industrial, and residential development for transportation facilities and programs. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been. advertised as required by law, and repQrted no I communications had been received either for or-against this - item. The Development Services Director reported that subsequent to Council referral of this matter to the Planning Commission, the Commission considered the draft Ordinance and related reports and recommended Council consideration and-adoption of the proposed Ordinance. He pointed out that the Ordinance provides the basic mechanisms and policies for the City to establish -and collect development impact fees however does not establish the actual fees to be assessed of new development. He explained that the fees would be determined after appropriate studies 9-25-89 I have been conducted to determine the existing level of transportation services and facilities in the community, a projection as to the increased level of facilities and services that would be necessary by the year 2000, and a cost breakdown to accomplish same on a project by project basis as new development is proposed in the City. With regard to the effect of the Ordinance upon adoption, the City Attorney explained that developers would be placed on notice that they would be subject to the development impact fee provided that the fee is established prior to the time building permits are issued for a project, and clarified that the Mola development would not be subject to this fee since the conditions of approval for that project were premised on the understanding that the development fee would not apply, however future development plans of Rockwell would be subject to the fees at such time as they obtain building permits. I Mayor ProTem Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Laird Mueller, 235 - 8th Street, spoke for a comprehensive traffic policy for the City, and for adoption of the Ordinance as an initial step. He reported a community group has expressed interest in improving the safety of City streets and would be in attendance at the Homeowners meeting Thursday of this week. Mr. Stanley Liskowsky, Leisure World, inquired as to the needed expansions and costs projected over the ten year plan. The Director responded that those questions can not be answered until such time as the necessary studies and projections are completed to determine current and future transportation facility needs, the studies taking into account local as well as through traffic. In response to Mr. San Filippo, Avalon Avenue, the Director explained that the impact fees would not apply to an addition to an existing residence nor to the demolition and like replacement of an existing residence, however the fees would be imposed where there is an increase of units. There being no further communications, Mayor ProTem Wilson declared the public hearing closed. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1291 - ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE Ordinance Number 1291 was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1291 was waived. Councilman Hunt stated he supported the reasoning for -implementing the development impact fees, the findings, intent and purpose as set forth in the Ordinance to impose on future development projects an equitable share of the cost of mitigating future transportation needs created by such projects, yet his concern that it may cost the City more money to generate the development impact fee law than will Ultimately be generated by the presence of the law. He too noted that the Mola development would not be subject to the DIF fees since there was separate negotiation for that development, which is the traditional procedure for a large development within the community, therefore the fees proposed would be more applicable to the smaller development. Councilman Hunt said that if,-during the course of the study, it becomes evident that it would be prOfitable for the City to proceed he would be agreeable to implementing such fees, however if that is not the case he would hope that the Ordinance would not place the City in a position where pursuit of these fees could not be dropped. The Director again explained that the Ordinance provides the 9-25-89 mechanism for the City to collect, budget, and expend the fees once the specific amounts are determined, and that during the process of obtaining the necessary background studies there would be a number of opportunities for the Council to review the information and determine if it is appropriate to proceed with implementation of the program. He noted that staff has prepared a Request For Proposal for preparation of the necessary studies, and although the studies would be direc_ted to the development impact fee, the information would also be applicable to updating the Circulation Element of the General Plan. He offered that if the consultant costs are determined to be excessive the Council may determine to not proceed, yet if the co~t is acceptable, the studies would be commenced and when completed-would provide estimates of the increased -level of services and facilities that would be needed with projected costs thereof, and estimated revenues that would be forthcoming based upon anticipated development, and at that time it would be easily determined if the development(s) would cover the cost of such improvements. He noted that at that point the Council would again have an opportunity to decide whether or not to proceed. Councilman Hunt suggested that the staff be mindful of what other cities in California may implement in order to collect monies to mitigate transportation problems in lieu of the procedures set forth by the proposed Ordinance. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1291 and that it be passed to second reading. The City ~ttorney clarified that upon adoption of the Ordinance, Sec~ion 22A-14 would be amended by adding the effective date of the Ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried I I PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT-- MOLA DEVELOPMENT- Mayor ProTem Wilson declared this to be the time and place for a public hearing to consider the Development Agreement for the Hellman Ranch project, Mola Development Corporation. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no co~munications had been received either for or against this item. The Development Services Dire~tor reported that Councilmember Risner had requested that this item be continued until such time as she would be present, and reviewed the procedural options available to the Council. In response to the Council, the C~ty Attorney advised that the introduction of the Ordinance could be approved-by a majority of the quorum, two affirmative votes, that final approval would require three votes, and that the members of the Council that are absent from this meeting would be allowed to vote on the Ordinance at next meeting after reviewing the tape of this meeting. After brief discussion, Mayor ProTem Wilson declared the 1- public hearing open and invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Kirk Evans, Mola Development Corporation, stated they were present to respond to questions of the Council as was their legal counsel. Mr. Evans expressed appreciation for having the opportunity for hearing at this meeting given his understanding that the next meeting that all members of the Council would be present will be November 13th, which would cause considerable delay of the development process. He 9-25-89 I reported that Mola Development has submitted application to the Coastal Commission, that they are meeting with the Commission this week and attempting to schedule that hearing for the Commission's October session, and that the Development Agreement under consideration, a culmination of discussions over a three year period, is also required to go through the Coastal Commission process. Mr. Evans stated he believed that their legal counsel was requesting clarification of Section 10.1 of the Agreement as discussed at the Planning Commission, and confirmed to the Council their agreement with the recommendations that had come forth from the Commission. Mr. David Colgan, attorney for Mola Development, asked that a minor amendment of Section 10.1 be considered for clarification purposes to read nThis language shall not restrict the City's ability in the event of a public emergency to take such reasonable measures under it's police powers to protect the public health, safety and welfare as it deems necessary to deal with such emergency.n The City Attorney explained that the language suggested would mean that the emergency would be a public emergency rather than merely a local emergency that would affect only those within the development, and the measures that would be taken would be within the City's police power as granted by the Constitution. He stated he would have no objection to this technical change. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Society, suggested there was no reason to expedite approval of the Development Agreement, and asked that the record reflect the Society's comments to the Agreement which, in part, were: 1) the Housing Element of the General Plan is invalid~ 2) the wetland acreage reflected in the Development Agreement conflicts with Resolutions 3820 and 3821 and Ordinance l279~ 3) the wetland acreage within the Agreement is inconsistent with Resolution 3824 certifying the Final EIR~ 4) that there is no acreage specified for Gum Grove Park and the Community Park in the Agreement, and if the Quimby Act requirements are more than 24.39 acres, the Agreement is inconsistent with Resolutions 3820, 3821, 3824, and Ordinance l279~ 5) the Agreement is inconsistent with the Housing Element which requires 100 affordable housing units on the Hellman Ranch~ 6) that significant environmental impacts are being administratively handled instead of through the public review process~ and 7) that wetland and parkland acreages are inconsistent between documents and in the public review process. Mr. Carl San Filippo, Avalon Avenue, stated he felt that no consideration has been given to those who reside adjacent to the project, and questioned the decision to allow construction of houses behind those that currently exist, as well as in an area of high liquefaction, given the possible liability to the City and the Council. He suggested that the Agreement not be approved until there are assurances that building in the area is safe. He made reference to Section 10.1 and said he felt that the City should have the ability to stop operations or change schedules as deemed necessary, that he wanted provisions to restrict operations in the case of windy conditions to curtail blowing dust, that operations be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., that vehicle maintenance be performed only during that period and in an area to the north of the site, that the developer should be required to provide a bond to the City, and that there should be negotiations toward the City not having to purchase the ball diamond acreage. Mr. San Filippo asked that deed restrictions be placed on the new, adjacent homes to prohibit swimming pools, allow only non-polluting fireplaces, and no outside speakers, suggested that those homes be limited to one story, and stated the thirty foot buffer is insufficient. He questioned if there had been a I I 9-25-89 hearing relating to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. In response to Council, the City Attorney confirmed that indemnification is provided under Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of the Agreement, the Planning Commission having recommended an additional change that will be incorporated into the Agreement to clarify that any of the City's existing immunities will continue to apply regardless of the Agreement. Mrs. Gwen Forsythe, 523 Riviera Drive, asked for clarification of Section 3.1 with regard to restoration of the Gum Grove, her understanding having been that the developer would provide $150,000 and implement the improvements. Mayor ProTem Wilson stated she felt the basic agreement was that Mola would provide the improvements. Councilman Hunt said that since the developer is willing to commit $150,000 he felt the City will have greater flexibility to determine whether to utilize -his services, an outside contractor, or City personnel to make the improvements. Mr. San Filippo expressed concern with the wildlife on the Hellman Ranch and stated he did not want to see the animals trapped and disposed of. Mr. Evans stated the wildlife issue is addressed in the EIR, that the animals will be trapped, however he could not guarantee what the final disposition of all of the animals will be. Mr. Earl Carlson, 1535 Crestview Avenue, asked what the impact of wood burning fireplaces would be on existing residences, and if that was addressed in the EIR. The City Attorney responded that an EIR does not address every conceivable impact, only those that are felt to be significant, and there was -no determination that smoke from fireplaces would pose a significant environmental impact. He confirmed that the supplemental EIR was premised on the plan that was approved, and that the firm that prepared the report has extensive experience with regard to environmental analysis. Members of the Council pointed out that homes that are presently adjacent to those on the bluff have wood burning fireplaces, and that the prevailing winds are from a southwesterly direction. Mr. San Filippo stated he has been impacted by smoke from fireplaces and barbecues and that the winds in the winter months are from the north and northwest, therefore there will be an impact from the new homes. Ms. Frances Johnston, Coastline Avenue, suggested that more concern should be shown regarding the wildlife being removed from the Hellman site and the disposition thereof. In response to the Council, the City Attorney advised that although it is not the customary procedure, it would be within the discretion of the Council to consider the introduction of the Ordinance and continue the hearing until the next meeting, however noted that if changes are made at the next meeting it would be necessary to again hold first reading of the Ordinance. Discussion followed, and Mr. Evans requested that the Council consider first reading of the Ordinance at -this time, the second reading in two weeks in the interest of the time frame at the Coastal Commission level. Mr. Evans offered to address any-concern that the Council may have at this meeting. It was the consensus of the Council to conclude public testimony at this time. Councilman Hunt noted that the development plan that was selected by the City Council was-based upon the combined benefits offered to the City by the developer, therefore it is imperative that those benefits are achieved. He stated one of-the benefits was the five acre site that Hellman Properties -agreed to sell to the City, and any failure to reach satisfactory agreement, based upon the terms that were previously-mentioned, would cause him to not approve the Development Agreement at this time and oppose the entire project. Councilman Hunt referred to Section 12.10, the I I I . 9-25-89 I Parkland Purchase, and stated he did not feel this Section provided absolute assurance that would guarantee the availability of that property under the economic terms that had been discussed, and that he felt such assurance must be provided in the Development Agreement. He referred to the offer made by the attorneys for Hellman Properties to which the City Manager had transmitted a response which he believed was based upon the terms previously mentioned, and offered that he would advocate an action on the Development Agreement at this meeting if there was assurance that the counter offer of the City would be accepted. Councilman Hunt clarified that his comments were prefaced upon a discussion at a previous meeting where he had spoken in terms of $125,000 per acre with the understanding that $150,000 per acre would be the maximum. He said that the five acres is a benefit that had been implied that the City would realize, and in turn resulted in his change of vote from the nC.l" plan to the "B.2n plan. Mr. Evans pointed out that conditions of the maps are that a proposal must be provided the City by the Hellman's, that he felt that the proposal that was made was fair and covered a range of items, suggesting there was possibly misinterpretation of the proposal. Mr. Evans requested that they be allowed a brief recess to discuss this matter with the City Attorney pursuant to the counter proposal that was made by the City. Discussion continued with the City Attorney suggesting revised language of Section 12.10. With consent of the Council, Mayor ProTem Wilson declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:54 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney noted that the issue of the purchase of the five acres is somewhat complicated since there are three parties involved yet Hellman is not a party to this Agreement. He reported that upon discussion with the applicant, agreement was reached regarding the wording of Section 12.10 of the Development Agreement to read "Neither the final map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349 nor the final map for Vesting Tentative Map No. 13198 shall be approved by City until Hellman Properties and City enter into a written agreement under which Hellman Properties will sell to City or Redevelopment Agency five acres of contiguous land for park and recreational purposes located on a site north of Hellman Ranch Road with reasonable access to such Road, in substantial conformance with the terms set forth in the letter proposal regarding the purchase of such five acres from City to Hellman properties dated September 7, 1989.n As a point of clarification with regard to the purchase price and the appraised value of the property, Mr. Stepanicich said the intent was that the property, for appraisal purposes, would be valued as if it were a condemnation proceeding, and at such time as agreement is actually entered into with Hellman Properties there may be a need for further clarification of that point. He added that in the event Hellman Properties were unwilling to enter into agreement in substantial conformance with the terms set forth in the City's letter, then the City would not approve the final maps for the Mola development project, therefore Mola Development is taking the risk that Hellman does not accept an agreement within acceptable terms for acquiring the five acres of property by the City. Mr. Stepanicich also explained that under the proposal if the City is to pay fair market value, the property must be delivered in a clean condition, therefore it would be the responsibility of Hellman to remove all hazardous waste or contaminates from the site prior to delivery of title to the City. Councilman Hunt and Mr. Evans indicated their acceptance of the amended I I 9-25-89 Section 12.10 as presented by the City Attorney. Councilman Hunt stated that measuring this issue in terms of dollars, and given the possibility that there could be a difference between what the City would pay and Hellman would accept, he asked if Mola Development would consider assuming some of the difference. Mr. Evans responded that he would be unable to comment on that, however noted that when the tract map 1_ was approved it was made very clear to Mola Corporation and the community that a condition of that approval was based upon acquisition of the five acres of land north of Hellman Ranch Road. He expressed confidence that both parties would negotiate in a reasonable manner with regard to the acquisition, and that he had no doubt that the City will obtain the land, thus their agreement to the condition as stated. The City Attorney commenced review of the proposed changes and cla~ifications to the Development Agreement. With regard to Section 9.2 he noted the intent of the Planning Commission was-to clarify that it was not the intenc to increase any existing City liabilities nor take away any City immunities, therefore a sentence would be added to -read "The foregoing shall not enlarge the City's liability beyond what it would be in the absence of this Agreement or otherwise abridge or eliminate any immunities to which the City is entitled to by law.n Section 10.1 would be amended by adding a sentence to read nThis Section shall not restrict the City's ability in the event of a public emergency to take such reasonable measures under its police powers to protect the public health, safety and welfare as it deems necessary to deal with such emergency even if such measures are incompatible with other terms of this I Development Agreement.n With regard to Section 12.6, Park -- Land Dedications and Monetary Contributions, he noted reference to a ten year annuity for maintenance and the Planning Commission request for clarification that the ten years would run from the completion of each of the phases. He-explained that the original intent was to have plans attached setting forth -the park improvements, however due to the time frame there is further opportunity for the Parks and Recreation Commission to review how the park property should be developed, the language proposed providing that there-will be additional agreements specifying the park improvements to be completed in two phases. He recommended that a final sentence of Section 12.6 be added to read nDeveloper shall also establish an annuity or, other mechanism in a form approved by the City Attorney for the maintenance costs of the Community Park for a period of ten (10) years from the completion of each phase of Park development in accordance with the budget set forth in a separate agreement for the improvement of the Community Park.n Mr. Stepanicich noted that the Planning Commission suggested Section 12.8 be amended by deleting all language after lI$l,OOO,ooon, and confirmed that would not change the intent of the Section and it is clear that the $1,000,000 may be used for any public purpose that the City desires including, but not limited to, acquisition of the five I acres. The City-Attorney confirmed that -Section 3.l-e should then be amended to read nthe payment-of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in cash to the City", that nin and niin should be deleted, with the subsequent subsections redesignated. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1292 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT - (KOLA DEVELOPMENT) Ordinance Number 1292 was presented to Council for first reading entitled nAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL 9-25-89 I BEACH AND THE MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE HELLMAN RANCH PROJECT.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1292 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1292 and the Development Agreement pursuant to the changes detailed by the City Attorney. Councilman Laszlo stated he would abstain from voting on this item due to the previous action taken regarding access to the development for political activities and the request of Councilmember Risner to hold this item over. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hunt, Wilson None Laszlo Grgas, Risner Motion failed- Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Laszlo, Wilson Hunt Grgas, Risner Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3883 - DESIGNATING ENFORCEMENT AGENCY - SOLID WASTE CONTROL ACT OF 1976 Resolution Number 3883 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY AS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR THE PROVISION OF THE Z'BERG-KAPILOFF SOLID WASTE CONTROL ACT OF 1976.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3883 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to hold this item over until next meeting when Councilmember Risner would be present. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3884 - SUPPORTING H.R. 2323 - CLEAN AIR RESTORATION ACT OF 1989 Resolution Number 3883 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING H.R. 2323, CLEAN AIR RESTORATION ACT OF 1989.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3884 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3884 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3885 - ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION - PART-TIME ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER Resolution Number 3885 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR PART-TIME HOURLY POSITION OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3885 was waived. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3885 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Grgas, Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3886 - 1990 CENSUS - COUNT OF ALL PERSONS Resolution Number 3886 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, 9-25-89 CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT OF COUNTING ALL PERSONS IN THE 1990 CENSUS REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS.R By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3886 was waived. - With regard to the advantage or disadvantage of supporting this issue, the Development Services Director reported that a-number of subventions to the state from the federal government are based on total State population and I then broken down by city and county jurisdictions, therefore there could ultimately be an impact on the City if the total population were not counted. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3886 as presented.. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3887 - FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION/LOCAL AUTHORITY/SUBSCRIBER PROTECTION Resolution Number 3887 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATIVE TO FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION, LOCAL AUTHORITY AND CABLE SUBSCRIBER PROTECTION.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3887 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3887 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None - Grgas, Risner Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS nKn throuah Rpn Councilman Laszlo requested that Item npn be removed from the Consent Calendar. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "pn, as presented. I K. Approved regular demands-numbered 76080 through 76276 in the amount of $626,988.99 and payroll demands numbered 36889 through 37076 -in the amount of $204,981.18 as approved by-the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. L. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 11, 1989. M. Denied the claim for damages of Eva Silva and -referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. N. Denied the claim for damages of Linda Harwell and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. O. Authorized the City Manager to inform the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission that the City of Seal Beach is opposed-to increasing the LAFCO membership to seven and-granting seats to two independent special district representatives. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried 9-25-89 I ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM npn - BIXBY RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN - REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL Councilman Laszlo requested that at such time meetings are held regarding preparation of a Specific Plan for the Bixby property that they be held in the Rossmoor area to allow attendance by interested persons from that general vicinity. He advised that during June and July two meetings were held with Bixby to discuss and possibly formulate a plan for the Bixby property that will be acceptable to Bixby, the City and the residents. He asked that the staff coordinate available dates for future meetings with Rossmoor Center. Mayor ProTem Wilson stated that since the Bixby property is within her District she would ask to be informed of any upcoming meetings. Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to authorize staff to circulate the Request For Proposal relative to the preparation of the Bixby Old Ranch Specific Plan. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE - VOTING DELEGATE/ ALTERNATE Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to designate Mayor Grgas as the voting delegate to the 9lst annual League of California Cities Conference, and Mayor ProTem Wilson as the alternate delegate. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Grgas, Risner Motion carried I APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION It was the consensus of the Council to hold the District Three appointment to the Planning Commission over until next meeting. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor ProTem Wilson announced her appointment by the Orange County Sanitation District Board to the Conservation and Reclamation Committee. Councilman Hunt commended the Planning Commission on their review and recommendations relating to the Development Agreement for the Hellman Ranch property. Councilman Laszlo inquired as to the status of regulating roofing materials. The Development Services Director reported he had met with the Orange County Fire Department, that they are reviewing current regulations and will be preparing recommendations to the Council. Mr. Whittenberg said he would investigate the reason for recent power outages in the College Park East area as reported by Mr. Laszlo. Councilman Laszlo made reference to an article in the press regarding the Retail Sales Committee and complaints made by the Vice-President of Century National Properties, owner of the Rossmoor Center, alleging construction delays caused by the City, specifically the Roger Dunn Store and Super Saver Cinemas, and the lack of expenditures made to benefit the Center in comparison to Main Street. Councilman Laszlo reported unsuccessful attempts to schedule a meeting with Century National to discuss future plans for the Center. He asked that the staff forward a letter to Century National, of which he read a draft, in response to the comments in the newspaper and requests for meetings. He also asked that this topic be placed on the agenda for the first meeting in November for staff response to the allegations. Councilman Hunt expressed his objection to the text of the draft letter. 9-25-89 Mayor ProTem Wilson acknowledged that there were certain construction problems at the Center, however those businesses have been completed and are doing well, and since the Center is located within Council District Two she had responded to Mr. Krier's comments. She noted that an effort is being put forth to upgrade the stores in the Center, that upon expiration of certain leases they were not renewed thus the current vacancies, and stated she felt that the Committee will address all retail businesses and make recommendations based on the City as a whole. Councilman Laszlo said he felt the leases are not being renewed in order to convert those areas to office space, which he objected to, and will in turn increase traffic in the area. Members of the Council voiced their objection to the communication as -drafted, to be sent under City letterhead. In response to Councilman Laszlo, the City Attorney advised that any member of the Council may write letters relating to City-business and use City stationary, however if the communication does not represent the entire Council it should be made clear that it is from and represents only the views of the individual councilmember. Discussion continued. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor ProTem Wilson declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Stan Liskowsky, Leisure World, said he felt the Rossmoor Center would be regulated through zoning, ~nd whatever the business mix it would be meeting the needs of the community. He also mentioned street damages that are caused by the water table and suggested that be taken into consideration with regard to the Mola project. Ms. Francis Johnston, Coastline Drive, stated there is presently a doctors office in the Rossmoor Center. Mr. Mario Voce, Catalina Avenue, said he felt Councilman Laszlo's concerns regarding the Rossmoor Center, the potential change from retail to office use, were generally well taken, -and he did not feel free enterprise is always in the best interest. There being no further comments, Mayor ProTem Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Approved: --t:~ ;f~nu~) Mayor ProTem I I. I