Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1988-09-19 8-15-88 / 9-19-88 I noted that improvements in the Project Area are required to be approved by the Agency under the Redevelopment Plan, the procedural steps and required actions to follow the filing of the application with the City by the Mola Corporation. He stated it is their opinion that proper procedures were followed with regard to the approval of the Specific Plan, which is a planning document, for the subject property. Mrs. Risner stated she had provided the Executive Director with a map showing the Flood Control District property and its location in relation to the proposed Mola development, noting that the District often allows their property to be used for recreation purposes and suggested use of the Flood Control property may be an alternative for tne City to explore. The Executive Director stated he felt it would be helpful to have a written opinion from the City Attorney as to the correct, legal procedures that will be required in processing the upcoming project, and the members of the Agency indicated their concurrence with the request. There being no further communications, Vice Chairman Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:13 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I . ,/ '-~-d i 1v;~ Chairman Seal Beach, California September 19, 1988 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:48 p.m. with Chairman Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Grgas Agency Members Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, Secretary 9-19-88 WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Agency members after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such resolution. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I APPROVAL OF MINUTES Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 15, 1988. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 88-2 - AMENDMENT NO. 4 - REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 88-2 was presented to the Agency entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECEIVING PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, REFERRING THE ITEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE, CONSENTING TO A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL.R By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 88-2 was waived. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explaining that a portion of the Hellman Specific Plan falls within the Riverfront Redevelopment Project Area, and although the land uses shown on the redevelopment map are consistent with the Specific Plan, there is a discrepancy between the development standards and I residential type shown in the Redevelopment Plan and the uses proposed by the Specific Plan, thus the need for amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, and he then reviewed the procedural steps to accomplish same. The Director reported that the redevelopment areas included in the Hellman Specific Plan are referred to as Area Number 20 and Area Number 1, and an area shown as public use following the basic outline of the existing Gum Grove Park. He explained that Area 1 was changed to residential use by Amendment No. 3 in 1981 however the Redevelopment Plan continues to show that Area as commercial use, Area 20 calling for construction of single family units on 5,000 square foot lots with a maximum height of two stories and a gross density of eight dwelling units per gross acre, where the Hellman Specific Plan now has a gross density of approximately 6.07 dwelling units per acre in the redevelopment area, and calls for three-story attached housing. He added that the public use designated area under Section 508, would accommodate either park use or a public golf course, is not presently included within Area 20, however there is reference to park use, thus the proposed amendment would change the designation to residential and incorporate that property into Area 20. Mr. Knight reported that the proposed amendment would also bring the I Redevelopment Plan into conformance with current zoning and the Specific Plan for the Department of Water and Power site, Areas 9 and 10, to reflect commercial/park use rather than the previous zoning of residential/commercial/park use. Mr. Knight read the proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, and asked that the joint public hearing be set for Monday, November 7th as recommended by Assistant City Attorney Strausz. He noted that on the recommendation of Mr. Strausz another Project Area Committee meeting will be called to receive proposed Amendment No. 4 to the 9-19-88 I Redevelopment Plan since there had been some confusion relating to the noticing compliance of the previous PAC meeting. Agencymember Risner questioned the selection of November 7th rather than the regular Agency meeting of November 21st for the joint public hearing, as well as compliance with required deadlines relating to the proposed project. The City Attorney explained that due to the rescheduled Project Area Committee meeting it would be necessary to hold the Agency hearing on November 7th or some date thereafter, and with respect to deadlines he stated it was his understanding that there have been discussions with the applicant regarding the granting of an extension of time to accommodate the scheduling of this matter. He noted that after receipt of the Planning Commission recommendations the Council would have thirty days to render their decision, or longer if an extension is granted by the developer, as has been done in the past on major projects. Discussion continued. Mr. Kirk Evans, Mola Development Corporation, stated that although it is their desire to go before the Coastal Commission at the earliest time possible, the Commission can not act until the City Council has rendered its final decision, therefore he indicated Mola's willingness to agree to postponing this matter until November 21st if necessary. Chairman Grgas advised the Agency that he is committed to be out of the City the entire week of the 21st, and suggested that the Agency adjourn to November 7th for the joint public hearing. With regard to scheduling the hearing for November 21st the City Attorney advised that if a decision was not rendered at that meeting a two week extension could be requested of the developer and if not granted the options would be to approve the project or if it were felt there was inadequate information, deny the project. He added that an alternative would be to request a forty-five or sixty day extension, noting that any verbal agreement to an extension would be confirmed in writing. Discussion continued. Mr. Evans expressed his preference for a November 7th hearing, and stated that if a decision could not be reached at that time they would agree to an extension for a period of thirty days. Members of the Agency indicated their agreement to hold the joint public hearing on November 7th. In response to the Agency, the City Attorney explained that if the joint hearing was commenced however not concluded on November 7th, it could be carried over until December 5th with no discussion of the matter at the November 21st regular Agency meeting given the absence of Chairman Grgas. I - . Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 88- 2 as amended, establishing the joint public hearing for November 7, 1988. I Noting that Resolution 88~2 would transmit Amendment No. 4 to the newly constituted Project Area Committee and since the Committee will not have reviewed the proposed Mola plan, Agencymember'Risner asked that the title of, Resolution 88-2 be amended to read "...Receiving-.the Amended Hellman Ranch Specific Plan {Mola~ with Amendment No. 4,to the Redevelopment Plan..." and that. Section 3 of the Resolution relating to submitting Amendment No.4 to.the PAC also be amended to include such language. The Development Services Director confirmed that submittal of .the Resolution and Amendment No. 4 to the PAC would be accompanied by a staff report, and noted that the Specific Plans for both the Hellman and Department of Water and Power properties.had been provided the Committee prior to. their last meeting. Mrs. Risner stated she wanted the record to reflect that the Agency has received a recommendation not just on Amendment No.4, but a recommendation on the proposed development plan 9-19-88 within the Redevelopment Agency. The City Attorney explained that although the PAC is provided a copy of the Specific Plan for information purposes, they would not be making recommendations on the Specific Plan nor would the Agency be approving the Specific Plan, the Agency only considering approval of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, based on subdivision improvements pursuant to a.tract map and consistent with the Specific Plan. Considerable discussion followed. Agencymember Risner asked if the PAC could approve the proposed Redeve10pment Plan amendment and establish conditions or make further recommendations. The City Attorney advised that the PAC would have the authority to make changes or recomendations relating to the Amendment, however pointed out that would then require a two-thirds vote (four votes) of the Agency to override any recommendation that may be contrary to the Amendment that was submitted to them by the Agency, that they likewise have the authority to approve, reject, or make no recommendation on the Amendment. He explained that by making recommendations they would basically be saying that they do not support the Amendment as submitted, however it would be possible for the PAC to recommend approval of the Amendment and then make separate recommendations for consideration that would not be a condition of such approval. Mr. Stepanicich clarified that the Redevelopment Plan is general in its wording and can accommodate a wide range of permitted uses in comparison to the detail of the Specific Plan and the subdivision tract map. With regard to the language proposed for Section 503 relating to Areas 1 and 20, Agencymember Risner suggested that instead of making reference to the "...adopted Specific Plan...n that it read n.;.a specific plan for these areas as amended from time to time," therefore not restricting the Redevelopment Plan to this developer or the adopted Specific Plan. The City Attorney advised that such amendment would be legally acceptable, also clarified that pursuant to the language proposed in the amendments, there would be no 'legal requirement for the Agency to consult with the Project Area Committee for future amendments relating to a change within the parameters of the permitted uses, except if it were desired,'unless the land use was proposed for change which would require referral to 'the PAC. Mrs. Risner stated it would be her preference to separate the issues as it relates to the Hellman property as Amendment No. 4 and the Department of Water and Power site as Amendment No. 5 for discussion purposes. Chairman Grgas asked if such action would necessitate bringing this matter back for separate consideration. The Director responded it would be necessary to revise the exhibits to the Amendments, and the City Attorney cautioned as to the importance of having the exhibits accurate, and clarified that if the PAC recommended against Amendment No. 4 the Agency would still have the authority to approve the DWP portion of the Amendment and not the Hellman property portion, and further, if the recommendation was for approval of the Amendment as presented, the Agency would still have the option of adopting one portion and not the other. After further discussion, the City Attorney suggested that the Agency could take an action to adopt Resolution 88-2 as presented, without reference to the Specific Plan, and further direct the staff to provide a copy of the Hellman Specific Plan relating to the Mola development to the members of the PAC since the Committee would need to be knowledgable of the provisions of the Specific Plan in order to make their recommendation on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Agencymember Risner suggested that an alternative to I I I 9-19-88 I replacing paragraphs five through nine of the Redevelopment Plan and reference to the adopted Specific PIan could be that the PAC be given options that the City. could design a Specific Plan around, such as the number of dwelling units, single family attached or detached residential, minimum of wetlands acreage, minimum acreage for park purposes and open space. The Development Services Director responded that the Specific Plan is a very specific regulatory document, setting forth the number and type of units, height, density, acreage, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. The staff noted that the adopted Specific Plan is subject to change through the amendment process, explaining that the Council is not compelled to adopt the proposed amendment to that Plan, and further, without adoption of that amendment, approval could not be given to the tract map. In response to a question from the Agency regarding grounds for legal action by the developer or Hellman claiming inverse condemnation, the City Attorney stated that although it is not customary to publicly render opinions on matters of litigation, he responded that at this point. of the proceedings the property owner would not have a claim for inverse condemnation against the City. He noted that there is no vested right to develop the property and the City has taken no action to deprive the use of the property, also that denial of a particular project would likewise not give right to an inverse claim, to claim such would require an action that would .deny all use of the pr-operty, and confirmed that if the project were.denied the.property owner, Hellman, would still. have the right under California Redevelopment law to be an owner/participant in any plan or project proposed for their property. With regard to the kind of exactions that can be required from a developer, the City Attorney explained that there is a reasonable relationship test under California law, with the courts recently emphasizing that there must be substantial evidence showing there is reasonable relationship.between conditions and the specific impact. of the project., as an example, a developer could not be required to pay for existing deficiencies in the community that have been caused by other factors. The City Manager .added that in a redevelopment area there is' the. ability to determine that certain additional community benefits would be worthy of the Agency contributing it's share of the tax increment to purchase those benefits, and in order to determine to what extent exactions can be made, a consultant could be retained for the benefit of the City to provide the information necessary to make. such determinations.. The. City Manager advised that such services are. available for consideration by the Agency, the cost of which would be something less than $20,000, with a report forthcoming from the consultant in time to be considered during the hearing process, and suggested the firm of Kotin, Regan & Mouchley, Real Estate Consultants, who have performed work for the City in the past and have considerable redevelopment experience. ,with regard to the confidentiality of such.'report,.the :City Attorney indicated that may. need .to.be.discussed further with the-staff as to the intent of the repor-t, however- in this case it may be necessary to make the information public. Discussion continued regarding the. adequacy .of available information on which to base the study, the City Manager confirming that there is, as well as discussion of the .selection of the consulting firm. I I Agencyrnernber Risner-. moved a'substitute motion to..adopt Resolution Number 88-2 as amended to .add.the language n...Proposed Amended Hellman Ranch Specific Plan (Mola) with Amendment No.4..." 'to the title and Section, 3. of Resolution 9-19-88 88-2. Agencymember Laszlo seconded the motion. The City Attorney clarified that 'it must be made clear that the projeqt Area Committee, as well as the Agency, are only considering Amendment No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan, ,not the Specific Plan. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Laszlo, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried The City Attorney clarified that the previous motion was to 1- amend the wording of the title and Section 3 of Resolution Number 88-2 and that the joint public hearing notice, an exhibit to the Resolution, would be changed to reflect the date of November 7th. After further discussion, he recommended that the wording of the joint public hearing notice for Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 4 not make reference to the Specific' Plan or Mola. Discussion followed. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, that the joint public hearing notice include the map of the area subject to Amendment No. 4 with the streets defined thereon. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Hunt Motion carried AGENDA AMENDED Laszlo moved, second by Risner, to amend the agenda to consider retaining the services of a consultant, the need for this action having occurred since the time for posting the agenda. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to authorize the City Manager to engage the services of a consultant, and that an amount not to exceed $20,000 be allocated from Redevelopment Agency funds for this purpose. The City Manager explained that it is'intended that the study incorporate three elements, the residual analysis of the value of the property, the determination of the improvement costs, the exaction costs, and using the value of the property and adding to that the improvement and exaction costs to determine a total cost of the project, and to compare that against the estimated sales price of the homes in the project, as well as look at the feasibility of alternatives to what is proposed. Agencymember Laszlo suggested-that consideration may'want to be given to recovering the cost of the study at such time as final approval of the project may be under consideration. Agencymember Risner suggested that ,in the spirit of AB 1600 which takes effect January, 1989, it may be helpful to include in the study an analysis of public needs or loss of public benefits through this development. The City Attorney acknowledged that that information would be of benefit and could be a basis for conditions that may be imposed. The City Manager stated he was not certain that a real estate consultant could be of help in determining that information. Agencymember Risner also asked that the motion be amended to assure that the information forthcoming through the consultant's report would not be public nor made available to the developer, that it be used as a negotiating document for the benefit of the City. The City Attorney stated they would work with the City Manager to determine the extent' that the report could be kept confidential. Members of the I 1 9-19-88 I Agency expressed their reluctance to authorize the retention of a consultant and the associated expenditure of funds, un'les's' the 'information that would be forthcoming is ' anticipated 'to be of suffici"ent value; nowever indicated they would not 'support the motion if the information was not made available'to the public and the' developer. Considerable discussion followed. In response to Mr. Evans, the City Manager advised that the analysis would include the total 150 acres proposed for -development, which would in turn determine and reflect the portion within the Redevelopment Project Area. Chairman Grgas explained that the issue of this study is not to determine what the'profit of the developer will be, the issue is whether or not this is the best plan, and if'not, could modifica~ions be made, densities reduced, the mix changed, or could there be greater exactions for public facilities, and if those changes'or exactions were made, would that then lend the project infeasible. At this point a majority of the Agency indicated it would be in the best interest of all persons that the information provided by the consultants "report be made public. Discussion' continued.' 'In response to the' Agency, , the' Ci ty Manager stated' 'that the intent of the' study would be to: 1) explore the'development proposed, inclu'ding the twenty acres for the wildlife habitat, 2) provide a comparison between an eighteen'hole executive course'and'a nine hole regulation course, the regulation course requiring wider fairways thus density modifications, and 3) discussion of size of Gum Grove'Park and,that relationship to density reductions'and the golf course size, as well as any other alternatives that may-be brought forth.' 'Members of the Agency suggested'that density reductions be considered, the type of housing, such as zero'sideyards, variable heights, or-two story'height'limitation,' an' alternative to the stacked'condos. There was'further discussion. Mr. Evans stated that-although he felt it would'be difficult'to produce the type of analysis under discussion within such a short time'frame, they would'be willing to provide any information-that they have available, however noted that all related costs of' ,the project' are not as' yet known. Mr. Gaylen'Ambrose; 613 Seabreeze Drive; spoke'in support of looking further into' the' best use of the'Hellman land, as well-as the cost and, profit that'would be associated'with this development. He also stated his intent to provide a . list of funding sources that would be available' for purchase and restoration of wetlands and parkS for the City to" investigate. He'expressed his concern with' the proposed Land Use'Plan in which'it states that if the wetlands were to fail,' that' land would be' u,tilized for golf" course, also questioned what is considered,to'be the final EIR document. I Vote on the'motron to retain'a consultant: AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None' , . Motion car ried I ORAL'COMMUNICATIONS' ...."... Chairman'Grgas declared'Oral Communications open. 'Mrs. Mitzi Morton,'153'- 13th Street; stated she-felt. it important,that the'Project Area Committee receive and be fully' knowledgable'of-the' Hellman Specific'Plan before making any'decision'on'the proposed Amendment No.'4'to the Redevelopment Plan, and suggested that the' City Attorney provide'instructions-to the PAC as'to the-options they have regarding action they are to take and how, explain-the - difference between recommendations' for consideration and conditions of approval, and stated the PAC wants to require a two-thirds vote of the Council to overturn their actions. 9-19-88 She stated she felt the exact acreage for Gum Grove should be set forth in the Specific Plan, and questioned why the Park was being redesignated from public use to residential. The Director responded that the present designation for Gum Grove would be changed since the subject areas are proposed for a planned residential community and ancillary uses, which includes park use, the Specific Plan stating that Gum Grove would be preserved for public use but not as a dedicated park, that the exact acreage of the grove/park I area will be.determined through the approval process. The staff confirmed that at the request of the City Council they would be meeting the following day with the Coastal Commission, Corps of Engineers, National Fish and Wild Life, and California Fish and Game, the purpose of the meeting being to have a general discussion with those agencies that are responsible for restoration of wetlands, and advised that neither the Port Authority or Mola would be in attendance'. Mr. Evans referred to a comment regarding a prior request for their proforma, asked if that is a requirement of this City, and noted that he had been informed it was not required. ~he City Attorney advised that the City can not legally compel a developer to provide such financial information, however it would be the desire of the Council that such information be willingly made available. With regard to the City requesting a profit and loss statement from Mola, the City Attorney again advised that the information could be requested however it-would have to be provided on a voluntary basis by the developer. Agencymember Risner requested that the information be provided. Mrs. Carla Watson, 1630 Catalina Avenue, asked Mola Development to cooperate with the City and provided the requested financial information. Mr. Riley Forsythe, 523 I Riviera Drive, spoke in support of slowing the processing of the Mola development, noting the number of issues that have come to light regarding the acreage and restoration of wetlands, preservation of the park, and stated funds are available to the City to accomplish same. He spoke for dealing with those issues before this land is subject to development, and objected to the possibility that the wetlands could be converted to golf course if they were to fail. In response to Chairman Grgas, Mr. Knight reported the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Game, and California Coastal Commission have the ultimate authority in determining the amount of wetlands that are to be set aside and how they are to be maintained. There was some discussion as to how many total acres of wetlands have existed on the Hellman property, their general location, and the method of determining how much is required to be restored. Mr. Knight clarified that there were approximately twenty-five acres of wetlands of which twenty- three were severely degraded, and based upon a formula approximately 19.6 acres should be restored on-site to an acceptable level, which again is a determination made by other agencies. He added that as a result of meetings between Mola and the Corps it was determined that the restored wetlands should be located in one area rather than I the small brackish water channel that now exists on the property. Mr. Ambrose again spoke regarding historical and . existing wetlands, stating his belief that the minimum required for restoration is approximately twenty acres, also that through various methods of clearing the property it is felt there could be much more wetland restored.. Mr. Ambrose presented the Agency with the list of funding sources that may be available for restoration that he previously made reference to. Mr. Larry Peters, 211 Ocean Avenue, informed 9-19-88 I the Agency that in prior years one of the crops that were grown on the Hellman Ranch was sugar beets because they could withstand the high saline content of the soil. By unanimous consent, the Agency declared a recess at 9:57 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 10:12 p.m. with Chairman Grgas calling the meeting to order. Agencymember Risner stated that pUblic comments and past plans indicate the need for continuance and retention of certain public amenities, and that she felt other facilities are needed of this development that will benefit the public yet allow a profit for the developer. She made reference to a recent award to Mola Development for a project in Santa Ana, that project the result of negotiations with the developer to fulfill the needs of that community. Mrs. Risner stated the benefits that the development and this community could realize ar-e the golf course, wetlands, tennis courts, and the Gum Grove nature park. She stated that neither the Council, Agency, Project Area Committee or any other recommending bOdy are under any legal obligation to approved either the proposed-Amendment to the Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan, General Plan, or the development plan. She added that the amendments proposed have substantially changed the Specific Plan approved in 1987, which at that time did-not include provision for wetlands, the developer having-stated that that issue had been resolved, also that the golf course could not be reduced to provide for the full 10.5 acre Gum Grove Park, and she noted that the plan presently before the City is contrary to what was previously stated and now provides for twenty acres of wetland as required by-a State agency. Agencymember Risner expressed her feeling that the community can have all of the aforementioned benefits if the will to secure them is exhibited, and asked that if there were no objections that the City Manager commence negotiations with the developer for an eighteen hole golf course of par three as stated by the president .of the Leisure World Golf Club, opening the proposed tennis courts-to the public, a 10.5 acre Gum Grove Park, restored and-secured for public use, restoration and provision for -maintenance of wetlands in accordance with State and federal r-egulations. Agencymember Hunt took exception to-the implication made regarding the will of the Council/Agency and staff to obtain the community benefits mentioned. Mr. Hunt-pointed out that the proposed development is approximately one hundred forty-seven acres and will only accommodate what will -fit on that acreage, also that the-developer will be leaving a number of benefits with the community, whether it be cash, ~ecreation facilities, or -other benefits, and to date there has been a determination to obtain the maximum amount of benefits and open space for -the public interest. Mr. Hunt emphasized that no decision has yet been made as to the size of the park, Quimby fees, etc. - He added that the reference to a Leisure World recommended eighteen hole, three par golf course was incorrect. Mr. Hunt stated he felt the Council is going to negotiate, -if there is going to be a development, -a combination of benefits for the entire community, not merely to benefit special interests. Chairman Grgas-expressed his objection to directing staff to pursue neg~t~ation in the manner proposed, stating he felt staff is/pioceeding as they should at this time, trying to negotiate the best for the entire community, that the Planning Commission and City Council can impose their desire~\at such time -as the plan is before those bodies, noting also that there-are other agencies with jurisdictIonal powers that will also influence the development. Agencymember Wilson stated she did not feel it I .1 9~19-88 / 10-17-88 appropriate to take a position at this time, that the input and deliberations-of the appointed boards and commissions and public comments should-first-be heard, with Council requests -and ~ecommendations forthcoming at the appropriate time. Agencymember Risne~ again stated her request that the City Manager negotiate-the public facilities she previously mentioned. She referred to desires of the public expressed through testimony before-the City's-recommending-bodies to 1 date, and with an unde~standing-of-the public hearing and decision making procedure of the governing body, asked the City Attorney's opinion as to whether that would preclude expression-of an individual's point-of view. The City Attorney responded- that although City Council members are not prohibited from-expressing their-individual opinions,- one should remain-open-as to any final decision. --Mr. Hunt- indicated-some-displeasure with comments made, stated he has intentionally avoided..taking-any position on. the proposed project or-aspects thereof-and would continue-to do so until all comments have been-made -and-all -issues studied, stating again-that any combination of benefits must be something that the-develope~ can pay-for reasonably and profit the most people in the community. There being no further comments, Chairman Grgas declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, 10:33 p.m. AYES: NOES: second by Risner, to adjourn the meeting at Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ~};-~ 1 ~~. .r~....-: ~..:~ I VOR~ ~ ~'- 1007 /./i' 'I ~~~ Seal Beach, California October 17, 1988 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the October meeting of the Seal Beach Redevelopment cancelled due to lack of quorum. 17, 1988 regular Agency is hereby ctober, 1988. I,