Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1988-11-21 11-7-88 / 11-21-88 I sewage, education, traffic control, police, fire and medical facilities if this development and a ten percent increase in population comes into the community. He also asked what the net annual surplus was for scenarios four, five and six of the consultants analysis, and questioned the feasibility of an eighteen versus nine hole golf course. Mr. Mouchly responded that the net annual surplus for scenario four was calculated to the approximately $1.5 million, number five was $2.7 million, and scenario six was $2.9 million, also in reference to the golf course feasibility, he stated he had made reference to operational costs, not capital costs. Mr. Glover clarified that either a nine or eighteen hole golf course could be built depending on the configuration of the units on the site, that it should be kept in mind that the alternatives were defined in a manner that an adequate comparison could be made, clarifying that a full thirty-six par, nine hole golf course could fit on the site, but to implement the alternatives as they were phrased, the driving range would have to be deleted. Mr. Heenan concluded his comments stating that it should be kept in mind that the consequences of this development will go well into the twenty-first .century and the broad perspective of its effect should be taken into consideration. Risner moved, second by Grgas, that the joint/conSOlidated public.hearing be continued to the next regular meeting, November 21st. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The joint session concluded at approximately 11:35 p.m. I ~d--d' ~- I Seal Beach, California November 21, 1988 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:45 p.m. In the .absence of the. Chairman and Vice Chairman from this meeting, the members.of the Agency agreed that Agencymember Hunt conduct the meeting in the capacity of Acting Chairman. 11-21-88 Acting Chairman Hunt led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Acting Chairman Hunt Agencyrnembers Laszlo, Risner Absent: Agencyrnembers Grgas, Wilson I By unanimous consent of the City Council on November 7th, the absence of Agencyrnember Grgas was excused. Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, Secretary WAIVER OF FULL READING Laszlo moved, second by Risner, 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: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Grgas, Wilson Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 19, 1988. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Grgas, Wilson Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, 6 ::4,9 p.m. ," , AYES: NOES: ABSENT : second by Risner, to adjourn the meeting at Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Grgas, Wilson Motion carried ~~L.c I 11-21-88 Seal Beach, California November 21, 1988 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in adjourned joint session with the City Council at approximately 7:10 p.m. I Present: Mayor Hunt Agency/Councilmembers Laszlo, Risner Agency/Councilmembers Grgas, Wilson Absent: Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, Secretary I CONTINUED JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT Mayor Hunt declared the continued joint/consolidated Redevelopment Agency and City Council public hearing open to consider Amendment Number 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment la-88, Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment lb-88, Open Space/ Conservation/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13198, and Precise Plan 1-88. The City Clerk reported receipt of twenty-eight additional written.communications for- the record since the November 7th meeting relating to this matter, a number of which represented more. than one individual. The City Manager stated there was no additional staff report at this time. I Mayor Hunt 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, and requested that the speakers keep in mind the five minute presentation time agreed to by the City Council. A majority of the Councilmembers present supported allowing the children in attendance to make the first presentation. .Adam Reizak, 328 - 8th Street, Mickey Renger, 210 - 8th Street, Shane Tecklenburg, 201 - 11th Street, Alex Poff, 322 - 10th Street, Ken Morris, 1729 Crestview Avenue, Katey Bazz, 1509 Beachcomber Drive, Katrina Dahlman, Crestview Avenue, Jessie Watcheski, 412 Marble Cove, and Stacy Daniello, 408 Marble Cove, in turn addressed.the Council expressing their support to retain Gum Grove Park, with each relating their personal experiences and enjoyment of that area. Mr. Galen Ambrose stated he was addressing the Council as a representative of the.Gum Grove Park and Wetlands Restoration Society, that it is their belief that as much of the historic wetlands area should be retained as possible, also that the park should be enlarged to eighteen acres if not more, and that they request that the Council vote against the Mola plan.to allow presentation of a more appropriate plan for the City, all wetlands and a nature park. He reported their group is forming as a nonprofit California corporation in order to insure that once the wetlands have been established they can play a part in the maintenance and restoration of those areas, the corporation also required in order-to acquire funding. He added that if the project should be app~oved by the Council, their organization will ask that there be only onsite mitigation, no matter the final wetlands acreage determination, that 11-21-88 there be a ten to one wetlands restoration with a minimum of three to one. with regard to a comment of Mr. Ambrose regarding a new wetlands map showing 24.88 acres, the Development Services Director acknowledged there is a study undertaken by LSA-for Mola, the Coastal Commission, Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Game which will delineate the wetlands for the site, and that the Council was provided copies of a November 7th letter regarding that study. Mr. I Walton Wright, resident of Brea .and consultant to the Wetlands Restoration Group, submitted two maps, prepared in 1916 and 1917, for the record, and described what was shown as historic wetlands along the coast in this area. Mr. Wright commenced a slide presentation, pointed out the project site in relation to Landing Hill, Seal Beach Boulevard, Bolsa Avenue, and the San Gabriel River and stated that approximately one third of the site is within the historic wetlands area with about sixty percent of that area still having remnants of wetlands plant species which provides habitat for certain wildlife, likewise the Gum Grove Park and grasslands providing nesting and foraging arceas for -other wildlife species. Mr. Wright spoke at length regarcding the differ,ent species of vegetation that arce evidenced-on the various elevations of the property. He noted that the area predesignated for the twenty acre wetlands is strewn with concrcete and dredged materials from the-Long Beach Marcina causing a buildup on the land, thus does-not-support the salt marsh vegetation that used to exist there, the historic soils map showing one of the distrcibutory channels-forc the river flowing in this area, and stated one must question the stewardship of this land given its present-condition. Mr. Wright stated that the source of the water into the ditch comes from the River through-a pipe under the inlet canal where it spills out, I noting-there is only a small amount of water that comes onto the site and poor flushing is caused by a malfunctioning floodgate. -He also made refercence to the Newport Back Bay, stating that through the restoration process areas can be r,eplanted and dredged to create the wetlands, those areas then rcecover and regenerate rapidly, the larger the area the higher -the diver,sity-that can be obtained. Mr. Wright again made refercence to the wetlands map, stating that up to ninety-five percent of those areas have been altered or lost, that about one-third of the Hellman site was a wetlands area-and-scattered elements of wetlands vegetation still exist, a number of factors contributing to the degradation of the area, and with regard to the location of the twenty acres proposed for wetlands restoration, he said the area is actually sump which would not contain any wetland-resource. Mr. Wright noted discussion of ponds within the golf course possibly being construed as wetlands, stating these would be fresh water, areas and would be void of any-wildlife.or benefit to-salt marsh species of plants or animals, and that such areas should not be considered as part of the wetlands restoration. Mr. Wright stated that upon review of the site there appears to be somewhat more than-thirty-five acres of wetland area, and that twenty to twenty-five acres-would be inadequate. He added that he felt the-liquefaction map in the EIR is somewhat I conservative, the vegetation map prepared for the ponderosa Plan-showing the general areas but inaccurate with regard to acreage, the Specific Plan prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates inadequately reflecting the wetland areas, where the map prepared by LSA for Mola is somewhat closer in accuracy, however still conservative, suggesting that a field determination is needed by a responsible agency in order to accurately establish the wetlands acreage. Mr. 11-21-88 I Wright referred to a California Senate Resolution that suggests a restoration ratio of not less than 1.5 to 1, however in some cases a 10 to 1 ratio has been considered for certain projects, and stated that the development proposed on the Hellman site would remove most of the salt marsh vegetation therefore on-site mitigation should be a requirement. Mr. Ambr,ose objected to the replacement of existing trees in Gum Grove with boxed trees which he stated would take away the crown cover in the Park. He requested a copy of the LSA map that supposedly shows 24.88 acres of wetlands. Mr. Ambrose stated he has been in contact with agencies that have concerns with this project, the EPA, Fish and Game, Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, specifically Mr. Steven Johns, biologist with the EPA, having said they would like to come to Seal Beach, if invited by the Council, to explain what their requirements are, the-other agencies as well. Mr. Ambrose also stated he did- not believe Mola would be allowed to build the previously proposed ponderosa Plan as had been indicated. Mr. Ambrose asked that the representatives from the-agencies he mentioned be invited to address the Council. With regard to the powers of the EPA, the City Attorney stated he had not .heard of the EPA having a decision making roll in such projects, and offered to look into same for the Council. The City Manager.reported that although representatives of the agencies mentioned have not been-in attendance at a Council meeting, the staff has had discussions and met with-representatives of the Corps of Engineers, National Fisheries,-National Wildlife Service, State Fish and Game, and Coastal Commission, and that it was made quite clear there is a pr,ocess to be followed, the local agency-determining and making -the decision on the best land use, then the other agencies would react to that decision. Councilmember Risner acknowledged that the Council has the right to make changes and the best deter,mination possible based upon all-available information, and suggested that if there has been tentative agreement between the Fish and-Game and-Mola as to wetlands acreage, she felt that information should be-made available to the Council and incorporated into the map. Mayor Hunt noted reference made to the ditch on the property being fed salt water by way of the San Gabriel River, and stated it was his observation that the water in the-ditch is the same as the fresh water table-and that the water, from the San Gabriel River at high tide has no way of coming back onto the property-since the floodgate was designed specifically for flood control purposes to keep that water out, and with r,egard to the presence of salt in the area, the conditions of the property in 1916 account for -some, the fill for more, with additional salt deposits from the inadvertent ingress of the San.Gabr,iel River. Mr. Wright did acknowledge that much of the water coming onsite is the result of the water table, that the-tidegate is-not closing properly and allows a certain amount -of salt water onto the site at high tides, also that-the alkaline flats along the ditch are there as the result of the-high gr,ound water level on the site, that any marine-water that comes in is-high salt content, the dredged material also high in salt, thus the fresh water flushing-the salts onto the alkaline flats and into the ditch play a large part in destroying the vegetation on the property. Councilmember Risner recalled that at one time there was a ditch filled with brackish water that ran parallel to the Channel and along the back of Gum Grove Park, that ditch now filled. Mr. Wright stated he believed I I 11-21-88 that-was a small ditch that once collected the runoff from the agricultural areas of the site. By unanimous at 8:15 p.m. Hunt calling consent of the Council, a recess was declared The Council reconvened at 8:29 p.m. with Mayor the meeting to order. Mrs. Beverly Casaras, Marvista Avenue, stated she was in favor of developing the Hellman property, however noted the I single family homes proposed do not provide sufficient off- street parking, that there should be an alley between the homes as in Bridgeport, thus allowing parking in the front of the residences. In response to a question of Mrs. Casaras, the City Attorney explained that the Council is considering the development plan as submitted by the applicant which includes six hundred sixty condominium units, as well as the recommendations made by the Planning Commission which includes deletion of sixty condo units, and when the City Council considers and-acts on-those recommendations they could become conditions of the map, the map then would be amended to conform to the-conditions of approval. He added-that the Council-can make a number of changes to the project that do not have to-be referred back to the Planning Commission unless those changes are significant or-substantial. Also that it was his understanding that-the developer proposed to move the location rather than delete the sixty condominium units, and that it -will be-the decision of the Council as to whether or not it chooses to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. In response to Mrs. Casaras' question regarding the-lot size-of -the single family homes, the Development Services Director responded that the Specific Plan for this property provides for a minimum size-of thirty-six feet by I one hundred twenty feet, and the three story-height being a development standard reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission-and City Council. Councilmember Risner stated that -the amended Specific Plan was a culmination of what was approved in 1987, completed and filed with the City in February-1988, however she did not recall approving a three story-maximum-height for the single family homes. Mrs. Casaras reported she has heard there are a number of lawsuits against this developer, questioned why the developer 's-property in Huntington Beach has not sold, and suggested that possibly the units are too small or that legal actions do in fact exist, in which case the National Mortgage-Association will not-lend money. Mrs. Casaras emphasized-that her concerns with -this project relate basically-to the financial aspects. She stated a condominium complex will sell quickly if that is what people want, the problems arising when it-comes to resale, if the occupancy rate is lower than a sixty-five to seventy percent there is -no financing, stating further that stacked condos do not-work. She advised that a house on the Hill could sell for much more than is projected for the single family homes in this project. Mrs. Casaras urged that a proforma be required from the developer, that there be no stacked condos and no three story dwellings, stating that what is needed-is a first-class development on the Hellman site, and I submitted information to the Council regarding what she felt were quality golf courses. Mr. Larry Mueller, 142 - 11th Street, acknowledged that some development of the Hellman property-is inevitable, also that the-Council-is trying to accommodate all of the special interests in the City. He-stated however -that-his neighbors do not want six hundred sixty small apartments, and pointed 11-21-88 I out that Gum Grove may be cut in half, there will be increased traffic congestion, reduced safety services, which may be the compromise for an eighteen hole golf course, where three hundred homes, eighteen hole golf course, twenty acres of wetlands and a full size Gum Grove Park would be an ideal development. Mr. Muelle~ made reference to the consultant report that set forth five alternatives to the proposed Mola plan using the industry standard of fifteen percent profit margin, twenty-five pe~cent return on investment, and a constant sales price in each scenario, and noted specifically that scenario three with two hundred seventy-eight homes, golf course, wetlands, and full Gum Grove Park was determined to be unattractive because of the reduced profit to the developer. Mr. Mueller stated he felt that the price used in the analysis for the single family homes of $450,000 was low, that $600,000 to $700,000 was more realistic, and suggested if Scenario Three were evaluated at even $550,000 the developer would realize more than twenty-seven million dolla~s more on his investment, and City revenues would be increased more than what is presently predicted. Mr. Mueller asked that the Council give serious consideration to the Scenario Three concept in lieu of the plan under consideration. Ms. Dorothy Geisler, Leisure World resident, stated her friends and neighbors signed a communication .to the City Council supporting less condominiums, a ten -acre Gum Grove Park, with the remaining acreage for a nice-golf course. She reported concern with the six hundred square foot condos, which she suggested could be combined for larger units, and spoke in support of the Scenario Three concept. Ms. Susanne Andre, 1300 Crestview Avenue, stated most people do not support the project proposed, .and that the.nume~ous people who have supported Gum Grove Park retention have had their wishes ignored. She noted that what was a 10.4 acre nature park before the development .proposal-no longer exists, that there is no mention of a park-in the acreage distribution, Marina Hill being the only area--in the City that will not have a park, a golf course proposed at the expense of the existing park, to which she expressed her strong objection. Ms. Andre asked that the City Council vote against the present plan, and direct that Scenario Three with two hundred seventy-eight homes sold at a realistic price, wetlands, park, and golf course be developed. .Mr. Chris Davis, 1712 Coral Place, asked that the Council not change any existing laws until the Mola project is voted upon. He spoke regarding the proposed reduced size of Gum Grove Park and the Hellman offer to sell an.additional five acres of land to the City for recreation.purposes .but only after approval of the Mola project. -He expressed-concern with building in the area of an earthquake-fault, increased traffic, and the availability of water, stating it is imperative to control the number of people that move into an area. Ms. Charlotte Clark said she was a biologist by profession and president of the Orange County Fund fo~ -Enviornmental.Defense, a non- profit organization which consists of approximately thirty groups with environmental interests and seven hundred individuals, their objective to preserve open space and provide a legal defense fund for various efforts in the County. Ms.. Clark expressed the support of their group for the citizens of Seal Beach in their quest to preserve Gum Grove Park and to restore a wetlands habitat, pointing out that although economics is an important concern, other cities along the coast are saving parks and preserving wetlands and. have not-gone b~oke. Ms. Clark stated that some of the most expensive.homes in Orange County are located in areas overlooking open space. She advised that I I 11-21-88 once wetlands ar,e established there-is very little cost for maintenance, the Long-Beach 2020 Plan, the-Coastal Conservancy and -independent conservancies all being possible resources to r,estore and maintain the wetlands, also an assessment district, use of the -California Conservation Corp, or, establishment of a-r,edevelopment distr,ict being other possibilities, or -a commercial-development combined with with a community overlooking the wetlands may be as lucrative and acceptable-as what is presently proposed. She added that with a combination of fresh water -and salt-water habitat on this valuable parcel of land there is tremendous potential for a variety of wildlife to exist. Ms. Clark offered to serve the City in any advisory capacity that may be desired. Ms. Mary Parcell addr,essed the Council on behalf of the El Dor,ado Audubon Society, a local chapter of the National or,ganization with a-membership of fourteen hundred. -She stated-the Hellman-pr,operty-includes -wetlands which are the last remaining segments of the once vast Los Alamitos Bay of twenty-four,-hundred acres of-mud flats, salt marsh, and tidal-lagoons. - She-offered -that-wetlands are an important public r,esour,ce that are -disappearing- at an alarming rate and that one-third-of-the endangered species depend on wetlands for some portion-of their, life cycle, that wetlands also control floods, reduce erosion, recharge ground. water, and improve.water, quality. Ms. par,cell stated a priority of the-National Audubon Society is.restoration and preservation of the r,emaining wetlands, and that the California Department of Fish and Game.have stated that the eucalyptus gr,ove and wetlands are valuable habitat and-foraging areas. She added that there are-environmental concerns with the use of .pesticides-and-chemicals on golf courses, and that a number-of issues are not addressed in the EIR. Ms. Parcell noted that-there is currently no restoration or management plan for the wetlands, that their, prime.concern is that there be onsite.restoration, that offsite-restoration would constitute a net loss of wetland, and that fresh water ponds are of no value-to.salt water marsh species. Ms. Par,cell suggested.that an advisory committee .be established to participate in the development and evaluation of the adequacy of.a wetlands restoration plan, stressed the need for a long term management plan to preserve the resource in perpetutity, and urged that this-wetland area be preserved. Dr. John-Pearl, 120 - 10th.Str,eet, stated he..was a Doctor of Environmental Ethics and expressed his .amazement at the close proximity of housing and .the lack of open space in Southern California-communities, and noted that through his studies he found.that Seal-Beach and much of the coastal zone.were once-wetland areas and-habitat for a vast array of plant and animal species. .He stated the.Council now has the opportunity to obtain a tract of wetlands and a park for the benefit of.the ecosystem and posterity, an invaluable long term heritage .for the-City, however the Council.appears to favor the densely populated, gated condo and housing development for shor,t term economic.benefit. He urged that consideration be given to the long term benefit to the City for the future. By unanimous at 9:29 p.m. Hunt calling consent.of the Council, The.Council reconvened the meeting to order. a.recess was declared at 9:50 p.m. with Mayor Mrs. .patty Campbell,- 4433 Ironwood.Avenue, stated she was speaking as a.representative of Citizens.for Sensible Growth and Traffic Improvements (CARE), and that their objection I I I 11-21-88 I was with the density of the proposed development because of the traffic it will generate, approximately seventy-seven hundred vehicle trips per day, and according to the plans for the project traffic will enter and exit on First Street, Forrestal and Regency.Drive, impacting Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. She stated another concern and traffic mitigation must would be noise abatement on Seal Beach Boulevard of the two adjacent buildings at MCGaugh School through a sound wall or air conditioning units. Mrs. Campbell predicted that traffic exiting Regency Drive will travel north impacting Westminster, the Leisure World entrance, and the freeway ramps, and that another entrance/ exit is needed from the northern perimeter road to Westminster Boulevard, and that the developer should be required to pay one hundred percent rather than fifty percent of the cost of the new road. Mrs. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, asked why so many people are unhappy with this development plan. She stated many people have worked hard to keep the small town atmosphere and dream of Seal Beach alive while allowing progress in an orderly and gradual manner. Mrs. Watson stated that when a golf course was proposed for the Mola development it was welcomed since past efforts to obtain a golf course had not been successful, however some objection had been expressed with regard to the small condos of this project. She noted however that a glossy brochure .in opposition to the recent traffic measure told the voters that they would lose the golf course if the measure were-approved, then it was learned that the golf course.would encroach onto Gum Grove Park. In an effort to discover .if Mr. Mola was more sensitive to the needs of Huntington Beach, Mrs. Watson reported she visited .various Mola projects in that community and learned there are a number of dissatisfied owners who have joined homeowners lawsuits against Mola Development. She cited specifically the actions of the Cabo del Mar Homeowners Association and the Seabridge Village Homeowners Association, and read specific allegations contained in those complaints. She.also made-reference to .complaints made by a resident of a Mola development alleging unacceptable noise from an upstairs unit.which has gone unresolved. Mrs. Watson urged that the complaints be investigated. Mr. John Follis,. 4372 .Elder Avenue, read a resolution of the Seal Beach Homeowners Association requesting that the Mola Specific.Plan as proposed be denied, citing the loss of Gum Grove Park, that only minimum wetlands are proposed for .restoration, adverse impacts on traffic, noise, natural resources, .public health and air quality, and requesting that .the Council explore all alternatives to preserve this area. Mr. Rollie Hawk, 1025. Crestview Avenue, made reference to his many years of playing golf and-knowledge of courses, and related his experiences in.moving to Arizona where he purchase a home on a fairway adjacent to an exclusive, privately owned golf course with a lake where, after a period of time, condos were built in the center of the course because it was more profitable. He described executive courses that he recently visited of comparable size to what is proposed, explaining that in building a perimeter golf course, which is proposed, the golf course surrounds the homes, he also.compared the width of the narrow fairways proposed to those that he had visited. Mr. Hawk stated he felt the golf course proposed would be difficult to playas well as manage, and that patrons would very likely grow tired of playing on .such a course. In response to the Council, Mr. Hawk advised that of the I I 11-21-88 courses he visited the average width of a fairway was about seventy-five yards, where the fairway on the course proposed is.about fifty yards, and added that he felt the condos would also interfere with the golf course. Mr. Hawk expressed his support for Alternative Three if it were determined to.be-financia11y feasible, single family homes and possibly a larger golf course. Mr. Bruce Stark, 100 Oceangate, Long.Beach, expressed his.expectation that the I Council wou1d.approve the Mola plan which takes away a park where.children should be playing and puts in a golf course , so that a few.can.play, the people.of Seal Beach paying for that recreation, noting also that the development plans provide that .the housing will -be built first with the developer having up to five years to build the golf course in due dilligence. - He referred to comments-regarding development of this.land as inevitable, then asked if building condos on. the beach or the greenbelt was also inevitable. He reported it has been said that there is no profit or.tax-benefit to the.City with this project, and stated that it will then cost the City of Seal-Beach money and questioned why Mola Development.is being subsidized. Further, he.made reference to a statement in a Mola newsletter which .reportedly.said they.were deleting any potential plan for.a hotel at.this.time, Mr. Stark then suggesting that the driving range appeared to be a good location for a future hotel. Mr. Stark also charged that the planning for this site.is being done in reverse, where it.is customary for the.Council to meet with the citizens, decide-what is .wanted, prepare a plan, then find the developer .to implement that plan, and stated that redevelopment agencies that profit are those that plan ahead, not react to a developer's request. Mr. Stark asked what protection.the City has from liability on this site I from discontented-buyers because of defects in the.project, the land-having been used for dumping. of wastes,.capped oil wells that are prone to.breakage, as well as an earthquake fault,. litigation. also possible from charges that the EIR is inadequate, and-the question as to.whether.or not some of the.land is.actually.within the City. He also questioned whether or not Mr..Mola has a valid option to purchase the property since that .option is not recorded in.Orange County, and further, whether .or not he is the real party of interest or represents someone else. Councilman Laszlo requested to.be provided any information to support the -comment that earthquakes have caused oil well spills, and asked that.the City Attorney again address the issue of .this land being within the City boundaries. The City Attorney made reference to the letter from Mr. Peters alleging .that the.referenced Parcel A was not included in Annexation 75-1, and. explained that prior to preparing their opinion they had requested the.City Engineer's office to map out the legal-descriptions of the.parcel excluded in 1953 and.compare that to the .land included in 75-1, and that data showed-that parcel.A was included in Annexation 75-1, the opinion then concluding that 75-1 was a legal proceeding under the Annexation.1aws of the.State-of California, Parcel I A.excluded in 1953-and brought back into the City in-1975. He also advised that the statute of limitations to Challenge the validity of that action was. three months, also that the State legislature. has adopted validating acts twice a year since 1976.which would have validated any procedural error. Referring to his review of the letter.from.Mr. Peters as well as other communications, Mayor Hunt stated he felt there-were .exclusions of.pertinent-information from those communications, also that tracing the boundaries for the 11-21-88 / 12-5-88 I exclusion and later annexation was quite simple and readily seen that the area was included in 1975. With regard to payment of taxes on the area referred to as Parcel A he stated that taxes are being paid on that parcel and suggested that the persons authoring those communications were in-possession of the tax bill and the lighting assessment bill however the two bills were not submitted with the communication under discussion. Councilmember Risner stated her understanding was that the Assessment District covered vacant parcels of land deriving a general benefit, and questioned whether or not an error had been made with regard to the referenced Parcel on the Hellman property. The City Attorney responded that although some exclusions had been made with regard to the Lighting District, suggested that the assessment for this Parcel could be verified. In response to an inquiry of Councilman Laszlo as to the size of the driving range as a potential hotel site, Mr. Knight reported it to be approximately three and one-half to four acres. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, 121 - 12th Street, requested that the Council look at all facts before voting on this project. She also questioned the need for and objected to the presence of a uniformed officer at the City Council meeting. Referring to a Long Beach newspaper editorial, she noted that two members of the Council have made up their minds regarding the proposed development. Councilman Laszlo responded that he had not made up his mind and was listening to citizen comments and felt certain other members of the Council were doing likewise. Mayor Hunt added that each member of the Council will certainly have input into the many aspects of the plan proposed prior to any final action. It was the order of the Chair with consent of the Agency/ Councilmembers present, to continue the joint public hearing until December 5th at 7:00 p.m. The joint session concluded at approximately 11:10 p.m. I I Seal Beach, California December 5, 1988 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of-Seal Beach met in adjourned-joint session with the City Council at approximately 7:05 p.m.