Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1988-12-05 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. 12-5-88 Present: Chairman Grgas Agencymembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Chief Stearns, Police Department Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, Secretary I CONTINUED JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT Chairman Grgas called the Redevelopment Agency meeting to order and turned the conduct of the jOint public hearing over to Mayor Hunt who 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 Ib-88, Open Space/Conservation/Rec~eation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13198, and P~ecise-Plan-1-88. -The City Clerk ~eported one hundred seven communications received since the November 21st meeting relating to the proposed development, that two different petitions had been submitted, one from The Hellman Ranch Support Group -containing one hundred forty-five signatur,es in-support of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan with seventy percent-open space, an eighteen hole public Golf-course, a driving range, twenty acres of restored wetlands, low-density housing of 5.5 units per acre maximum, and ~evitalized.eucalyptus grove and wilderness area of 6.8 acres maximum, the other petition from Seal Beach Citizens United.containing one hund~ed fifty-four signatures suppo~ting-development of the historic Hellman Ranch with an eighteen hole public golf course, twenty-four acres of restored wetlands, low density, quality housing not to exceed two stories and ~estored-wilderness park area of ten acres. The Cle~k further- reported receipt of letters from the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service dated November 30th-and August 28th attached thereto, a December 2nd letter from-Mr. -Chuck Damm of the California Coastal Commission, and a November 26th communication from C. E. Parker, Inc. to Mr. Galen F. Ambrose, each relating-to the wetlands issue, and a communication dated December 1, 1988 from Mr. Robert A. Epsen of Heller, Ehrman, White & MCAuliffe, attorneys for the Hellman Estate, advising the City of the potential termination of the present lease of Gum Grove Park and withdrawal of their willingness to sell an additional five acres of land-to the City for community park use. The City Manager reported that invitations had been forwarded to the California-Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, -the U. S. Fisheries Service, and the Corps of Engineers to present written comments or oral comments at this meeting, and pointed out the only responding letters were from the Fish .and Wildlife Service and the Coastal Commission. He also explained that the Wildlife Service is advisory to the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Game is advisor-y to the Coastal Commission, the Corps and Coastal Commission being the permitting authorities. Mr. Nelson I I 12-5-88 I noted that there have been a number of comments since the presentation of the real estate feasibility study, primarily directed to Scenario Three, and as a result of those comments the consultants were invited to be present at this meeting. He stated his primary concern is that the real estate feasibility study was meant to look at alternatives to determine if the applicant's proposal was feasible and if there were further concessions-the City could obtain, the alternatives selected being mathematically possible but were not tested for validity. Mr. Ehud Mouchley of Kotin, Regan & Mouchley advised that the City Manager correctly identified their previous work on behalf of the Council, specifically that they were not retained to prepare a feasibility study such as a developer would perform, that by virtue of the budget provided to them and the time that was available, it was impossible to perform an indepth feasibility analysis. He stated what they were asked to-do, and what they delivered to the City, was to look at a series of illustrative cases, to which they used mathematical, logical, and consistently applied formulas, not based on specific studies, merely to judge an order of magnitude of comparisons. He stated that in their business it is unfortunate that the nature of numbers, such as were presented, are very seductive and causes a reaction of people such as -in the case of reference to two hundred seventy-eight units, which then becomes a number to be debated. Mr. Mouchley advised that was never their intent, and he would urge that that figure not be taken as a quantifiable number, that it is me~ely an illustrative, mathematicaly derived number. He stated also he had been made aware of comments that the developer ought to accept a particular development-program that is very different from that which the developer-allied for, and as a personal value judgment he would find it-difficult to receive instruction for a specific development plan from a party that has no financial risk, noting-that there are many governmental agencies around the country who -acquire land and then retain a developer to develop-it- on their behalf, and in that case it would be appropriate for a Council to provide a specific development plan, with exact specifications, for the developer to build. As an agent of the money source, he stated-that it would seem that if a developer wishes, the developer would come forwa~d with a revised development plan and the City would then have the ability to either reject or adopt the proposal. Mr. Mouchley stated that if, by the virture of their work, consideration of the proposed plan has changed, that was never their intent. He confirmed that a full-feasibility analysis could be done, however stated that unrelated to cost, which would not be insignificant, the timing element would have to be considered, and as an example, if they were requested to perform a full feasibility analysis relating to a particular development scenario it would probably take between sixty to ninety days, and that they would investigate very carefully, much more scientifically than in the work requested to date, issues relating to physical planning, land planning, civil engineering and all of it's ramifications, and a thorough market study, explaining that none -of those studies have been conducted by their firm, however presumably the developer making the proposal has gone through that cycle. With regard to Mr. Mouchley's comment regarding municipalities buying and owning land and developing it, Councilmember Risner asked if he was inferring that a city could not develop a Specific Plan and seek proposals even if they did not own the land. Mr. Mouchley stated he did not I I 12-5-88 infer that. Councilmember Risner stated she felt members of the community have used the KRM report as a basic document to explore possibilities without changing any figures except the sales price, and that she did not feel the scenario of two hundred seventy-eight homes is being looked at as a solid number. Other members of the Council responded that the two hundred seventy-eight scenario-has been suggested as a preferred alternative by persons in the community. Mr. Mouchley explained what he was referring -to was the I assumption of risk which, to him, governs who applies and who approves. Councilman Grgas acknowledged Mr. Mouchley's expertise, having been a developer, representing clients nationwide, and well respected in his field. He stated he did not feel anyone was suggesting-that the numbers contained in the analysis-were not illustrative, and asked if Mr. Mouchley had an-opinion as to the validity of those numbers, particularly with regard to the selling price and absorption rate, and inquired further-as to who provided KRM with those numbe~s. Mr. -Mouchley reiterated-they did not perform an indepth -market analysis, stating their information came from realtors and from records of units sold in the area, the ave~age sales-price derived from that information, stating further that the sample was not scientifically significant as the~e have-not-been enough sales in recent past to warrant a pure statistical reference, however the numbers, particularly relating to the single family dwellings are averages that seemed ~easonable. Mr. Mouchley noted that pu~suant to information received through the City Manager they were of-the understanding that someone read into their analysis that they had suggested an average sales price of $443,000, where in fact they had said $443,000 base price I plus $40,000 for lot premiums-in 1988 dOllars, where by the time of development that number could be in the area of $500,000 to $600,000 or more, stating they prepared an analysis that seemed-reasonable in terms of sales price and absorption rates as -they see it and perceive todays market. Councilman Grgas-asked Mr. Mouchley's opinion as to whether this would be considered a low, moderate, or high risk project. Mr. Mouchley responded there is no objective answer-to that question, because if there were unlimited resources then it wouldn't be a significant risk, that it depends on the resources of whomever puts the money up. Mayor Hunt made reference to the supposed $443,500 base price and -the additional $40,000 premium, adding a nine percent per annum inflation, and asked if it could be presumed the home would then sell for approximately $565,000 if sold in 1991. In response, Mr. Mouchley pointed out that from the numbers run-in the analysis, the average over the projected life of the program, using the nine percent compounding, -caused the $443,000 figure, plus $40,000, plus $50,000 to become $610,000, the program being from beginning of development through the sale of the units. with regard to absorption, -Mayor Hunt asked if there was a formula that could be -used that would distinguish between absorption rate in-a community such as Seal Beach of fifty dwelling units as I opposed to one hundred. Mr. Mouchley responded that the rate of absorption is highly market sensitive, as an example, at $500,OOO-possibly new housing could be sold at twenty units per -year, where at $400,000 that pace may be increased, however is highly dependent upon market conditions and varies greatly, -and acknowledged that one could not predict what the reduction of sales price might be as the absorption rate is increased. He also confirmed they 12-5-88 I did not base their estimated sales price on the square foot construction costs for the single family units. with regard to financing scenarios in the analysis, Mr. Mouchley confirmed that all equity and no leverage means that the developer is funding the project with no outside financing, that leverage would mean the developer is financing a percentage -of the development, and it was assumed fifteen percent developer equity, the remainder borrowed, explaining that the relevant question to him would not be the developers ability to leverage, because even if the development were one hundred percent financed the developer is still at risk. He stated-that the substitution of debt for cash can sometimes hide-certain problems with economics of a project, which is-why they had recommended that the alternatives be evaluated before financing. Councilman Grgas reported receiving comments regarding Scenario Three, and stated although that may be a possibility, he would have some questions as to it's feasibility, particularly with regard to the golf course. The City Manager noted-Scenarios Three, Four and Five, total single family developments, and if those scenarios were to be seriously considered, an amendment would be required to the City's Housing Element which presently calls for one hundred dwelling units on -this property to be affordable. With regard to the absence of members of the Council from the-previous meeting, Councilmembers Grgas and Wilson each stated they had reviewed a tape of -that meeting. In reference to the affordable housing-issue, the Development Services Director explained-that the Housing Element of the General Plan requires one hundred units to be affordable to low and moderate income households to-be incorporated into the Hellman Specific Plan, and under the current proposal that would be accomplished with the -efficiency and one bedroom condo units. The City Attorney-confirmed that there is no twenty percent-set-aside requirement contained in the Zoning-Ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan, however the Housing Element does provide for one hundred units to be provided somewhere on that property, but not necessarily in a particular location, which would not preclude the Housing Element from being amended, yet-it must provide for a wide range of housing opportunities throughout the City. Mr. Knight clarified that the one hundred unit requirement refers to the Hellman Specific Plan, -which is two hundred twenty-five acres, that the requirement was accomplished in the ponderosa Plan through senior citizen apartments proposed to be placed where the wetlands would be located. He also reported that low and moderate income in Orange County is approximately $53,000 per year which would finance a unit of about $150,000. I 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 noted the Council's agreed upon -time limit of five minutes per speaker. Mr. Charles Antos, 210 - 8th Street, stated he understood that a meeting was held in Leisure World which Mr. Evans attended on behalf of Mola Development and where he allegedly said that the speeches made-by the children-at a previous meeting were not written by them but by-their teachers, which Mr. Antos said was incorrect. Mr. Antos referred to the Environmental Impact Report that is being considered on this project and to a response to -that document dated March 24, 1987 from the manager for environmental and special projects for the County EMA and read -portions -of-that-communication relating to the impact of the development on the asthetic and 12-5-88 historic eucalyptus grove, the displacement of the existing wildlife habitat, and the -preservation and-dedication to the City of the Gum Grove Park. He stated that at the time that letter was written the City knew, through a report to the City, that the grove was infested with the longhorn borer, yet did nothing to-alleviate the problem-by providing water to those trees as was recommended in that report. He added that the EIR does not bear any relation to this project due to the many changes that have taken place. Mr. Antos also said that the-additional five-acres that has been offered for -the City to buy for recreational-purposes has not been considered in the EIR, that that particular parcel of land is-contaminated due to the oil production and that the noise level is too high for park use due to its proximity to the oil wells. He questioned-responsibility for removal of the soil from that parcel, liability for illness or hearing loss, and accessibility to such parksite due to its location. Mr. Antos stated he felt some significant amendments should-be made to the EIR and that further consideration should be given to the location proposed for the five-acre park. He added-that there is-adequate land to accommodate the wetlands and the ten acre Gum Grove nature area, a-golf course, possibly in a different configuration, and up-to three hundred one and two story single family residences, and recommended that the proposed map be rejected and that the-City meet with all interested groups to prepare a plan-that will be acceptable. With regard to comments-regarding sufficiency-of the EIR, Councilmember Risner made reference-to a Mira Monte Homeowners versus San Buenaventura County case where it was found a project encroached a wetlands area by one quarter acre more than had been assumed in the -EIR, and-even though -mitigation measures were adopted, the County's failure to prepare a subsequent environmental analysis was found to be a violation of CEQA. The-City Attorney responded that in that case the staff initially made a wrong assumption-as to the impact on the wetlands area- of a roadway-that was not shown on the initial plan, which would require a-subsequent EIR to address the revision-to the-plan. He-stated that in this case, with respect to the points that were raised in a communication that-referenced the Mira Monte case, he felt it is necessary to wait-for-the public hearing to be concluded with regard to the wetlands area to-determine whether or not the EIR adequately-addresses the wetlands issue, and as an example, even if the-project-were approved and it was subsequently discovered at the Coastal Commission level that the tract map provision for wetlands was insufficient, that would be an issue to be raised at that time, that until the public hearing is concluded it-would be difficult to give an opinion-as to-the adequacy of the EIR in that regard. He added that the EIR does not address the additional five acres proposed for park -use, which would have-to be looked at as far as how the environmental review should be handled for that -particular area, especially if there were potential for adverse impact. Mickey Renger, -210 - 8th Street, Adam Reizak, 328 - 8th Street, Alex Poff, 322 - lOth Street, and Nathan Crandan, 210 --11th Street, each addressed-the Council regarding the allegation that they had not written their presentations to the Council at last meeting. The boys also spoke for saving Gum-Grove Park. Mr. Harold Rothman, 300 Ocean Avenue, stated-he has attended many of the hearings-on this proposal, reviewed the public information, and has done research and investigation on his own, stating also that Mola Development is a successful company as can be observed I I I 12-5-88 I in the Huntington Beach area, skilled in processing their projects through governmental bodies and in attaining their goals. He commended the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff for their efforts in processing this development, and stated he felt whatever decision is made will be one of conscientious, dedicated effort to achieve a development that is thought to be in the best interest of Seal Beach. Mr. Rothman stated he personally was not in favor of the Mola plan as proposed, and with many of the citizens preferring only two hundred seventy-eight single family houses, it becomes a test of-economics and long term quality of life. With regard to citizen feelings regarding traffic, he noted the -small margin by which the recent traffic initiative-lost, due in part to-Mola's efforts to influence that election, and suggested that the desires of those favoring-a less dense community should not be ignored in evaluating this project. He stated also that Mola should be -able to build a viable and profitable project and Hellman should be allowed to sell their land for the best attainable price, while the citizens have-the right to enjoy the lack of gridlock, congestion,-quality public services, and the benefit of a small town atmosphere. Mr. Rothman referred to the analysis prepared by KRM which indicated the industry standard for pre-tax margin-of 15 percent and the internal rate of return-of -25 percent, the analysis for Scenario Three of two hundred-seventy-eight homes being a pre-tax margin of 12.9 percent as compared to the Mola plan of 14.8 percent, an IRR of 20.5-percent -for Scenario Three as compared to 24.6 -percent for the Mola plan, and in terms of dollars as opposed to percentage, he said the analysis showed a pre-tax margin of profit of $15,900,000 for Scenario Three and the-Mola plan-of $18,800,000, and an IRR of $25,300,000 for Scenario Three, $31,300,000 for the Mola plan, and- stated that -as the revenue increases on the sales of the-homes so does the profit. - Noting that KRM did not conduct specific -analysis in depth, Mr. Rothman stated there is a need for a marketability study or current appraisal, and of critical importance is the average home price, that Mola's predicted $443,000 selling price for the average three thousand-square foot single family home overlooking the golf course-was too-low, and if two hundred seventy- eight homes we~e -sold at -$499,000 the pre-tax profit margin would then become-22.6 percent. Mr. Rothman reported he and a local accountant also prepared a financial analysis using KRM and Mola's numbe~s, expanding it to show various scenarios for increased sales prices.- He reviewed their analysis of Scenario Three which showed that the industry standard of 25 percent IRR would-be attained with a selling price of $470,000, and 15 percent pre-tax margin would be attained with a selling -price of $454,000. He added that the cost of police, fire, and other services is also relevant and-based again on the KRM report, the costs of those services would-be nearly three times higher under Mola's plan than under Scenario Th~ee, density affecting the cost difference, $389,000 under the Mola-plan, $140,000 for Scenario Three, also that the total annual net surplus of tax revenue would be-higher under Scenario Three. In conclusion, Mr. Rothman suggested that specific direction be provided to-the City's consultant to prepare an analysis of what is best for Seal Beach, not Mola. I I Shane Tecklenberg, 201 --11th Street, reported he heard from a source that -a-representative of Mola believed that teache~s wrote the speeches he and his friends presented at last meeting, also that he -lives too far from Gum Grove Park to play there. He said the issue is Mola's plans for Gum 12-5-88 Grove and he felt it should be-preserved for future generations. Mr. Loren Wollette said he purchased a condominium unit from the Mola Corporation three years ago and shortly after moving in he and his wife, as well as other homeowners-in the complex, noticed severe defects in the building of the-units, more surfacing as time goes on. He stated he felt it-important that Seal Beach look closely at the integrity of the builders of -the development. Mr. Wollette reported a number of residents of their complex I have a-lawsuit against Mola Development to rectify some of the situations. In response to Council,- Mr. Wollette stated it was his understanding that the Board of Directors of the complex have filed the lawsuit,-and he imagined it has been served. He reported the complex is Cabo del Mar with approximately two hundred sixty-five units. By unanimous-consent, the Council declared a recess at 8:52 p.m. The Council reconved at 9:10 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. The City Manager read the letter of December 2nd received this date from Robert Epsen of-Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliff, which stated that their clients have no alternative but to advise the City that they are prepared to terminate-the present lease of Gum Grove Park and further, withdraw their willingness to sell an additional five acres to the City for community park purposes. Mr. Nelson clarified that the client is Hellman properties. Mayor Hunt reported a request from Mr. Mola to address the Council regarding alternatives. At the request of Councilmember Risner, -the City Manager read a letter dated November 30th from the Laguna-Niguel-Field Office, u. S. Fish and wildlife Service, with regard to their views and authority relative I to the -proposed -development of the Hellman Ranch property and-the wetlands issue. Councilmember Risner asked if the letter-from-the -Hellman attorneys puts the City on notice that the Gum-Grove Park lease is going to be terminated. The City Attorney responded that the lease has been ongoing on-a-year to year basis and it would-be presumed that if their intent is to terminate the lease they would follow this notice with a-formal termination letter. Mrs. Risner noted-that -statements have been made in public by the developer'-s representative that Hellman may cancel the Gum Grove Park lease-although-the representative has said he was not implying-that they would, and questioned the-City now receiving letters noticing-HeIlman's intent to cancel. She acknowledged that Hellman wants to sell their land, yet Mola will not buy the land until the project is approved, and questioned if -the City is being maneuvered into a corner and made-to believe that the City will have to approve the project in order to retain even a small -portion of Gum Grove, stating that if the City wants to retain that property it should be-pro-active or seek the money to purchase it for some-type of park, further pointing out that if the -City doesn't approve-the plan it is alleged the additional five acres for park use will also be lost. Councilmember Risner asked-the City Attorney if it were I possible to remove the Tentative Tract Map and Vesting Map from the public hearing process, -while leaving the hearing open-for the remaining-considerations, then deny the Tentative-Map-without prejudice, allowing the applicant the opportunity to file-a new map if he chose to do so. She cited-the hours of-testimony and information that has been received, as-well as-the deadline under State-law to approve the plan otherwise it will receive automatic approval. She 12-5-88 I added an alternative could be to request an additional extension from the developer until sometime in January. The City Attorney advised that each of the approvals before the Council have separate hea~ing requirements even though they have been consolidated into a joint hearing, .however the Council would have the prerogative.to close the hearing with respect to the maps and deny the map based upon the time frame and inconsistency with the Specific Plan and General Plan. Councilman Grgas indicated he. would prefer that all interested persons first have the opportunity.to speak. The City Attorney added that if it is the intent to close the hearing with regard to the maps, the applicant must be allowed the right of final rebuttal, also, if it is desired to allow the develope~.to speak .at this time, that could be done with the concurrence of the .Council. It was the consensus of a majority of the Council to allow the applicant to speak at this time. Mr. Frank Mola recalled that when they came to the City three years ago they did so as neighbors and friends to do a job, and that he .did.know how to do that job with the situation that now.exists. He noted that a year ago they came before the Council with a Specific.Plan, requested and received input, that Plan welcomed and approved, subsequent to that the wetlands issue came up,.they were requested to move the wetland location, .and.in turn the plan required further Council action. He stated it.was their intent to come to the City with.a plan approp~iate for that property that would.satisfy the economic interest of the developer and the interests of the City. Mr. Mola.noted that the consultant was .asked to.look.at various alte~natives, and he did look at economic alte~natives but without the availability.of .site plans.to.see if those uses were possible.on this piece of prope~ty. He stated there seems to .be four issues, Gum Grove Park, wetlands, a high density issue with .condominiums, and a no development issue. Mr. Mola requested that the Council give di~ection to them, if the City wants Gum Grove Park in its entirety, twenty plus , acres of wetlands.and single .family development, then there can be.no. golf course.because it does not fit from a site plan standpoint. If the.City wants a golf course, Gum Grove Park and single family houses, it will not work because barely two .hundred.units can be placed on the site and still have the required acreage.for wetlands, and if the desire is for Gum Grove Park and total single family without a golf course, there could be app~oximately four hundred fifty lots with no high density residential.. .Mr. Mola questioned whether the City wants housing that meets the needs of all of the community, single family only, a golf course that might be enjoyed by a large segment of the community. He stated their point in bringing forth this plan was to p~ovide a golf course, keep.as much of Gum Grove Park as possible and refurbish it, to .possibly arrange for the acquisition of additional acreage for further park use. He again requested that the Council provide them with direction as to their desires, citing the need to develop a plan that is for the community and one to be proud of. Councilman.G~gas stated he was p~epared to present his feelings as to what revisions .could be made to the current proposal, provide direction to the staff with concurrence of the Council, and to look at .other alternatives. In response to.Mayor.Hunt, the City Attorney advised that the Council could express their views based upon the evidence that has been hea~d, however no final action could be taken until the public hearing is closed. He stated also that if the I I 12-5-88 applicant were willing to withdraw his application, reconsider and commence a new approach to the Specific Plan and address the issues identified, that could be done, and at that point the hearing would be continued to discusss the basic policy issues, noting however that the-developer would have-to -agree to that alternative.- Councilman Laszlo suggested that a time limit be established to allow some further public comments, after which the Council could express their views. Councilmember Risner again stated she wished to close-the public hearing on the Maps without prejudice. A majority of the Council indicated their desire to receive further public comments. M~. John Nakagawa, 320 - 12th Street, stated he was a one year resident and spoke for withdrawl of the current development application, also fo~ inviting the EPA and Fish and Game-to make presentations before the Council. -He spoke of his experiences before relocating his residence to Seal Beach, a community that he felt is being taken for granted. Mr. -Nakagawa- -suggested that the City should be looking at ways to imp~ove traffic rather than making it worse with the construction of-six-hundred sixty condominium units, that additional signals will not provide for adequate improvement where-mo~e avenues and wider roads will be necessary-to improve the traffic situation. As-an engineer, he expressed his feeling that the community should be building to design standards, which includes traffic since it impacts individuals,-police, fire, and medical transport, thus a hazard -to-health, and that past-mistakes must be corrected. Mr. Nakagawa concluded that he wanted to see an EIR that showed-a-positive effect on human beings, that six hundred sixty-condos-and one hund~ed thirteen-clone houses are not acceptable, this plan should be rejected, traffic should be restored to service level ~D., there should be a fully restored -thirty-five ac~e wetlands, and a 10.5 acre Gum Grove-Park with-additional acreage around it. Mr. Jim Sing, ten year property owner, expressed-his -annoyance with the Gum-Grove Park issue, stating it appears to have taken precedence-over-all else and in his opinion the least significant given the condition and debris in that area, which-he-estimated is used-by less than -one percent of the City~s population, and added his feeling that the entire Hellman- site is-no more than a dump. He stated that if the issue is develop or not develop, then the advantages of developing should be considered, inc~eased- -property value, tax revenue-forthcoming to the City that could be used for a number of improvements throughout the City, as well as the type -and quality of that development. Mr. -Sing questioned the-expertise of persons speaking to density, and suggested that if the project is to be denied because of density, density should be defined. He expressed his support for a quality golf cou~se, homes and/or homes and condos, provision for wetlands, yet questioned the issue of Gum G~ove Pa~k since what-is proposed for that area is so much bette~ than what -currently exists. Mr. Sing stated his objection to personal attacks on Mola or any developer that may-come fo~th, as well as the consideration of special inte~est g~oups, suggesting that focus should be given to doing _something positive for the entire community. M~. Scott Wildman7 Welcome Lane, advised that definition of density is-mass over-volume. Mr. -Wildman stated he and his wife a~e opposed to the-Mola proposal as presented, their prefe~ence -would be that the property be restored to original wetlands, and- if the-site-is-developed-they-would prefer single family residences with the park and open I I I 12-5-88 I space, and no golf course. He noted-that most people are requesting that Gum Grove Park be retained and that the condo units either be reduced or eliminated, and asked that the Council take more time in their considerations so that the plan that is approved-will -not be one that is later regreted. Mrs. Beverly-Casaras, 1045 Marvista, submitted two petitions containing fourteen signatures, one in opposition to certain aspects-of the Mola Plan from persons unwilling to speak-publicly, -the other from persons physically unable to attend the meeting and in total opposition to the Mola proposal. Mrs. Casaras read a prepared statement citing seven points as reasons to vote no on the Hellman Specific Plan. Mr. -Carl Sanfilippo, resident of the Hill area, spoke regarding the Gum Grove Park. He reported it was originally a natural grove of trees, then it was declared a park with a road and benches added, which he said was-a mistake. Mr. Sanfilippo declared that the Park is uncontrolled, poses police problems, is frequented by dogs, as well as a number of-undesirable people. He suggested that the Park be retained at 6.4 acres, that the road be removed, that the grove be closed to human traffic, therefore allowing-it to restore itself to a natural area and wildlife sanctuary. Noting that this land is privately owned, he questioned the expectation that a developer should assume the public liability for this property. He spoke favorably-of the golf course,-which he said was predicted some thirty year,s ago, -the grass and trees that will enchance the -environment, also of-the wetlands. He expressed his opinion that the six hundred to nine hundred square foot condos will sell, as the existing-six hundred square foot- condos in the City are, and that the condos will generate -less traffic than-two or,-three hundred single family homes. He said that -although he supported the children speaking to this proposal, he would prefer some positive comments regarding-the developer. Councilmember Risner read for-the record a memor,andum from Police Chief Stearns relating to-police-problems associated with Gum Grove Park, -which stated it is-felt that Gum Grove creates fewer police complaints than other City parks and the beach. She referred to the first City Gener,al Plan, "Seal Beach 1985", adopted-in 1964 which included the area above the Hill-as-park and open-space, -part of which was the Gum Grove, -and stated that if the General Plan is amended pursuant to the Mola-proposal it will be the first time that Gum Grove has not been identified as a-natural community asset. Ms. Bea Nash, l20l-Catalina Avenue, inquired as to what-factors would be taken into consideration by the Council when making its decision-on the Mola development, benefits to the City, cost to the City, and what weight citizen-input will have.- Mr. Hugh Feeley, l85l-McKinney Way, stated he has been actively-working in support of the Mola project provided that the-developer meets-certain conditions as set forth in "Petition to Support Hellman Ranch Specific Plan", 70-percent-open space, eighteen hole golf course, driving range, twenty acres of restored wetlands, low-density housing (5.5 units per acre maximum), revitalized eucalyptus-grove and wilderness area (6.8 acres maximum), requirement to -pay for traffic and environmental impacts, and five -additional acres fr,om Hellman for park use. He -said those who -wrote the "Petition to Support Development of the-Historic Hellman Ranch" are generally labled as-opponents of-this development, however the goals are similar with few exceptions, -one being a low density single -family residental -development not to exceed two stories. He questioned the Council as to whether or not they would support a golf course on this site if it is I I 12-5-88 determined possible. Mr. Feeley pointed out that almost every group supports development of the golf course no matter their feelings on other aspects of this plan, the golf course being the-best utilization of open space yet provides a recreational use and adds -value to property. Mr. Feeley asked that the-Council endeavor to find-the best combination of benefits that the entire City can be proud of. By unanimous consent, the Council declared a recess at 10:45 p.m. The Council-reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. Ms. Nancy Cole, 319-Spinnaker Way, ~eferred to comments regarding the revenues and profits that the new housing would need to bring in order to be worthwhile for the developer and the City, and questioned the price of those homes which will-determine the profit. She stated in checking the listings for homes on the Hill of comparable square footage, yet at least twenty years old, one sold for $455,000 last year and presently one is-one the market for $549,000, which should enable a calculated selling price for the new units. Ms. Cole asked what authority other agencies will -have rega~ding this project, no matter what the City's decision may be. The City Attorney-advised that there are two other permits required,-and should they not be approved the project-would be held up. Ms.-Cole also questioned what the criteria would be to assure that a plan would receive apprcoval from the other governmental-agencies, also questioned if the plan before the City meets the necessary guidelines. Ms. Norma Strohmeier, -Seal Beach Boulevard, asked what the cost of-police -protection would be when the units are-built, and what provision has been made for police protection-while they-are -underc construction. She stated that once-construction begins-there-will be traffic, trucks, grcading, -etc. that will affect everyone, even Leisure World residents. She -also said the Police Department does not have enough-percsonnel to control an eight unit development, thercefore questioned what would happen with seven hundred units. -Mrs. Strcohmeier complained about beverage consumption commencing in the afternoons-at the eight unit development prcoject-near -her residence, and submitted a bag of-the beverage containers to the Council. Mr. William Graham, 1740 -Sunningdale, stated he felt the project prcoposed is good for Seal Beach, prcoviding a golf course, homes, -baseball facilities, playgrounds, and tennis courts. He rceported visiting the Gum Grove Park, he being the only person in the entire-area except two young boys on bicycles, and-given -the appearance of that area, suggested that if it were clearced of the-diseased trcees and cleaned it would be much-bette~ than what now exists. Mr. Graham expressed objection to the presentation of the children. Ms. April Strausbaugh, 1725 Crestview Avenue, reported her residency of nearly twelve yearcs, during which their home has been burcgla~ized three times. She-stated that although they chose-this location for the open space and privacy, they have always-believed that the Hellman property would be developed, that the-plan proposed provides for a continuation-of-that open space and privacy, and they would willingly-give up-the-flies, fleas and mosquitos that are a consequence of the location. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands-Restoration Group, made reference to Califorcnia as-an agricultural State where everyone -is in a-rush to build on every parcel of land, and said someday people will wonder where the food supply went. I I I 12-5-88 I Mr. Ambrose stated that since being involved in this development they have maintained that a major portion of the Hellman Ranch is historic wetlands, and that the wetlands issue has not been resolved -as the developer had indicated. He also referred to a letter of which the City is in receipt of from the U. S. Fish-and Wildlife Service that stated there are between twenty-five and-one hundred forty acres of wetlands on the Hellman Ranch that they would expect to be restored on-site before any permits are issued. Mr. Ambrose said they have also maintained that this property could be soverign land, and if true would be owned by the public and not Hellman. He also referred to a letter from C. E. Parker, which he described as an expert on sovereign and tideland. issues, the letter questioning the ownership of this land by the Hellmans, and advising that a lender should not lend nor a title company issue title while a question on this issue exists. Mr. Ambrose pointed out the wetlands map presented -at a previous meeting which showed a major portion of the project site as part of the -Alamitos Bay which would be-the a~ea subject to the sovereign land interpretation, therefore recommended that the City notify the lender and title-company of this fact-in order to avoid a possible future legal-action. He stated that if-the Council, in their haste to develop, does not use prudent caution and approve the-pIan-by allowing the amendments to be enacted to fit this development, they would request that the Council 1) delete the statement that if the wetlands fail it will become part of the golf course~ 2) -add a statement that if the golf course is not built, or built and not used as such, or if it fails, it will become part of the wetlands with deed restrictions-to reflect same~ and 3) a statement be added that the wetlands-will never be used for-another purpose.- Mr. Ambr,ose said he had been given authority to speak for the Friends -of the Earth and-the Earth Island Institute,-their statement being that they oppose any development on this land until the wetlands and sovereign land issues are-settled, -also that a deed restriction be placed on the wetlands to run with the title prohibiting any other use for this land other than wetlands. Mr. Ambrose added that-the Wetlands Society have always opposed any development on this land until the-wetlands issue is resolved. Mr. Walton Wright, consultant to-the Wetlands Restoration Group, urged-that the Council reject this project without prejudice, that prior to future consideration of a tract map, the City, developer, and inte~ested parties meet-to establish the wetlands ratio, or through-the interested agencies, afterwhich a restoration and management plan would need to be prepared. He mentioned a Coastal Commission response to the ponderosa Plan which called for the old motel -site to be-restored as part of the wetlands restoration, something that the Commission may again consider, and-noted-that the sump area on the west side of First Street is still shown as wetlands although it is -not -considered to be. -Mr. Wright also said firm acreage for, the Park and open area will need to be established, thereafter, there-can be discussion of the configuration of the tentative tract that could go on the site, with the developer -keeping in-mind the public and Council comments. He added the EIR is also-in-need of supplementation given the significant changes to -the plan, specifically with regard to wetlands -and-park acreage. Mr. Wright referred to the-fault zone across the site, the distribution of the features-shown in the EIR's, -stating that if changes in the project are considered due to the-fault zone that should also be addressed in a supplemental EIR. He compared the exhibit depicting the fault zone for the ponderosa Plan and I I 12-5-88 the exhibit to the Michael Brandman report and stated they were different with regard to width and -alignment therefore will require discussion and justification, the liquefaction zones also different. Mr. Wright stated there is a lack of reference to surface rupture in the EIR, and he was not certain whether-that would-be the factor that would affect the condos or other structures proposed to be built within the historic salt-marsh. He referred to the MBA report that cited a maximum earthquake of 6.5, then stated his research of other EIR's refer to the same fault zone of up to 7.0, that the-EIR discusses liquefaction to some extent but nothing-about induced subsidence that would accompany an earthquake of high-ground motion. He said that if further study were conducted with regard to the fault zone there may be significant changes-necessary in the design of the project. In response to Council, Mr. Wright reported he had been hired by the Wetlands Restoration Society to study the reports and to map the subject area, which he compiled from on-site observation, walk-overs, surveying the entire site, and-reported Mola's consultant and the Corps of Engineers were-provided a copy of-that map. Mr. Wright added that he has worked as a consultant for -most of the major planning firm~ in Orange County-and some in San Diego County since 1979, that he has-mapped about -one-third of Orange County from one inch to two hundred feet, mostly south County, that he -is..a-botanist and ecologist, -self-employed. Councilman Laszlo posed several questions to Mr. Wright with regard to alleged discrepancies between-environmental documents relating-to the earthquake fault. Mr. Wright confirmed his statement that the two reports showed the projected trace of the fault..in-different-places with no explanation-of the difference, the MBA report- showing the line approximately two hundred fifty feet-from the location shown in the earlier study. He stated he was not certain which report was-correct, -however -either Hellman or Mola had geotechnical people on the site-for a-considerable period of time, yet he did not-feel the information contained in the report was adequate from which to-make decisions, and confirmed that most -environmental reports indicate 7.0 as a probable maximum magnitude. - In response to Councilmember Risner, Mr. Wright-reported Ultra Systems-prepared the EIR for the ponderosa -Plan. - with -regard - to a reference to fifty foot versus one-hundred foot setbacks from the fault line, Mr. Wright noted the Alquist priola Special Studies Zone as having a fairly consistent center line- and-he felt most geologists would determine fifty feet on each side would be adequate and would accommodate surface rupture on fairly stable ground, however in this case it is historic wetlands of the San Gabriel River, saturated alluvium to a depth of approximately-thirty feet. He questioned the advisability of building structures on a salt marsh, also suggested that the-liquefaction area should reflect more of where the historic-wetland existed. The Mayor referred to the triangular-portion of wetlands-west of First Street, and stated he-understood Mr. Wright to say that area did not qualify as-saltwater wetlands. Mr. Wright responded that that sump area is labled as wetlands, and in looking at the grading plans and slopes it is not going-to be a water area, however there was discussion of using that area for runoff control. - He - stated further that although the EIR discusses the-use-of lakes, the -California Fish and Game have said that lakes do -not-constitute wetlands. He added that until there is a restoration and management plan it can not be determined where -the-actual salt water intake will be. Councilman -Laszlo-noted Mr. Wright's-comments with regard to potential earthquake problems, and stated it was his I I I 12-5-88 I understanding that in the liquefaction zone the condos would be built on pilings and platforms and prior to construction would be required to be certified that they were geologically safe. The Development Services Directors confirmed that statement to be correct, and explained that before grading the developer will be required to prepare an additional geological report that will precisely identify the fault line and setbacks required, the City will then hire a State geologist at the expense of the applicant to review that report for accuracy, the report then forwarded to the State pursuant to the Alquist Priola Act of 1972, and when construction occurs the condos will be required to be built to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code, 1985, which provides for a design standard of 8.0 on the Richter scale. I In response to Councilman Grgas, Mr. Wright acknowledged that Development or Specific Plans require much more data to be forthcoming even after their approval, also that no lender would finance a project, given the tremendous risk, unless all information was complete. The Development Services Director confirmed that he felt the EIR was adequate, also that specifics such as the precise fa~lt line, liquefaction, etc. will ultimately be determined as the project moves forward, and that nothing will be built unless it is in full compliance with State Codes. Councilmember Risner called attention to a 1987 letter from Gordon Snow, Assistant Secretary of Resources, in which it was noted the applicant had requested a fifty foot setback from the presumed trace of the Seal Beach segment of the Newport/Inglewood fault, which would be in compliance with the Alquist Priola Act of 1972, however the letter stated that the character of the alluvium that underlies most of the project area is such that a positive break in the fault could probably be expressed by a broad zone of liquefaction and lurched ground. She noted that their final recommendation was that an engineering analysis of the proposed mitigation be included in the final EIR, and inquired if a response had been sent to this letter and if a copy of the proposed mitigation measures were forwarded. Mr. Knight advised that the State did receive the draft EIR which included the mitigation measures, that although Mr. Snow had responded that it would be more prudent to have a one hundred foot setback, the City's response to that was that given the information from the report prepared in 1981 and further detailed logging of bore holes in the northern portion of the property that located the postulated Seal Beach fault trace, it was the determination of the consultant that prepared the study and the EIR that the fifty foot setback was sufficient to reduce the potential ground rupture and lurching impacts to an insignificant level. Mr. Knight stated he was not certain whether or not Mr. Snow saw that response. Mr. Grgas pointed out that the Development Services Director is also the Chief Building Official of the City, responsible for the enforcement of the Uniform Building Codes provided by the State and adopted by the City, and asked Mr. Knight if he were to do something knowingly in violation of those Codes, could he be held personally liable. To that question the City Attorney responded that under the Building Code if the Building or Planning Official failed to perform a duty of applying the Codes, there could be personal liability for failure to do so. Mr. Grgas again pointed out that as the Building Official he would have the authority over the issuance of building permits at such time as there is final approval of the Plan, and pursuant to any and all studies, reports, I 12-5-88 plans, etc., Mr. Knight in his professional judgement and with the assistance of the consultants, will render a judgement as to whether a development meets and conforms with the Uniform Building Codes and the Alquist Priola Act. Councilman Grgas explained further the due process and potential for personal liability of members of the City Council and City staff. Mr. Wright responded that it was his understanding of recent I court cases that -administrative approvals for this sort of thing are inappropriate and do not meet CEQA guidelines, therefore must be addressed in the EIR at some point in time. He said that there is an assumption that the EIR is adequate, that the developer is going to pay for a City retained geologist to establish where the fault line is, the risk zone, all by administrative approval, which he again said may not meet CEQA guidelines. Mr. Knight again stated that in his opinion the EIR meets CEQA guidelines. The City Attorney referenced the State statute with regard to geologic hazard, noting that the statute does not specify when the final ~epo~t must be prepared, but that it must be prepared prior to any building, therefore the main issue is whether or not the EIR does address the issue of geologic instability and seismic hazard, and as long as it does pr-ovide the analysis and a final report to delineate with cor-rectness-where the fault lies, then it would most likely complies with the requirements of State law. Mr. Wright stated-he believed there is a difference of the understanding of what CEQA requires and where approvals are made, -that the-fault has an impact on the condos in relation to -where the structures are located in an area that was historic salt marsh, and in talking of thirty-five acres, a I three to one multiplier, and all restoration on-site, he said he- felt -there is going to be a question-as to whether the condos go-or not, and he would not want the presence of the condominiums influencing the amount of acreage that is determined to be- restored, and one of the underlying considerations would be the geologic stability of the area of the historic salt marsh. Mayo~ Hunt asked fo~ clarification of his understanding that there was an open culvert that commonized the triangular parcel with the larger wetland area. Mr. Knight acknowledged-that to be correct, explaining there will be an open area that will go under First Street and connecting with the larger area. Mr. Wright stated that in looking at the configuration and-the slopes shown on the grading map, the area is not a salt marsh type of restoration, and does not fit for wetlands. Mayo~ Hunt said he would assume that the water level would -be the same -in both areas because of the culvert, the water coming from the River into the triangle and-then back onto the balance of the twenty acres. Mr. Wright stated it would be a-syphon arrangement much as it is -now, that if a straight culvert were to be put there he thought one of the stated conditions was that the salt marsh be a-full flushing a~ea for circulation in and out, adding that these conditions have not been fully described I and have to be addressed in a management plan. He again stated he felt -the triangular a~ea is a sump. Mr. Ambrose asked to be p~ovided a copy-of the City Attorney's opinion regarding Gion/Oietz. - At the request of the Council, the City Attorney explained that the law has changed since the Gion/Dietz court decisions in 1970, afterwhich there-was a legislative enactment that attempted to restrict future cases to application of the rule, however if rights had been vested prior to the statute those rights would still exist. 12-5-88 I He added however that the Subdivision Map Act deals specifically with the City requiring easements.that have been acquired by the public at large-to be protected, the legislature having determined they.have to be easements of record, therefore the Council's authority would be limited to preserving easements of record or adjudicated at the time the map is before the Council. Mr. Stepanicich stated it was his understanding that the Coastal Commission under authority of the Coastal Act does take a broader view since the statute they operate under does not have the limitation of dealing with easements shown as public record. He clarified that any private party could bring suit to attempt to acquire title or public right to the property, but in terms .of-State statutes the Coastal Commission has the broader authority under the Coastal Act to deal with this question, the City -limited to dealing with public easements acquired as a matter of record. Councilmember Risner asked if there would.be any application if prior to-1972 there was evidence that the land had. been used by the public without restrictions .by the land-holder. The City Attorney noted there-are two -issues, wetlands and Gum Grove Park area, and the Hellman.Estate most likely anticipated the possibility that at a later time the City would argue that prescriptive rights were acquired, they therefore provided that there be a.lease, explaining that when the use of a property is pursuant to a -lease agreement -with a landlord, at that point there would not be prescriptive rights acquired. He added that aside.from whether-or not -there are public rights to the property, there is also the.City's police power to regulate the impact of development on resources, which is a totally different issue as to how far the City would want to exercise that power. Mr. Stepanicich..stated he felt the City has-been placed in a-difficult-position of trying to adjudicate between a private -property owner-who claims title to the property-and trying to determine whether or not the public has rights -to the property.. Be clarified that if there was a determination that-certain acreage were sovereign land then-the property owner would not have the right to develop that portion of-the property. Mr. Ambrose stated their group is taking that-position and would be providing the Council further data. Mr. Bob Lamond, representing-the Long Beach Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated that until.the.wetlands issue is resolved, determining how much and -where, he-did not see how anything else.could be-planned for this property. Councilmember Risner requested a copy of the map that was-submitted to the U. S. Department of Fish and Game by the Wetlands Restoration Group, and a copy of the LSA map showing their wetland determination. I I Councilmember Risner moved to close the public hearing on the Tentative Map and Vesting Map, deny the Map without prejudice, that after the first -of the year the Council discuss the issues further, possibly involve the Coastal Conservancy to. develop a realistic Specific Plan for the Hellman land, and once the Plan is -developed submit it first to Mr. Mola.and if .he were not-interested, send out requests for. development proposals. She explained that-this would allow for continued.discussion and the submittal of a new map at a future time. .Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. -Councilman Grgas advised he would not support that motion, that-he believed all persons should have the opportunity-to-speak, that-the applicant has a right to be heard, and that -he wished.to-present his statement regarding what may be .alternatives that should be considered before denying this proposal. The City Attorney clarified that the 12-5-88 motion would be to close the public hearing with respect to the Tentative Map, and deny said Map, at which time the developer would have the right under due process to address that issue before it is voted on. Councilmember Risner, with consent of the second, withdrew the motion on the floor. Councilmember Risner moved to close the public hearing only I with regard to. the Tentative Map and the Vesting Map. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. Mr. Mola addressed the Council and noted that it was correctly stated that.the public has not totally given their input, nor has the Council given direction to change the direction of the .project, therefore he would prefer that the public hearing continue and that any recommendations be forthcoming. Mr. Mola stated that if he were requested to grant a time extension he would do so. Vote on the motion: AYES: NOES: Laszlo, Risner Grgas, Hunt, Wilson Motion failed Discussion continued with regard to continuance of the hearing to a date certain. Mr. Mola.reiterated his willingness to grant an extension, and agreed.to forty-five days as requested by the Mayor. He acknowledged the need fo~ public testimony, however suggested that.comments not be redundant, that the agreed upon time.limits be .adhered to, .and that the Council provide the .direction to them as previously requested. Upon recommendation of the City Attorney, Mr. Mola.agreed to an extension of the application for the Tentative Tract Map until January 31, 1989. Mayor Hunt noted the need to consider...a .number . of other .business items on December 19th the~efore the Mola development p~oposal would.not be a matte~ of discussion at that meeting, .that the hearing could be.continued until the next regular meeting, Tuesday, January 3rd. Mr. Bob Heenan, Crestview Avenue, inquired if.the public discussion would preclude Council input,.where the. public as well as the.developer may wish.to make further. comments. He also suggested that Council comments.be made at the beginning of the hearing. Mayor.Hunt stated it was his understanding the Council would present their comments in turn while the public hearing is open. .Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina.Avenue, ~eferred to.a speaker earlier in the meeting that she had invited to attend. That individual had reported.a-number of problems with his residence in a Mola development, . and Mrs...Watson alleged that the person was intimidated and personally threatened by Mr. Mola after his comments.to-the-Council. - Mrs. Watson voiced strong objection to such conduct. Wilson moved, second -by-Laszlo,-to continue the public hearing until the regular meeting of January 3rd at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Risner expressed her.opposition to continuing the hearing .to a Tuesday. The City Manager explained that since the-prio~-Monday will be a holiday, Tuesday will be the regular meeting as prescribed by the City Charter. I I l2-5~88 I Councilmembe~ Risner-asked if-it would-be appropriate for the Council to present comments prior-to the close of the public hearing. The City Attorney noted this to be a lengthy hearing process, and although it is not the usual procedure, the Council may want to evaluate at what point they are in this process and possibly give some-direction to the applicant. He stated he did not feel it would be improper for the Council to offer preliminary comments, however cautioned that one should keep an open mind since the public hearing may continue in order to receive further testimony. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Risner Motion carried I The City Atto~ney noted that the extension until January 31st, -agreed to-by-the developer, would be required in written confirmation. -Councilmember Risner asked what the procedure would be too-obtain additional information from other:agencies, and how long this process can continue before alte~natives-can be considered. The City Attorney advised that on Janua~y-3rd the Council could commence discussion of alternatives, and explained that if there were substantial changes that -were considerably different from this development plan, for example, reduction or deletion of the condominiums,-total single family-residential or a change of the location of where structures are to be built, the~e would be no question that there would need to be further environmental review to encompass the new proposal. In response-to-Councilmember Risner, the City Manager ~eported that-the expenditure to-date for the services of the consultant, KRM, are more than the $20,000 allocation. Councilman Grgas -stated he felt it important that Mr. Mouchley be present during the course-of the public hearings and moved to direct the City Manager -to further engage the services of KRM. Mr. Mounchley advised he could not be present on January 3rd however his associate would be available. Mayor Hunt seconded the motion. Councilmember Risner indicated-she-did not support-the motion, stating she felt that the -consultant-need only attend one additional meeting to answer questions, objected to a possible expenditure-of up to $5,000, however-stated she could support expenditure of a-limited amount. Councilman Laszlo asked if additional-research would be requested of the consultant. The City Manager stated that was not his understanding. Councilman Grgas offered to-amend the motion to allow an expenditure of $2500. - Discussion followed with members of the Council expressing their views. Vote on the motion-to request-a rep~esentative of KRM be present -at-the next hearing, -and authorize the City Manager to engage their services in that regard. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Risner Motion carried In response to a member-of the audience with regard to the allegation-that -a speaker had-been intimated by Mr. Mola, the City Attorney stated it has been a standing policy of the-City Council -that no-person shall be intimidated by another, and-if that occurred at -this meeting it was not condoned by the City. In addition, the City Manager 12-5-88 / 12-19-88 7xplained that the individual could file a police report if 1t were felt there was some act of wrong doing. Mayor Hunt clarified that the joint public hearing would be continued until Tuesday, January 3rd at 7:00 p.m. The joint session concluded at approximately 12:35 a.m. &~U~ I Seal. Beach, California December 19, 1988 The.Redevelopment Agency of the.City.of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:45.p.m. with.Chairman Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairiman Grgas . Agencymembers Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson Absent: Agencymember Risner I Also present: Mr. Nelson, .Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney By .unanimous consent .of the Agency members present, Mrs. Risner's absence from the meeting was excused. WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by.Hunt, to waive the reading in full of-all ~esolutions 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: G~gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None. Risner Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES Agencymembe~ Wilson noted that she.was absent from the November 21st meeting the~efore would abstain from voting on this item, that the minutes should be corrected to reflect her.absence .and the-presence of Agencymember Laszlo, and that-the agenda-should be co~rected to reflect the date of November 21st .rather -than the 27th. Chairman Grgas also noted his absence f~om the-meeting of the 21st. Hunt moved, second-by Laszlo, to approve the minutes of November 21st as corrected. I