Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1989-01-16 1-3-89 / 1-16-89 29.8 acres. - Be added that LSA has-continued to do further investigation of the-area, that although-the two mappings are basically in agreement there are a number of disagreements, and that LSA is continuing to work with the various agencies to determine a reasonable conclusion. Mr. Shull concluded he felt confident in stating that the actual acreage, using Coastal Commission definition, to be approximately 25 acres with a variable of about 2.5. Mayor Bunt-declared the jOint public hearing continued until January 16th. I With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Bunt declared a recess at 11:54 p.m. The Council -reconvened at midnight with Mayor Bunt calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney clarified that based upon Council discussion, the-procedure for the-continued hearing would be to-consider what alternatives should the further studied, that staff will provide a report-outlining the procedure for the manner in which those alternatives will be considered, and requested further direction with regard to consultants with specific expertise that the Council may-wish to consider. Councilman Grgas-suggested that staff present a report identifying the-consultants that are anticipated to be needed to evaluate the plan(s), including the fiscal impact consultant, KRM, and that the estimated costs and funding sources for each be identified. The City Manager advised that if the Council-wished to retain physical planning services, staff would most likely recommend POD, and KRM for fiscal analysis. with regard to-the EIR consultant, Mr. Knight stated he may recommend LSA to address the wetlands issue due to their expertise in that I field, however not necessarily for the remaining environmental issues. Councilmember-Risner objected to the use of LSA due to their working relationship with the developer. The joint session concluded at approximately 12:10 a.m. c~n~ I-~ Seal Beach, California January 16, 1989 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. I 1-16-89 ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Grgas Agencymembers Bunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, Secretary WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by-Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Agencymembers after reading of the-title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such resolution. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular.,_~e~ting of December 19, 1988. Agencymember Risner stated she would abstain as she was-absent from that meeting. Laszlo moved, second by Bunt, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 1988 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: . Grgas, Bunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I REPORT.-.STATUS OF SURFSIDE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA The Executive Director reported .the staff recommendation to the Agency was to initiate dissolution of the Surfside Redevelopment Area.to be effective by the end of the fiscal year and until that time it was hoped to resolve the issue of the Coastal Commission versus Surfside, an action in which the City and Agency are also involved. He stated that should-settlement of that issue not be realized by that time or should there be an order by the court that would involve some cost to the City, such as removal of the revetment or a form of penalty, the.question was raised as to whether Surfs ide Redevelopment Agency monies could be used to cover those costs. Mr. Nelson offered that although the recommendation remains to dissolve the Surfs ide Project Area, staff would propose a delay of such action for appoximately six months to further evaluate the status or conclusion of the Coastal Commission action. In response to the Agency, Mr. Nelson confirmed.that administrative costs are charged to the Agency, also that the tax increment balance of $74,060.would be carried forward as the June 30, 1989 ending balance. Bunt.moved, second by Risner, to continue consideration of this item until the May, 1989 regular meeting. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried AGENCY ITEMS Agencymember Laszlo requested copies of any communications within the past two years between the Department of Water and Power and the City. The Executive Director reported that the staff.would be meeting this week with the Real Estate Division of the Department of Water and Power, at their request, to discuss the possible development of their site in accordance with the adopted Specific Plan and to 1-16-89 discuss the two developers that have indicated an interest in an exclusive negotiating position for that property. He stated he would anticipate a status report to the Council by the next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. ADJOURNMENT I Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at 6:57 p.m. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ~ f1ltr- Seal Beach, California January 16, 1989 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in adjourned joint session swith the City Council at approximately 7:20 p.m. I Present: Chairman-Gl'gas Agencymembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Dil'ector of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Chief Stears, Police Department Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, Secretary CONTINUED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN-PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Hunt -declared the continued/joint public hearing between the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council open to-consider Amendment No.4-to the Redevelopment Plan for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, and the combined I public hearing of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach to consider amendment to the -Hellman Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment la-88, Land Use Element, General-Plan Amendment lb-88, Open Space/Conservation/Recl'eation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13198, -and-Precise Plan 1-88 -open. Mayor Hunt explained that -at-the Janual'Y 3rd meeting-staff -had been directed to report to the Council on procedures to be followed with 1-16-89 I regard to the present application and to consider any alternative development proposals that may be considered viable, recommendations regarding consultants for a supplemental EIR, fiscal analysis, and physical planning if needed to facilitate conside~ation of any alternative, and recommendations -with regard-to financial resources to fund the consultant services. Mayor Hunt requested that the staff outline the procedures for conduct of this meeting and possible consideration of alternatives. Councilmember Risner asked if it would-be acceptable to the Council to take public testimony until approximately 8:00 p.m., including that of a group who had requested to make a twenty minute presentation, after which Council deliberations could commence. Discussion followed regarding the conduct of the meeting, past and present guidelines for public testimony. The Mayor -advised-of the length of time certain individuals and groups have testified to date. A majority of the Council indicated their desire to commence with the reports of the staff and City. Attorney. I The City Attorney noted that pursuant to previous Council discussion, the primary purpose of this portion of the continued hearing would be to decide whether or not to consider project alternatives. He pointed out that the Council may consider one or more alternatives or variations thereof which could be referred for further evaluation, and if that were the desire, a continuance, agreed to by the developer, would be required, otherwise it would be necessary to take action on the pending application. Mr. Stepanicich suggested that- the-first consideration would be to determine the alternatives that would be desirable for furthe~ review, that dependent upon the degree of changes proposed by the alternative(s) a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report would most likely be necessary to fully address the -potential impacts of the alternative(s), thereafter the supplemental EIR, the financial and physical analysis would be brought back to the Council -for a decision and possibly further amendment to the existing Specific Plan, initiated by the Council and referred-to the Planning Commission for its report. He added that at that time it would be necessa~y for the developer to either consent to the amendment or an action on the pending application would need to be taken by the Council. With regard to public testimony, the City Attorney advised that afte~ considering the alternatives, it would be within the discretion of the Council to continue the public hearing until such time-as the reports on the alternatives are again before the Council. however if the decision is to not pursue project alternatives, -the public hearing on the pending application would continue and an action required no later than the-last day of this month. Mr. Stepanicich noted Amendment Number Four to the Redevelopment Plan consists of two components, the Hellman Ranch property and the Department of Water and Power property, and it had been suggested by staff that if the Council determined to continue the public hearing on the current application and review alternatives, that it may be advisable to take an action on the Department of Water and Power portion of the amendment, a decision within the options of the Council. He clarified that if it were the desire to also amend the Redevelopment Plan with regard to the Hellman-property at this time, that could be done, explaining that no development could take place on the site -until there is an approved tentative tract map for that property, and although the current application provides for amendments to the Specific Plan regarding the wetlands issue, there could be I 1-16-89 no action taken on the tentative map until the Specific Plan wetlands issue is resolved. In response to Council, the City Attorney explained that if the developer agrees to an extension to study alternatives and after such studies the Council's preference is a specific alternative over the current application, yet the developer .does not want to pursue the alternative nor grant further extension to go through the Specific Plan amendment process, the Council at that time may.need to take an action on the pending application, and noted that based upon discussion at the prior.meeting it was.felt the developer was willing to grant an extension for further study. Councilmember Risner inquir,ed if the developer would have a legal ground to force approval.of the tract map if Amendment Number Four relating to Hellman were.approved. Mr. Stepanicich explained that the.Redevelopment.Plan amendment is general in nature and makes reference to development standards in accordance with the.adopted Specific Plan, however suggested that if there were concerns of the Council, an action on the Hellman portion of the amendment could be delayed until the alternatives are considered and resulting reports are again before the Council. He clarified that if the Council determined to take action on Amendment Number Four as a whole at.this time, the public hearing on that aspect of this matter would need to be closed. The Director of Development Services r,eported that based upon discussions at the January 3rd meeting, three potential alternatives wer,e suggested for consideration: A) an alter,native pr,esented by Mola Development, the project proponent, proposing construction of approximately four hundr,ed forty-nine two-story, single family dwellings with an average lot size of fifty by one hundred feet, the existing Gum Grove dedicated to the City, a new three acre neighborhood park, .wetlands of approximately thirty-five to forty acres, and no golf course~ B) an alternative used as a conceptual scenario generated to perform the financial analysis by.KRM and Associates .of approximately two hundred thirty-three dwellings, eighteen.hole.public.golf course, entire.existing Gum Grove Park, approximately twenty-one to twenty-five acr,es of wetlands~ and C) an alternative combining a number of single family homes with some multiple family.dwellings, which could be accomplished by using the current project proposal with further reduction of the condominium units, or, by redesigning .the all single family alternative with no golf course, alternative nAn, to include some condominium units, possibly one.hundred. Mr. Knight cautioned.that of the alternatives suggested, the number of dwelling units should not be considered as.firm and that financial.feasibility would.need to be further considered. The Director recommended that an environmental consultant be retained to perform..environmental analysis in preparation of the .supplemental Environmental Impact Report, a land use consultant that .would review plans or project alternatives that may come from the Council, and a financial consultant to.perform a financial analysis, and financial feasibility with regard to project viability and/or use of City subsidies. He stated that if it is the intent to perform further,.review in an expeditious manner, the firms having the .best .working knowledge of this site are Michael Brandman Associates who prepared the EIR for the Amended Hellman Specific Plan, and LSA who has prepared.the most extensive material with.regard to on-site wetlands. He noted that concern has been raised with .regard to Mola Development having retained LSA to work on the wetlands issue with the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Game, and stated however I I I 1-16-89 I that the staff does not have a concern in using LSA, that they would be retained and paid for by the City from funds deposited with the City by the project proponent, the environmental document also receiving a wide range of staff, public, and independent review. Mr. Knight reviewed three consultant possibilities for consideration: A) retain MBA as the lead consultant in preparation of the supplemental EIR, with a subcontract to LSA for wetlands analysis, B) retain MBA as sole consultant to prepare the supplemental EIR, and in this case MBA would either have to perform the wetlands configuration on their own or use the work of LSA as base data, which is a customa~y p~actice of EIR consultants, or C) retain LSA as sole consultant to prepare the supplemental EIR. In response to-Councilman Laszlo, the Director reported-the time frame for the supplemental EIR preparation is estimated between thirty and forty-five days, explaining that the land planning with regared to the two hundred thirty-three plan would require minimum work where the four hundred forty-nine alternative with no golf course would be a significantly diffe~ent plan and would require more extensive-work, involving different water configurations, flood control analysis, etc., also that once the supplemental work is completed it will be forwarded for review by public agencies and the public fo~ a period of thirty days. With regards to how the two hundred thirty- three scena~io was conceived, Mr. Knight recalled that KRM had used a two hundred seventy-eight illustrative scenario in their financial analysis, after which Mola Development mentioned two hundred thirty-three as a possible viable numbe~-at that time. The City Manager explained that KRM was retained to perform a feasibility analysis to the question of-profit generated to the developer from the current plan, and in doing so the consultant projected other hypothetical scenarios, substituting single family for condominiums and dividing the gross area thus resulting in the figure of-two hundred seventy-eight, the developer then indicated that-scenario was not possible and in turn came back with the two hundred thirty-three scenario. Mr. Nelson recalled that during the same time period the Council had expressed -an opinion that the home prices were based on year old figures and-that they were too low, therefore KRM performed further analysis using the original plan, developing the 5.1 and n3n scenarios, applying various outside constraints such as varying housing prices, nine percent annual appreciation rate, no app~eciation rate, modified o~ full Gum Grove Park, wetlands of various acreages, golf course or no golf course, etc., attempting to show how susceptible the proposal is to modification of the variations. He verified that a higher -price figure was applied in certain instances as the result of Council discussion in an effort to come up with a project that may be viable. -Mayor- Hunt again questioned how the two hundred thirty-three figure came about. Mr. Kirk Evans, Mola Development, explained that they removed the condominiums from the current plan, replaced them with single family with no changes to the golf -cou~se, Gum Grove Park, -or wetlands, accommodating two hundred thirty-three homes, this being an attempt to show that two hundred seventy-eight homes, twenty-five acres of wetlands and ten acres of Gum Grove Park would not work, and pointed out that this evening a scenario of two hundred seven homes is also presented for information and consideration. Mr. Jirovsky stated that when he perfo~med -the-updated analysis of the two hundred thirty-three units, he was informed that Mola Development had said they could only provide that number of units and keep the golf course and he mistakenly thought they were I I 1-16-89 able to increase Gum Grove to ten acres rather than the previous acreage of 4.7 or 6.8, noting however that would have no bearing on the remainder of the information provided. To a question of Councilman Grgas, Mr. Jirovsky confirmed that the $553,500 price figure was derived as a sensitivity analysis as to what would be necessary for a reasonable rate of return to the developer and achievable in current market, however for the purpose of the feasibility analysis he was uncomfortable with applying the nine percent I inflation rate to those-prices as he felt the economic cycle is approaching a plateau where one should not expect continued high inflation in home prices for the-next couple of years, adding that he would not recommend that the developer proceed with a development of only two hundred thirty-three units or less, giving that as an optimistic case assumption, without some form of cost relief in the magnitude of several million dollars. In response to a question of Councilman Grgas, the Development Services Director stated that in the current plan approximately five hundred seventy of the six hundred sixty condominiums and two or three-of the single family homes fall within the Redevelopment Project Area, that the fiscal impact analysis for the EIR was prepared based upon-how-many of the units would lie within that area, which resulted in a tax increment of approximately-$989,000, He explained that under the present consideration of two hundred thirty-three single family homes, approximately one hundred twenty would be within the Redevelopment Project boundaries and would generate about $600,000 per year at a $500,000 sales price, with no inflation taken into consideration, for the period of twenty-three years, or support a four to six million dollar -bond.- Mr. -Jirovsky concurred with Mr. Grgas'- statement that with a two hundred two unit configuration I there may barely-be enough tax increment to cover a subsidy of six-to eight million, and with each unit reduction there is -further reduction of tax increment. Councilmember -Risner asked-the consultant if-he felt the other scenarios would be affected-in the same manner, considering the nine percent inflation rate applied to scenario 3.2, if there is not double-digit appreciation over the next two years. Mr. Jirovsky replied that 3.2 with the nine percent appreciation would-be an optimistic-scenario, his -concern being that prices were-increased to current market where -other scenarios -reflect year old prices -and the nine percent may be more reasonable. Mr. Grgas asked--if it -is true that the higher the cost of the unit the greater the price and inflation sensitivity, as an example, if up to ten percent inflation were applied to-a mid-priced unit,-affordable for purchase, that may be more appropriate than applying the same rate to a-$500,000-or $600,000-unit where the appreciation-may be lower. Mr. Jirovsky said he felt that the appreciation rate would probably be more uniformly applied, explaining that in-most scenarios it was felt that the appreciation was considered a reasonable midpoint where price-is now felt to be reaching a peak, and in looking back he would now possibly consider using a higher price for analysis-with a reduced- inflation rate of between three to I four-percent, the outcome of which would be somewhere between scenarios 3.2 and 3.3, and below the threshold return. He explained that the prices used for the original analysis were taken from the January-l988 appraisal, and based-upon his-knowledge of the overall market he felt the prices would-be approximately twenty percent higher today. Council commented on reported statistics of sales countywide during the past year, in Seal Beach, the variable selling prices, and rate of inflation. Councilmember Risner said 1-16-89 I she felt it difficult to believe that the original plan would be marginally viable, and it would be interesting to apply a twenty percent increase to approximate what the selling price may be in today's market. Mr. Grgas responded that even if the prices of Alternative 1 were inflated by twenty percent and a low appreciation rate were applied, that would be done under the assumption of reducing densities to acquire more acreage for Gum Grove Park, the golf course, or the wetlands, the question being what would actually be gained. The representative from POD stated he felt most of the discussion was being based on assumptions of appropriate densities, product mixes, how much land is available for development and under what conditions, and explained that assumptions will affect any unit number outcome, and cited as an example the two hundred seventy- eight and the two hund~ed thirty-three modification, either of which could be achieved by modifying the assumptions only slightly as to the amount of.land available or the densities. He explained that in order to retain the full size Gum Grove Park it would be necessary through land use planning to determine how many units would be needed, how they.could be allocated, how the product could be changed, how the constraints of the site would be dealt with, and would involve complex.analysis that would take a number of months. With regard to developing a workable mix of housing units to replace the three-story stacked condos, produce the necessary return to the developer, and provide between eight and ten.acres of.Gum Grove Pa~k, the POD representative hesitantly responded that Alte~native 6 of the original analysis sets forth a product mix of single family attached, detached, and condominiums under some assumptions regarding the amount .of land available, the product mix, and that with such mix he felt it would be.difficult to retain the golf course and the park, and if the golf course were factored in, the number of.units would be reduced considerably. He added that as a.very preliminary estimate, if there were to be a golf course of around seventy-five acres, 10.4 acre park, twenty acres .of .wetland, and an approximate mix ratio of condos to townhouses to. single family as envisioned by ponderosa, he would guess possibly four hundred units on the site. .He emphasized that he was not suggesting that such estimate .would work, stressed that the calculation did not take into consideration the physical factors of the available land, and stated it is not professional practice to make such snap estimates. Mr. Knight clarified that the POD consultant was using the types of densities that had been proposed by Ponderosa. Again with regard to average prices .and appreciation rates, Mr. Jirovsky explained that nine percent was felt .to be a reasonable number for long term average, in excess of ten years. I I With consensus of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared a recess at 8:33 p.m. The Council .~econvened at 8:53 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. The City Manager noted the-refe~ence being made to a number of.statistics and the .consultants having been asked to offer determinations that are arbitrary and require complicated calculations, citing as an example the discussion of housing mix. He suggested that rather than further discussion of the variables of numbers, that consideration be focused on the land use, the current application, or alternatives that may be.considered. Of Mr. Ji~ovsky, .Mr. Nelson asked if the four hund~ed dwelling units were considered and a product mix were created, would it be economically feasible. Mr. Jirovsky responded that the first question would be what 1-16-89 would compose the mix, if it were two hundred single family, one hundred fifty townhomes and fifty condominiums it may be feasible, if the mix were one hundred, one hundred and two hundred, that would most likely not be feasible, with the question remaining as to reasonable size lots for single family and townhomes, how many can actually be placed on that land. He offered his opinion that he-did not feel there could be an adequate number of single family and townhomes to make that scenario feasible, that dropping from seven hundred plus units that is thought to be feasible, to four hundred would not appear to be feasible unless the single family lot was considerably smaller and the sales price would not be affected to a great degree. Discussion continued. The City Manager again-urged that land use be the consideration at this time rather than unverified and confusing possibilities, noting that the Council has the option-of acting on the current plan, or consider the alternatives -proposed which in turn would be ~eferred to staff-for a supplemental-EIR, financial analysis, etc. with recommendations coming back to the Council. Councilman Grgas suggested that the alternatives recommended by staff for further analysis be considered, the four hundred forty- nine single family dwelling alternative-provided by Mola Development, -the two hundred thirty-three or now possibly two hundred two -single family dwelling alternative with an eighteen hole golf course, full Gum Grove Park, and twenty to twenty-five acres of wetlands, and the-mixed use alternative comprised-of approximately four hundred units, that-the staff be directed to provide for -the supplemental EIR and financial analysis and to retain the necessary consultants relating thereto, return that information to the Council for further-review and decision. Councilmember Risner noted her attempt to evaluate the alternatives proposed to determine what would be acceptable to the public,-Council, and the developer before referring an alternative for further analysis, one-consideration being the cost of such analysis, her understanding-being that Mola would only pay the cost-of evaluating the four hundred forty-nine plan. She expressed her feeling that if the City Council believes that the golf course can not be reduced in acreage and still be viable, and if the developer believes his -profit-is determined by density and can not explore an alternative to the condos without lessening the acreage for the-golf course and shows no willingness to cut the condo footprint, then evaluation of other land uses seems to be futile. She made reference to the original plan which proposed a-one hundred five acre golf course and undetermined acreage for the Gum Grove-and wetlands, noting there is now a-range of estimated acreage for wetlands, also it-is felt that some Park-parking is necessary. Councilmember-Risner stated the four hundred forty-nine plan, eliminating the golf course, appears to be the only alternative supported by the developer, although that plan will -not -be-acceptable without major revisions, however if there-were assurances that there would be a buffer zone for adjacent-properties, the densities lowered, and a majority of the Council supported that alternative, some of her concerns-would be-eliminated, yet if there was not majority support to eliminate the golf course, further exploration of this plan would-not-be warranted. Mrs. Risner made reference to the four-forty-nine diagram with regard to the referenced buffer area, suggested relocation of the street running-through the project, possibly include some cul-de- sac areas, and elimination of some housing units, possibly I I I 1-16-89 I in the location of the oil wells, bringing that alternative closer to four hundred units of single family, 3.6 acre neighborhood park with possibly four tennis courts, Gum Grove at 10.4 acres, 42.9 acres of wetlands, and no golf course. She added that the developer has said that placing the condos on the twenty-six acres with single family and/or other housing mix will not work, yet she felt that alternative worth evaluating, and in this case to accommodate the twenty-five acre wetlands the condos would need to be moved closer to First Street, and quite possibly reduce the condo footprint. Councilman Laszlo stated it was his impression that-the Council would be looking to a development that would provide for wetlands, golf course and full-size Gum Grove and that it appeared that could only be attained through the original proposal, yet the community is not supportive of that plan, and suggested that the four forty-nine alternative with thirty-five acres of wetlands and no golf course may be acceptable. Noting the lack of public input into the planning process for the Hellman plan, Mr. Laszlo suggested-that the developer, with the citizens, and an independent mediator, could commence discussions to develop a new plan for the subject property, a process similar to that for the Department of Water-and Power site. Councilman Laszlo indicated he would support a golf course if it could be accommodated on the site although it appears it can not, that four hundred units appears to be reasonable, and that he did not expect the other alternatives to prove economically viable. Councilmember Wilson stated she was opposed to subsidizing any plan, as well as further use of consultants, and that she felt the only workable plan was the original application, that it is viable, eliminates the six hundred square foot condos, and adds five-acres of additional recreation. Mrs. Wilson read several recently-received letters which in part, supported the condominium units while objecting to the stacking, opposed all single family units, supported private property rights, referred-to the public hearing process as not meant to be a popularity contest -but only a means to disclose opinions and concerns, more than fair share to be paid by developer and future residents, process the project expeditiously, etc. She also noted receipt of a letter from Huntington Beach Mayor Pro Tern supporting the developer and his projects in that community. In response to Councilman Laszlo, the City Attorney explained that in this case application has been made for a tract map, General Plan and Specific-Plan amendments, and that the-Council does have the discretion to deny the amendments which in turn would allow the flexibility to deny the application. He clarified-that procedurally the Council is-now at the point of deciding whether to review project alternatives, and if that is the decision then the application must be continued to allow such review. Mayor Hunt stated he was opposed to the four hundred forty-nine alternative even though it may bring greater -revenue to the City, citing his reasons that the impact on traffic would be equal to or worse than the current proposal, a segment of the public would not-be allowed-the opportunity for affordable housing, that there would be a long-term downturn effect on housing prices, significant loss of open space, and loss of the golf course-and resulting recreation hours. Councilmember Risner indicated she would support the four forty-nine plan with the changes previously mentioned, and inquired-if the developer had any objection to her modifications. -Mr. Evans stated that if the majority of the Council chose to consider the four hundred forty-nine homes, I I 1-16-89 they would want to meet with the-residents of-the Hill or any group to-obtain some consensus regarding that plan, explaining that to modify that scenario at this time without consultant assistance would be difficult. Mr. Evans indicated they could support-consideration of the four forty-nine plan and pay for the processing, noting however that that number is not firm, that the supplemental EIR would be based on that number and-an alternative analysis in that document could include any othe~ scenario that the City would want to look at and pay the cost of. Mr. Evans clarified that this plan provides for minimum five thousand square foot lots, dwelling unit of fifty feet-in width with five foot sideyards, and a three car garage, and acknowledged that a mix of lot sizes could be looked at if that were desired. He again indicated their willingness to proceed-with a single family alternative if the golf course alternative with fewer single family dwelling is not financially feasible, as has been stated it would not. Mrs. Risner asked if it were not within the jurisdiction of the Council to make modifications to this scenario at this time if the developer is to pay for the cost of further analysis. The City Manage~ explained that if it is determined to further review the-four forty-nine alternative, that would be considered the applicants alternative and the City would contend-that the applicant -would bear the cost of the supplemental-EIR, however should the Council choose an alternative that the applicant-does not agree to, that would be-a City alternate and the City would bear costs related thereto, in addition, if a City alternate is chosen and is not -acceptable -to-the applicant and the applicant's alternate is not also chosen, the Council would need to take action on the current application by February 1st. The City Attorney ve~ified that statement, -and made reference to the p~evious-meeting where -an alternative and a delay of the pending-application was proposed by the applicant, which allows the possibility-for consideration of other alternatives, one of which the developer must be willing to grant an extension on. He added that the Council can continue to consider alternatives on a conceptual-rather than-detailed basis-at this time, that the consultants will prepare the information with regard to the variations, thereafter-all data will come back to the Council for further consideration and decision. Discussion continued. Councilman Grgas moved that the four hundred forty-nine alternative be considered for further review, including supplemental environmental impact review, and staff analysis to determine the impacts of that alternative. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion with the understanding that variations will be considered. -The City Attorney stated he believed the understanding was that there would be an analysis of what variations-would be possible under the four forty-nine alternative. Councilman Grgas advised that it was -his intent to only-vote for this alternative at this time to allow for evaluation, and should the opinion be that a-lesser number of dwelling units are possible, he would then-give that option-further -consideration, that at this point he-would defer the exact number of units to the staff and consultants given the environmental constraints and feasibility of project. Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Laszlo, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried Council-discussion -continued-with regard to considering alternatives of two hundred two and/or two hundred thirty- I I I 1-16-89 I three units. Councilman Grgas asked-if a majority of the Council were willing to consider a subsidy of the two hundred two alternative, and-moved to consider that alternative which would include the entire Gum Grove Park, wetlands, and eighteen hole golf course in its' current configuration. Mr. Knight advised-that it could not be definitely stated at-this time that the two hundred thirty- three alternative would allow for a configuration of Gum Grove Park at ten acres of more, that the scenario developed by POD included those parameters however were unverified calculations, also that Mola submitted a two hundred two unit plan -that was felt could be produced with all of the components provided, and if desired those scenarios could be looked at to determine exactly how many units could be accommodated with the-Gum Grove, golf course and wetlands. Councilman Grgas pointed out that under either of these alternatives there is an implied subsidy requirement. The City Manager clarified that the only funds that would be available as a subsidy-would the Redevelopment tax increment generated from this development. The City Attorney advised that the Council could determine the number of dwelling units-that they would prefer to have studied further, whether it be two hundred two or two hundred thirty-three, however he would recommend the higher figure as it would allow for greater flexibility for the consultant to determine if it would fit -on the site. Members of the Council continued to express their opinions as to how many units were-felt could be placed on the project site. with regard to the cost for analysis of the two thirty-three scenario with a-land planning component, Mr. Jirovsky stated the financial analysis would be in the area of two thousand dollars, and-Mr. Glover added that he did not feel it would be appropriate to estimate costs at this point not knowing the depth of analysis or scope of work. The Development Services Director suggested the cost could range from ten to twenty-five thousand given the background information that is already available. Councilman Grgas moved-to analyze the-two hundred thirty- three single family alternative with the eighteen hole golf course, attempt to-preserve the entire Gum Grove park, and twenty-one to twenty-five-acres of wetlands, with the understanding that the Council would be willing to accept a subsidy through Redevelopment Agency funds to achieve this alternative. In response to Council, the City Manager explained-that it appears there may be a shortfall for this alternative somewhere between eight and seventeen million dollars, that it also appears that this plan may only generate four million dollars towards a subsidy. Mayor Hunt seconded-the -motion, and discussion continued. Councilman Laszlo requested, if the motion is not approved, to be provided a report as to-why this alternative is not feasible, he also objected to the City funding further studies or analysis. Councilmember Risner indicated she may be-willing to consider this motion after considering the mixed use alternative, and stated that providing public improvements through the-use of tax increment to benefit a project area would not be considered a subsidy. I I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas Hunt, Wilson Laszlo, Risner Motion failed Councilman-Grgas moved to direct staff to evaluate the alternative combining single family and multi-family dwellings, whatever the number may be, preserving the entire 1-16-89 Gum Grove Park, as much wetlands as possible, with and without a golf course. There was no second to the motion. Councilmember Risner moved to evaluate an alternative that combines approximately four hundred single family units, townhouse units, and-condos not -to exceed two stories, a golf course. of approximately seventy-five acres, Gum Grove Park of approximately-IO.4 acres, wetlands as close to twenty-five acres-as possible. In response to Council, Mr. Evans said he-felt the current proposal is a mixed use project with-an-eighteen hole golf course, the analysis determining that to be a marginally feasible plan, that if the density of that plan is reduced to increase Gum Grove and wetlands acreage the result would be similar to that of the two thirty-three alternative, thus they would find it difficult -to-justify an expenditure for such analysis. Mr. Evans -added that they could most likely achieve a townhouse at twelve-units-pe~ ac~e or around one hundred ninety such units, their analysis showing that that number with the one hundred thirteen single family units will not work economically and is not financable, somewhat less viable than the single family development due to the cost of the townhomes. - Again-with regard to associated costs for review of alternatives, the City Manager noted that -one alternative has been-~eferred, to which the developer has agreed to and will-assume the costs, and if this scenario could be included in the scope-of work as an alternative there would likely be--minimal cost, -however if this sceanario were to create-a much greater amount of analysis of alternative elements to the fou~ forty-nine -plan, the~e would be some additional-costs, possibly up to ten thousand dollars. With regard to the-golf cou~se, the Development Services Director clarified that-evaluation of a nine versus eighteen hole golf course would entail totally different design. Mr. Grgas added that -the-consultant's report had deemed a nine hole course as not being a viable alternative. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner Wilson Motion carried with -regard to continuing-the public hearing, the City Attorney-advised that at this time the Council could direct that certain consultants be retained and then continue the public-hearing, also, since two alternative plans have been selected for further-review and-since no action will be taken on the alte~natives-or the application at this meeting, he -suggested-that as part of the environmental review process--the-City could hold-public scoping sessions with the environmental consultant to gain further public input on the plans being reviewed. In response to the Council, he added that the Council could limit the number of sessions -or the-time duration thereof, and recommended that those sessions take place early in -the process before the draft is -actually prepared. -He also advised that when the public hearing -is-continued the-consent of the developer to do so will-be necessary, and with the exception of the time needed by the consultants to complete their review, there would be no further time constraints at this time. With-regard to including the two-thirty-three alternative and -the related costs, the Di~ector explained that since the majority-of work will be accomplished under the four forty- nine scenario, it-could most-likely be reviewed at a minimal cost. The City Manager pointed out that the two thirty- three alternative included an implied subsidy from Redevelopment Agency tax increment which-would require him to retain a financial consultant and an appraiser, that a I I I 1-16-89 I market study would be required, and in-tuEn will be confidential information to allow-negotiation with the developer with regard to the amount of subsidy. In response to the Council, the Director explained that through the City's Specific Plan process there is a means for recovery of monies expended relating to that Plan, including environmental work, on a prorata basis and usually at the time of building permit issuance. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared a recess at 10:30 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:44 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. Councilman Grgas made reference to and read excerpts from a November 11, 1988 -letter from Assistant City Attorney William Strausz relating to the use of tax increment funds for groin improvements and sand replenishment. Councilmember Risner moved to include the two hundred thirty-three single family alternative for evaluation. She noted that there may be an implied need for Redevelopment Agency tax increment assistance-under this alternative, however the analysis will determine if-that is so. At the request-of Council, the City Manager restated the need under this alternative to engage the services of an environmental and financial consultant and an appraiser, the need for confidential information, and negotiation of a developer agreement. Discussion followed, and some members of the Council indicated they did not feel a subsidy would be acceptable, also that if it is found-through evaluation of the other alternatives that the two thirty-three alternative may be feasible, -it may be worthwhile to consider that scenario at a lateE date. -Councilmember Risner asked that the staff be directed to retain an appraiser to evaluate and determine what the price of a home would be under the two thirty-three plan. The City Manager noted that a significant factor is the golf course, also the driving range, the applicant stating that without the driving range the golf course is not an economic entity. Mr. Evans responded to the Council that a report prepared several months ago compared an eighteen and a nine hole golf course, set forth the anticipated income that would be derived from an eighteen hole course, that a nine-hole course did not work, and that the golf course without a driving range had forty percent less income, also noting that the KRM analysis showed the value of the golf course at about equal to what it would cost to build. Mrs. Risner again stated she wanted a firm sales-price for the units under this scenario, and that she felt a home under the two thirty-three alternative would sell for-more than under the other scenarios. Mr. Grgas noted that information would be forthcoming through the evaluation of the four forty-nine alternative, a sales price of comparable single family dwellings, size, quality, etc., with and without golf course. Councilmember Risner restated her motion to retain a real estate appraiser to-determine home prices under the two thirty-three alternative. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. Councilman Grgas moved a substitute motion that the analysis be conducted for no more than one thousand dollars and that KRM have an opportunity to review the analysis to determine that the sales -prices are achievable. Mrs. Risner initially stated the substitute motion was not acceptable, yet asked what-the cost would be for a KRM review. Discussion continued. Mr. Jirovsky responded that the cost I I 1-16-89 would be no more than-a few hundred dollars. Councilman Laszlo seconded the substitute motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner Wilson Motion carried Mayor Hunt outlined-the actions yet to be taken, selection of consultants, continuation of the public hearing, possibly I to May 1st, Redevelopment Plan as it relates to the Department of-Water and Power prope~ty, time frame for scoping-sessions, noting a suggestion that they could occur concurrently with the Environment Quality Control Board meetings. Councilman Grgas moved that-LSA be retained for the wetlands analysis and that MBA be retained as the lead consultant. Councilmember Risner moved a substitute motion that MBA be retained as the sole consultant for preparation of the supplemental EIR. Conside~able-discussion followed. In response to a question of Council, the-Director of Development Services stated that in his professional opinion to the Council, under both staff recommendations, retaining MBA with a subcontract to LSA for wetlands-analysis, or retaining MBA-as the sole consultant, the consultant will be using LSA data, under the subcontracting arrangement they would be exchanging data, experts, and opinions, and with MBA being the sole consultant, they would be exchanging data, again explaining that in preparing EIR's any data-that has-been created is used. He said it is-his understanding that LSA has been working on-the wetlands issue for-more than nine months, and I in either case MBA-must validate their-information, that it is their ~eputation and responsiblity to do so, that consulting firms specialize in being as-objective as possible under all circumstances, also that the staff is retaining them with the assurance that they will produce an objective document that is legally defensible. He added that the time frame for preparation would be similiar with either -recommendation, and that the cost will be borne by the developer. Councilman Grgas restated his motion to retain MBA with a subcontract to LSA. Mayor Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson Risner Laszlo Motion carried Mr. Knight -advised-that it will be necessary to retain a land use consultant to develop the mixed use alternative and the financial analysis. The City Manager reported that Mr. Glover had informed him that POD would withdraw from consideration to provide land use services. The Director briefly reviewed the list of land use planning consultants, and suggested-that Pe~idian be deleted since they recently I developed-an alternate-plan for Mola. Wilson moved, second by Hunt,-to authorize-staff to select the land use planning consultant, based upon the scope of work, associated costs, and time frame. - -It was also suggested that it may be helpful if the consultant were to have some golf course experience. 1-16-89 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council to retain the firm of KRM to conduct the financial analyses. J The City Attorney noted that the next consideration could be the continuation of the hearing with consent of the developer, and separation of the issues for amendment of the Redevelopment.Plan. Members of the Council acknowledged that it may be worthwhile to consider the Department of Water and Power portion of the amendment at the earliest possible time. Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to continue the joint public hearing relating to amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, proposed Resolution Number 88-3, proposed Resolution Number 3819, and proposed-Ordinance Number-1278, until the next regular Agency meeting, February 20th. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT OF .REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency meeting at approximately 11:20 p.m.. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I The City Attorney recommended that the public hearing on the remaining-items be continued until -May 1st with consent of the developer, with some leeway also granted until May 15th if deemed.necessary. It was pointed-out that the Council may have the.reports, supplement to-the EIR, planning and financial data, etc. by May lst-however-there may not be adequate time to make a final decision.at.that meeting, therefore it would-be-necessary to continue consideration until the following meeting. The-staff assured the Council that- they would be provided with all related documents and repo~ts as they become-available. Mr. Evans agreed to grant the extension until the second meeting in May. The City Attorney advised that the extension will be required in written form from the developer. Mr. Evans questioned whether an appraiser-could be retained for a thousand dollars, expressing-their.concern that the City does have appropriate- information, and noted that their firm could provide-the information if the City would accept it. Discussion followed. With r~gard to a determination of housing prices under the two thirty-three.scenario, Grgas.moved, second by Laszlo, to authorize the City Manager to retain the services of a real estate appraiser at-as reasonable a cost as-possible, removing the previously authorized $1000 maximum. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Wilson Motion carried Grgas-moved, second by-Laszlo, to continue the public hearing relating-to proposed-Resolution Number 3820, General Plan Amendment la-88, proposed Resolution Number 3821, General -Plan Amendment Ib-88, proposed Ordinance Number 1279, 'Hellman Specific Plan Amendment~ proposed Resolution Number 3822, Tentative Parcel Map 86-J49, Resolution Number 1-16-89 / 2-21-89 3823, Vesting Tentative Map 13198, and proposed Resolution Number 3824, Precise Plan Review for Vestting Tentative Tract 13198, until the regular meeting of May 1, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried with regard to providing for the holding of scoping I sessions, the City Attorney reported that the Development Services Director had pointed out that there will be a hearing before the Environmental Quality Control Board on the draft EIR, that meeting being an optional time to receive public input, and if a separate scoping session is desired, he suggested that it be held early in the process of preparing the supplemental EIR with the environmental consultant conducting such sessionls). The Director stated that the sessions could be advertised for public information through a news release, and that they would be held during the period that the EIR supplement is being prepared. The City Attorney clarified that the Council has two alternatives, using the EOCB meeting to receive public comments, or a separate scoping session could be held with the environmental consultant, noting that the supplemental EIR would subsequently be before the EQCB. Grgas moved, second by Risner, that the separate scoping session with the environmental consultant be held. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The City Attorney advised that since action was taken to continue the public hearing, there should be no further testimony on the project or the alternatives. I The joint session concluded at 11:41 p.m. c~ P'~ Seal-Beach, California February 21, 1989 The-Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in I regular session at 6:45 p.m. with-Chairman Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: ChaiI"man. .Grgas Agencymembers Hunt, Laslzo, Risner, Wilson