Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1988-12-05 11-21-88 I 12-5-88 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Grgas, Wilson Motion carried CITY COUNCIL ITEMS There were no City Council items for discussion. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at 11:19 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, LaszlO, Risner None Grgas, Wilson Motion carried Attest: Approv,ed: I Seal Beach, California December 5, 1988 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met-in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hunt Councilmembers LaszlO, Risner, Wilson Absent: Councilman Grgas I Councilman Grgas arrived at the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Chief Stearns, Police Department Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 12-5-88 WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall-be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I Councilman Grgas arrived at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA AMENDED With unanimous consent-of the Council, the agenda was amended to present Resolution Number 3826, adopted at the November 21st meeting, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING WILLIAM P. MURPHEY FOR ACHIEVING THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA EAGLE AWARD." Mayor Hunt and Councilman Laszlo presented the Resolution to William Murphey, who accepted with appreciation. PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - YEAR FIFTEEN Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing open to consider participation in the HOUSing/Community Development Block Grant Program for year fifteen. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing -had been advertised as required by law and repo~ted no' communications had been received either for or against this 'item. The Director of Development Services presented th~ staff report and the I recommendations of the Citizens participation Committee of projects for consideration, $32,000 for renovation of the McGaugh Pool, $100,000 for renovation of the parkway on Bolsa Avenue, $150,000 for reconstruction of Electric Avenue alley between 12th and 17th Streets, $20,000 to establish a business owner's rebate program, and $40,000 for reconstruction of approximately 10,000 square feet of sidewalks. Mr. Knight reported Year Fourteen funding was directed to Zoeter School softball facility improvements, and Electric Avenue alley improvements. 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. Mr. Bruce Stark, Ocean Avenue, stated Ocean Avenue is in need of resurfacing and should be a consideration, he questioned the proposed funding request to allow low interest loans for improvements to Main Street businesses, and the priorities of projects considered. Councilman Grgas concurred that Ocean Avenue is in need of improvements, and if it is not possible to include projects such as Ocean Avenue on this years funding request it should be considered as a future priority, and noted that two projects are included for Year Fifteen funding that are of benefit to Old Town which is the target area for Block Grant Funds. In response to Mr. Stark, Councilmember Risner I pointed out that in recent years there has not been a project approved for the much needed resurfacing of Bolsa Avenue, and explained that the project proposed for H/CD funding is improvements to the parkways, the area where the new palm trees were planted and is presently an asphalt material, and voiced her support. for the low interest business loan .program which would allow improvements that would be an asset to the entire community. The City Manager clarified that monies are available for home improvement loans to those persons who qualify. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard resident, spoke regarding the approved 12-5-88 improvement plan for the Boulevard, a main thoroughfare of the City, and asked that resurfacing of that street be a consideration. The City Manager reported $55,000 of H/CD funds have been allocated to Seal Beach Boulevard improvements and is one of the projects on the City's backlog. There being no further comments, Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing closed. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3827 - APPROVING PARTICIPATION - HOUSING/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - YEAR FIFTEEN Resolution Number 3827 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.II By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3827 was waived. In response to Council, the Development Services Director explained there is no limit on the amount of funds the City may request, however there is a limit on what will be approved, and given the upcoming deadline for submittal of the H/CD requests, projects could be added if the required background data is available. Councilman Grgas asked that the project list be amended to include as item six,-an additional $50,000 for improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard, and $100,000 for resurfacing of Ocean Avenue as item seven. Councilmember Risner requested $200,000 be included for restoration of Gum Grove Park as item eight. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to approve the additional project requests for H/CD funding. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3827 as amended. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Bunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CONTINUED JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT Chairman Grgas called the Redevelopment Agency meeting to order with all members present, 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/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13198, and Precise Plan 1-88. The City Clerk reported 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 signatures 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 revitalized eucalyptus .grove and wilderness area of 6.8 acres maximum, the other petition from Seal Beach Citizens United containing one hundred fifty-four signatures supporting -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 restored wilderness park area of ten 12-5-88 acres. The Clerk 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 I, 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 advisory to the Coastal Commission, the Corps and Coastal Commission being the permitting authorities. Mr. Nelson 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 merely 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 forward with a revised development plan I I I 12-5-88 I 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 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 ~ooked 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 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 numbers. 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 average sales price derived from that information, stating further that the sample was not scientifically significant as there 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 reasonable. Mr. Mouchley noted that pursuant 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 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. I I 12-5-88 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 I 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 opposed to one hundred. -Mr. Mouchley responded that the rate of absorption is highly market sensitive, as an example, at $500,000 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 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 I 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 I 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. 12-5-88 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. 1 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 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 CEOA. 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 I I 12-5-88 , 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 - Ilth 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 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 l4.8 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 Nola'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 were 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 numbers, expanding it to show various scenarios for increased sales prices. Be 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 I I I 12-5-88 I 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 Three, 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 Shane Tecklenberg, 201 - lIth Street, reported he heard from a source that a representative of Mola believed that teachers 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 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 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 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 Hellman'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 I . 12-5-88 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 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 I 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 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 hearing 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 developer 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 I 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 appropriate 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 alternatives, and he did look at economic alternatives' but without the availability of site plans to see if those uses were possible-on this piece of property.- 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 direction 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 I course, there could be approximately 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 provide 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-. Be 12-5-88 I 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 Grgas stated he was prepared 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 heard, however no final action could be taken until the public hearing is closed. -He stated also that if the 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. Mr. John Nakagawa, 320 - 12th Street, stated he was a one year resident and spoke for withdrawl of the current development application, also for 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 improve 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 more 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 hundred thirteen clone houses are not acceptable, this plan should be rejected, traffic should be restored to service level liD", there should be a fully restored thirty-five acre wetlands, and a lO.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, increased 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 course, homes and/or homes and condos, provision for wetlands, yet questioned the issue of Gum Grove Park since what is proposed for that area is so much better than what currently exists. Mr. Sing stated his objection to personal attacks on Mola or any developer that I I 12-5-88 may come forth, as well as the consideration of special interest groups, suggesting that focus should be given to doing something positive for the entire community. Mr. Scott Wildman, Welcome Lane, advised that definition of density is mass over-volume. Mr. Wildman stated he and his wife are opposed to the Mola proposal as presented, their preference would be that the property be restored to original wetlands, and if the site is developed they would I prefer single family residences with the park and open 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 I 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 years 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 memorandum 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 General Plan, "Seal Beach 19850, 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, 1201 Catalina Avenue, inquired as to what factors would be taken into consideration by the Council when making its decision on the Mola development, I benefits to the City, cost to the City, and what weight citizen input will have. Mr. Hugh Feeley, 1851 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 12-5-88 I impacts, and five additional acres from Bellman 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 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. I 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, referred 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 regarding 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 approval 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 under construction. She stated that once construction begins there will be traffic, trucks, grading, etc. that will affect everyone, even Leisure World residents. She also said the police Department does not have enough personnel to control an eight unit development, therefore questioned what would happen with seven hundred units. Mrs. Strohmeier complained about beverage consumption commencing in the afternoons at the eight unit development project near her residence, and submitted a bag of the beverage containers to the Council. Mr. William Graham, 1740 Sunningdale, stated he felt the project proposed is good for Seal Beach, providing a golf course, homes, baseball facilities, playgrounds, and tennis courts. He reported 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 cleared of the diseased trees and cleaned it would be much better 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 years, during which their home has been burglarized 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 I 12-5-88 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 California 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. 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.Bellman. 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 no~ 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 area 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 plan 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. Ambrose 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 interested 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. Be added the EIR is also in need of supplementation given the significant changes to the plan, specifically with I I I 12-5-88 I 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 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 firms 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 I I 12-5-88 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 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. 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 fault 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 I I I 12-5-88 I building permits at such time as there is final approval of the Plan, and pursuant to any and all studies, reports, 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. I Mr. Wright responded that it was-his understanding of recent court cases that administrative approvals for this sort of thing are inappropriate and do not meet CEOA 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 CEOA guidelines. Mr. Knight again stated that in his opinion the EIR meets CEOA guidelines. The City Attorney referenced the State statute with regard to geologic hazard, noting that the statute does not specify when the final report 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 provide the analysis and a final report to delineate with correctness 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 CEOA 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 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. I Mayor Bunt asked for 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. Mayor 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 area for circulation in and out, adding that these conditions-have-not been fully described and have to be addressed in-a management plan. He again stated he felt the triangular area is a sump. Mr. Ambrose asked to be provided a copy of the City Attorney's opinion regarding Gion/Dietz. 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. He added however that the Subdivision Map Act deals specifically with the City requiring easements that have 12-5-88 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 I of dealing with easements shown as public record. Be 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 P9wer 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 I public has-rights to-the property. He 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. 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 1- 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 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 I I I 12-5-88 . 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 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 for 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 therefore the Mola development proposal would not be a matter 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, referred 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 prior Monday will be a holiday, Tuesday will be the regular meeting as prescribed by the City Charter. Councilmember 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 12-5-88 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 The City Attorney noted that the extension until January I 3lst, agreed to by the developer, would be required in written confirmation. Councilmember Risner asked what the procedure would be to obtain additional information from other agencies, and how long this process can continue before alternatives can be considered. The City Attorney advised that on January 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, there 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 reported 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 I 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 Gr-gas 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 representative of KRM be present at the next hearing, and authorize the City Manager to engage their services in that regard. 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 I explained that the individual could file a police report if it 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. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1276 - BUSINESS LICENSES - REVISED FEES Ordinance Number 1276 was presented to Council for second reading entitled -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER II OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH 12-5-88 PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1276 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1276 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 128l - REMOVAL AND COLLECTION OF TRASH Ordinance Number 1281 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONCERNING REMOVAL AND COLLECTION OF TRASH AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.II By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1281 was waived. The Ordinance proposed to correct conflicting provisions between the Code and the existing refuse contract. Laszlo moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1281 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3828 - RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRASH COLLECTION CHARGES Resolution Number 3828 was presented to Council entitled IIA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INCREASING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MONTHLY TRASH COLLECTION CHARGES TO COVER COST OF ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILL GATE FEES.II By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3828 was waived. Risner moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3828 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "0" THROUGH "V" Councilmember Risner asked that Item "R" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "RII, as presented. o. Approved regular demands numbered 72590 through 72738 in the amount of $521,529.82 and payroll demands numbered 32914 through 33248 in the amount of $177,160.66 as approved by the Finance Committee, and that warrants be authorized to be drawn on the Treasury for same. P. Denied the claim for damages of Catherine E. Bell and referred same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. O. Authorized the Finance Director to invite proposals from local banking institutions to provide banking services to the City. S. Approved the specifications and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids for the application of stucco finish to the exterior of the Zoeter bleacher area. T. Approved the specifications and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids for the removal of an Underground Diesel Tank at the City Yard, and appropriated $14,000 from General Fund Reserves for said removal. 12-5-88 U. Approved the sole source purchase of one 1989 Saleen Mustang for the Police Department from Theodore Robbins Ford at an estimated cost of $23,000. V. Bids were received until November 28, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. for Janitorial Services at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: . . I P. T. Janitorial Service Pacific Building Services $46,740.00 67,680.00 Awarded the bid for City Janitorial Services to P. T. Janitorial Services in the annual amount of $46,740.00, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "RII - AUTOMATION OF EIGHTH STREET PARKING LOT Councilmember Risner moved to hold this item over. Councilman Grgas seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilman Grgas asked that the City Attorney expedite his I comments to the City Engineer regarding an encroachment on Fifth Street. At the request of Councilman Laszlo, it was the consensus of the Council to authorize the signatures of all members of the City Council to be affixed to Resolution Number 3826 commending Eagle Scout William Murphey. Mr. Galen Ambrose submitted a wetlands map to the City Manager to be included in the pUblic record. Councilmember Risner asked to be provided with a copy of the up to date Hellman Tract Map, reduced to a workable size. APPOINTMENT - ORANGE COUNTY CONTROL Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to reappoint Councilmember Risner as the City's representative to the Orange County Vector Control District for the two year term expiring December 31, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Risner Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications from the audience. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. I ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to adjourn the meeting at 12:55 a.m. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 12-5-88 I l2-19-88 Q~~ " ) , I ~ I /' .. ..{ \...-.UJ / cij;>Y2erk and ex-off~ :io-/-cl-efk of the Ci~ of Seal Beach I , Approved: Attest: Seal Beach, California December 19, 1988 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Bunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hunt Councilmembers Grgas, Laszlo, Wilson Absent: Councilmember Risner I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Chief Stearns, Police Department The City Manager reported the absence of the City Clerk and the Deputy to the City Clerk from this meeting due to illness, as well as Councilmember Risner, who requested that her absence be excused. WAIVER OF FULL READING Grgas moved, second by Laszlo, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: .Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I PRESENTATION Mayor Hunt announced the recent adoption of an infant girl, Katherine Piersson Nelson, by the City Manager and his wife Suzanne, and presented a gift of welcome and best wishes from the members of the City Council and City staff. Mr. Nelson expressed his appreciation.