Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-01-03 12-19-88 / 1-3-89 development, and the City Manager advised that once the zoning is in place on' a property, the property owner, developer, lessee or whomever can file for the permits to develop the property consistent with the zoning. Councilman Laszlo then asked if the Council could regulate who actually does the development. The City Attorney responded that ,if the City or Agency owns the property that could be the case, however if the property is privately owned it is not a land use issue and the City can not decide who will be the developer, the only requirement would be that the developer comply with regulations imposed by the City, additionally the City can set forth bonding requirements to insure that the project is completed. Ms. Marilyn Hastings, 121 - 12th Street, inquired if the ~ouncil had met to establish guidelines for the Hellman property development as had been requested by Mr. Mola at the last meeting. Mayor Hunt - advised that the Council has not met since December 5th and that at the meeting of January 3rd it is the intent that members of the Council will make their individual statements as to what their objectives and views are with-regard to gevelopment of the Hellman property. There being no further communications, Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter and pending litigation. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), California Coastal Commission versus the City of Seal Beach pending in the Orange County Superior Court. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items previously stated and that no action had been taken on the personnel matter. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:20 p.m. o clerk of the Seal Beach, California January 3, 1989' . The ~ity Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular seSS10n at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I I I ,I I I , I 1-3-89 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Hunt Councilmembers Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I 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 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: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilmember behalf of the mother. Wilson offered condolences to Mayor Hunt on . Council and staff on the passing of his I PRESENTATION Mayor Hunt presented certificates of.welcome to Eduardo and Roberto Berrettini, and Mauricio Bonassi, youth exchange students from Brazil visiting with Seal Beach residents George and Mary Heisick. I CONTINUED JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT Mayor Hunt declared.the continued joint/consolidated Redevelopment Agency and City Council public hearing open to consider Amendment No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment la-88, Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment lb-88, Open Space/ Conservation/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13198, and Precise Plan 1-88. Mayor Hunt recalled previous agreement as to procedures for this meeting where the Council would have the opportunity to express their views with regard to the proposed plan based upon the information presented to date. Mayor Hunt also noted recent reference to alternate plans of Mola Development that incorporate some of the comments made by the public, therefore he would then ask that Mola present those plans to the Council and public. Councilmember Risner inquired if the Council could consider new plans and the original plan currently under consideration, should alternatives be presented at this meeting. The City Attorney responded that if the applicant has decided there may be alternatives that they would prefer to pursue or raise with the Council, that could be done, however no action could be taken on alternatives at this meeting. He added that one option would be for the developer to withdraw his application, also if there were substantial revisions in the alternative(s) then the proposal should be reviewed by staff as to additional environmental review that may be necessary, whether or not a new application would need to be filed, also if the developer did not withdraw the application a decision would have to be made as to what 1-3-89 action would be taken on the current application, whether it be to deny or held in abeyance pending review of alternate plans. He clarified that if there were a significant change proposed in an alternative, a supplemental EIR would be required. Councilmember Risner questioned if it would be appropriate for the Council to comment on what has been presented to date, for the developer to respond, and then allow the public hearing process to continue. The City I Attorney again pointed out that after receiving the City Council comments and public testimony to date, if the developer felt he did not wish to proceed with the present plan 'and proposes alternatives, it would seem additional testimony would not be of benefit for a plan that may be abandoned, therefore it would appear to be appropriate to receive comments from the developer after the Council has made their statements. Councilman Grgas likened the Hellman property to a pie with the question as to how many ways it can be divided" if one slice is made larger it automatically makes another slice smaller, and in this case it is likely that forcing the smallest portion on Hellman or Mola may cause them to keep the entire portion rather than sharing it, since they own it. He pointed out that the community has become divided over the ultimate disposition of the Hellman property and the proposed development plan. Mr. Grgas recalled his . surprise at the inception of the plan, given the City's -history of resisting anything that may be conceived to threaten the small town quality of life and atmosphere, that the plan was approved at every level throughout the process with virtually no opposition, including unanimous approval by the City Council. He questioned how the plan was I processed this far and how it was created, noting that although a member of th~ Council has made accusations that other members have given personal direction to the developer, that same person originally met with Mr. Mola on the creation' of the plan that is currently being considered. He stated he, and most likely other Councilmembers, had not seen the conceptual plan until it was presented at a regular Council meeting, and apparently the condos, golf course, traffic, etc., had been acceptable then, but not now. Councilman Grgas acknowledged that the 'original plan did include a larger Gum Grove Park, and that modification of the plan was necessary because the Coastal Commission had ,indicated between twenty and twenty-four acres of restored wetlands would be required as part of the plan, thus Gum Grove Park and golf course acreage was reduced. He noted the various concerns and issues that have been raised with regard to the modified plan, some persons satisf~ed with the plan as it appears, some would have no development with only open space and wetlands, fewer or no condos, larger condos, no affordable housing, no wetlands, larger Gum Grove Park, a more challenging golf course, only expensive homes, .and other novel suggestions. He pointed out that some persons want it all, however the experts, hired by the City, have concluded in their analysis that is not possible. He explained that.even though he has had the opportunity to I listen to the various points of view throughout this process, and no matter how valid, not every suggestion will work. Councilman Grgas stated he would propose modifications to the proposed plan that would include in part, elimination of the six hundred square foot condos by requiring-the developer to double their size thereby reducing the total number to six hundred, a one bedroom unit larger than many that currently exist in the community, the remaining units to range from nine hundred fifty-five to twelve hundred square feet, which would provide potential buyers a range of more affordably priced units. He '~ . ~, "1 . 1-3-89 I suggested that as a condition of the issuance of any building permits, the Hellman Estate be required to agree to a binding contract to sell, at a reduced price from the fair market appraisal, the five acre park propose~ for- baseball and tennis court facilities, thus the City would gain something of benefit as the result of the reduced Gum Grove Park area. Prior to issuance of building permits he said he would also recommend that the par-cel map be conditioned to require that a wetlands restoration plan be produced given the fact that no one clearly knows how much acreage will be required to be restored or where, until the Coastal Commission decides that issue, therefore no development should occur until the restoration plan is in place. He noted that there are some that believe as much as one hundred forty acres could be required for wetlands, that letters from various sources argue the wetlands issuer yet that is a decision that will be forthcoming from the Coastal Commission, and for those believing more than twenty-four acres will be required there should therefore be no.fear of having the application and plan before the Commission. Councilman Grgas stated he would support modification of the Specific Plan language to further clarify that if the wetlands fail, no housing or commercial development would ever be permitteQ on those lands, that it ,would remain as active or passive use by the public. 'Pointing out that the Specific Plan presently provides for the height of the single family homes of thirty-two feet, three storie~, which is more restrictive than Old Town and Surfside, he stated he would support .a two story restriction for this project. Mr. Grgas said that although the Impact Analysis indicates that a requirement to have the developer, at his expense, provide for a road to Westminster Boulevard near ,Studebaker is not justified, he believed 'that road would help to relieve traffic congestion at various locations such as Seal Beach Boulevard, the intersection of Westminster and Seal Beach Boulevard, and the freeway on-ramps, therefore the developer should be required to dedicate and pay for his contributory share of impact, and the City, using its Redevelopment Agency funds could provide the remaining revenues to construct the road and signalize the intersection at Westminster which, based upon information provided by the City Engineer, appears to be feasible. He stated he would suggest other conditions at a later time. Mr. Grgas noted that some argue against any development on the Hellman property and,urge that the project be denied, and pointed out by oath of office he is Obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the State of California which was conceived to provide basic protections to all.p~9ple, p~oviding rights and remedies to those who oppose the project and protection of property rights of the land owner, the Fifth Amendment likewise providing that denial of property rights requires just compensation to the _p~9P'~rty owner. He added that by the City's appraisal, the value of the property exceeds twenty-two million dollars, and cited the recent failure to bond for an amount of less than one-tenth that amount to acquire the remainder of the Zoeter School site, and given the lack of outside revenue sources, he would conclude that a no development alternative is unrealistic and unachievable. In reference to the issue of just compensation, he noted many such cases have been determined in the courts to the detriment of the public' agency and their treasury. Councilman Grgas questioned what would be the right development plan for the community, does the City want-a golf course or not, is there a willingness to give up anything for it, or more Gum Grove Park or more wetlands, again citing the example that the property can only be divided in so many ways before the property owner ultimately determines it is not worthwhile or a court I I 1-3-89 decides the City may have to compensate them for their loss. He added that the City is then faced with approving the existing proposal with modifications or the only remaining alternative. Mr. Grgas noted the Scenario Three illustrated in the consultants report is being referred to as the preferred plan by some dispite the financial consultant's advice that it may be infeasible, some question the consultants findings, yet the physical and financial implications on the City must be understood. He expressed his feeling that the only remaining alternative is one that 'eliminates the golf course completely, a single family development plan, the question then being what benefits, whether it be recreation or open space, could the City expect under that scenario. He reported the developer has prepared such a plan for presentation at this meeting. Councilman Grgas pointep out that the developer has asked for direction as to what is considered acceptable for this property, therefore he would suggest that the alternatives be looked at, studied, and then a decision be made as to which plan best meets the need of as many people as possible. He said he would question what the impact would have been on the community with the approved original plan of one thousand single family and condominium units, that plan not implemented only because of a downturn in the economy and increased mortgage interest rates which thwarted the ponderosa Company proposal to build there, and from a historical perspective this fact alone should point out the inherent risk involved with a financial undertaking of this magnitude. Councilman Laszlo stated that when he first joined the Council he had hoped that this project would go forward without difficulty, and that he had favored a golf course for Seal Beach. He pointed out that the amount of public testimony, telephone calls and letters regarding this project, the majority of which have been in opposition to the development proposed, and should not be considered a small minority. Mr. Laszlo noted that the greatest concern appears to be focused on the condominiums, too small and too numerous, and with the traffic problems this development could cause. He referred to the minimum condominium size presently required by the City of nine hundred fifty square feet, where this plan would make an exception to that requirement. Councilman Laszlo also stated he has not been assured that this project will not worsen traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, and to infer that traffic probelms are caused by regional developments is wrong. Being the only remaining land available for housing in the City, he said he felt a development should be one that everyone will appreciate, and that he would support the golf course if the City were to own it and if it would generate revenue to the City. Councilman Laszlo stated he has been pursuing improved traffic and more park space for a number of years, that it appears all areas of the City that are not private communities oppose this project, therefore he could not support the project as it presently stands, however would be willing to listen to other proposals that may'be brought forth. Councilmember Risner acknowledged that she had attended one meeting with Mr. Mola, along with the City Manager, to discuss a potential project that might be proposed for the Hellman land by Mr. Mola, such as a golf course, preservation of Gum Grove Park, condominium units and single family houses, that no specifics of a development were discussed, and,that she had not seen the proposed map prior to other members of the City Council. She added that she felt the meeting had been called because the subject I I I . .. , , " 1-3-89 I development would be within the district she,represents. Councilmember Risner expressed her belief in private. property rights, stating she has never been a developers obstructionist, supports reasonable, planned development, opposes poorly drafted initiatives relating to no growth issues, and cited examples of her previous support for parks and open space in the community. She said she recognized the right of the developer to make a profit and hoped he would respect her right to evaluate his land use proposal, as it is her obligation to secure development that meets the needs of the community. Councilmember Risner acknowledged that the land proposed for development is a problem property, thus requires a greater amount of time to evaluate any proposal to be placed thereon. She expressed her feeling that the length, of time devoted to this proposal is the result of poor homework by the developer on the issue of wetlands, failure to submit a proforma as requested, drastic reduction of Gum Grove Park, and lack of attention to citizen comments,: the City also not having done the type of planning on land use and financial aspects that should have been, all of which has added to the delay of this processing. She stated that although this issue has been under consideration at a.number of meetings, there has been inadequate opportunity for public testimony, and that the Council 'has an obligation to hear the comments of those who wish to speak. Councilmember Risner pointed out that she had voted against certification of the Environmental Impact Report for.the.reasons that it did not address the area of the wetlands, did not provide for continued maintenance and restoration thereof, the EIR indicating those issues would be resolved at a later date, and noted that at that time. the lakes within the golf course were proposed as mitigation. and fulfillment of wetland, requirements, the issue of the monarch butterfly similarly adores sed in the EIR, and stated she believed it is mandatory to supplement the EIR to address all issues., Mrs. Risner also stated she felt the City's General Plan was being violated, the Plan calling for five acres of park per one thousand residents, yet the 10.5 acre Gum Grove Park, is proposed to be eliminated, the City to retain a non-exclusive easement over 4.7 acres with a narrow strip consisting of 2.1 acres proposed to extend to Seal Beach Boulevard to constitute a total of 6.8 acres, and noted the Department of Fish and Game recommended that the City retain, Gum Grove Park. She reported that the EIR proposed park fees as mitigation for the park reduction, .however to date there are no plans for use of the fees that would be collected and it is known that those monies must be used to benefit the area from which they are derived within a period of five years, and expressed her feeling. that it is poor planning' to extract monies without knowing where and how they will be spent. Councilmember Risner referred to the Hellman offer to sell.an additional five acres to the City for recreation use, however ,the offer was never confirmed nor was a price mentioned, also the cost to prepare the prope~ty for use, given the oil production activity on the land, nor has the cost of development of the site been considered, and questioned if it had been a bonafide offer. She again stated what is being considered by the Council would violate the park standards of the General Plan, and that reduction of parkland was never discussed nor were. mitigation measures proposed in the EIR. Mrs. Risner confirmed that she had voted in favor of the project originally however at that time it was erroneously reported that Gum Grove Park consisted of 8.5 acres and was proposed to be reduced to 6.8 acres, and although she did not favor the reduction, felt it might be reasonable to secure other benefits, however stated that the present sixty percent reduction is unacceptable. She added that at that I I 1-3-89 time it was also reported the lake system would satisfy the wetlands requirement, which was later learned is not the case. Councilmember Risner stated that since that time a number of issues have been brought to attention with major concerns focusing on: the desire for all single family homes, if approved, the condos should be greater than the minimum six hundred square feet proposed, wetlands of at least twenty-five acres, restored, and provision for proper maintenance, Gum Grove Park retained at or near 10.5 acres, secured, restored, and placed in City ownership,. and parking provided, and a golf course, noting that comments have indicated the driving range is mandatory and/or the course may be more desirable as a regulation nine-hole. Mrs. Risner said it ,has, been stated that conversion of the stacked condos to single family units is not financiall~ feasible unless there are a large number of units approved, which would most' likely eliminate the golf course, also that there is not sufficient land to provide twenty-five acres of wetland, ten acres of Gum Grove Park, a golf course, and suf~icient single family dwellings to have a viable development. She said a development should be considered that will provide all of these uses. Mrs. Risner referred to the supplemental report received from the financial consultant setting forth additional scenarios for comparison to the current plan. She noted that the current plan estimates wetlands at 21.4 acres, and if the current plan were to be approved she felt certain the Coastal Commission will req~ire at least twenty-five acres as shown in the modified scenarios, and there is nowhere to obtain that acreage unless the applicant were willing to give up a development footprint or some of the golf course. She continued with an acreage comparison of the current plan, a current modified plan, and Scenario 3.2 as set forth in the Kotin, Regan, & Mouchley supplemental report of December 28th. She noted that Scenario 3.2 would require sacrificing .4 acre of the golf cou~se, and she felt certain a Gum Grove Park OD ten acres would be acceptable to the community for a development of. two hundred thirty-three single family homes with land available for golf course almost equal to the current plan, and assuming twenty-five .acres of wetland. Mrs. Risner stated the question then becomes whether or not the two hundred thirty-three home development is viable economically, a first assumption being that the price of the land is constant, about 22 million dollars dependent upon the entitlements. She pointed out that the December 28th KRM analysis of two hundred thirty-three dwellings assumed a sales price of $513,500, premium of $40,000, for an average 1988-89 sales price of $553,500 for a 2,864 square foot home, or $193.26 per .square foot, a price she felt to be conservative, and cited the selling and square footage price of several thirty year old homes on the Hill ranging between $290,000 and $550,000, or $189.66 to $229.52 per square foot, without the security and premium of a gated community, views, and proximity to a golf course. Councilmember Risner concluded that there is an attempt to create a land use plan that the community can support, that is profitable for the developer, and provide the benefits to the city that have been expressed during the hearing process. She suggested that serious consideration be given to Scenario 3.2, a development of two hundred thirty-three single family homes, wetlands, Gum Grove, and golf course. Councilmember Wilson expressed the difficulty of this issue in trying, to. strike a balance between emotion, reality, and shared interests while keeping in mind the oath to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of everyone and do what is best for this City. Mrs. Wilson stated she favors the present plan with reasonable changes that have been I I I . : 1-3-89 I suggested through the public hearing process to date, such as elimination of sixty condominiums by combining the six hundred square foot units into twelve hundred square foot units. She expressed her felling that eliminating the condos altogether and building more than four hundred single family, three car garage dwellings would not create an improvement in projected traffic, and would result in up to 1,575 more persons while the present plan of six hundred condos and one hundred thirteen homes results in only 1,476, those figures based upon 3.5 persons per single family dwelling and 1.8 per condo. Mrs. Wilson noted it has been suggested that a percentage of affordable housing should be incorporated in the plan, and pointed out the urgent need for such housing, particularly in Orange County. Councilmember Wilson expressed her feeling that there is a need to show concern for the housing needs of the average citizen by providing housing in this community, as much concern as is shown for the wildlife where, in Seal Beach there is over one thousand acres of National Wildlife Refuge located on the Naval Weapons Station, a healthy salt marsh with strong tidal flow. Mrs. Wilson questioned the attitude of those who have said the City does not need the type of resident the condos would bring. She stated that if the Hellman property is' retained as it currently exists it would be necessary for the City or someone to purchase it at the fair market value, projected at approximately 22 mi11ion dollars', and if restored as wetlands it would be fenced and inaccessible to the public, and noted that the City has 'not even had the capability to maintain Gum Grove Park as it was to have been under the terms of it's lease. She stated her concern with allowing the one hundred forty-nine acres, much of which is developable land, to be taken by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as mitigation so they can develop landfill into twenty-four' acres of docks. She acknowledged that that development is important to them, however stated that Seal Beach is in need of the revenue that will be generated by the Mola development to balance the City's budget instead of adding taxes 'and fees' to cover 'the annual expense of services that the citizens demand. She noted the estimated $890,000 annual revenue from the project would enable the City to accomplish needed projects such as the groin repair, sand replenishment on the beach, and improvements to the Zoeter site. Councilmember Wilson expressed the desire to preserve the area for the future of the children, yet questioned the message being sent to those children through the conduct demonstrated over this issue, outside of the appropriate rules and procedures that are to be abided by for meetings 'and public testimony. She added it appeared the children have the impression that Gum Grove Park would be eliminated rather than restored and maintained, with additional acreage to be made available and devoted to recreational use. She also referred to the destructive treatment of the Hellman land and its' habitat as inexcusable, 'which continues despite the no trespassing signs placed by the land owner. Councilmember Wilson expressed her respect for the public testimony, letters and phone calls in opposition to this issue, however also noted 'her respect for the opinions of those who own property and live adjacent to the subject site and have expressed objection to conditions of the area as they exist. She said what is now a fire hazard and undesirable 'conditions could be a landscaped green area with waterways and seventy percent open space, as opposed to a single family development of only forty percent open space. Mrs. Wilson stated she did not feel transfer of ownership of Gum Grove Park would be of benefit to the City, and cited the lack of funds and personnel to maintain that area over a number of years. She made reference to and read excerpts.from a I I 1-3-89 communication from a resident who objected to the manner in which signatures were obtained for the Support Gum Grove Park petition, stating there were assurances made to the signer that the petition would not be used to halt the Mola development of the Hellman property, yet it now appears that is the intent, the letter further expressing support for the Mola development as well as Gum Grove Park with no opinion I as to it's size, also in support' of the golf course and various housing opportunities. She noted this was one of many similar communications received. Councilmember Wilson concluded that rejecting the proposed plan could result in another lengthy delay of much needed improvements to this property as well as the revenue that would be realized by the City. Mayor Hunt commenced his remarks by stating that nothing in his previous life prepared him to make perfectly clear, logical and sound decisions on the issue being considered, yet he was inclined to believe that the other members of the Council and the interested members of the public were in the same position, also that he felt there to be room for the differences that have been felt and expressed during this consideration. Mr. Hunt stated that to him no development is not a possibility, the Hellman Ranch, including the 10.5 acre eucalyptus grove is private property, the Hellman's wishing to sell the land, which they have a right to do, thus consideration should proceed on the basis that they are entitled to that right and they will sell their land. He acknowledged his interest in the comments of the public and the members of the Council, however stated his greater interest lies with the reasons and justifications for the expressed wants and desires. He added that although it is I recognized that this development will bear on the life of everyone in the community, even more so on those in immed~ate proximity to the development, some special consideration should therefore be afforded to them, however stated ,that his intent will be to look at the entire community. Mayor Hunt said he felt it would be difficult to find valid reasons to oppose the condos with the understanding that sixty of the units would be combined for twelve hundred, square feet, and given the price that would be paid-for the condominium units, the argument that the condos would turn,into rented units-is not supported by fact. He added that a further concern to him is the mor-al aspect of eliminating the ,condos where all types of housing is needed and should be made available to people of,varied economic,status, noting that the era of purchasing a home with nothing down has ,long past. Mayor Hunt made reference to Gum Grove park, ,private land, owned by Hellman and under lease to the City for seventeen years., He noted that when it was leased there were grand-ideas of what the area was going to be, but they did not work. He acknowledged that there,are some people-who use Gum Grove regularly,for various reasons, ,yet a very small percentage of the community, therefore one must consider whether the number of people who reap the advantages is sufficient to justify the payment that the entire population pays for parks. Mr. Hunt I explained that, he ,sees Gum Grove as two pieces, the approximate five hundred ,tree eucalyptus grove located on a - steep hill, a small percentage of those trees healthy specimens, half dead or diseased, ,therefore-that portion is not very desirable to Mola because of its lack, of functional use for development, therefore they are willing to give, or sell for a-small price, this portion to the City. He added that,the balance of the Park, the open, unwooded area, is valuable,to the developer and recommended that in looking at City reguir-ements for Gum Grove Park he felt ,it must be looked at in terms of usage, and if the intent is to insist I I I , , 1-3-89 :- that the entire 10.4 acres be retained-rather than just the wooded area, the City will ultimately have to pay for that land and will lose the benefit in some other area. He noted that although Gum Grove has certain value-to, some Hill residents, he felt it important to take economics into consideration and to not demand space ,that would not have great utilization. With..regard to the wetlands issue"Mayor Hunt stated he would dismiss-without consideration,comments made relating to eminent domain, prescriptive rights, and other leg~l terms and tactics that have,been used by the wetlands enthusiasts, stating he has read the correspondence~ legal opinions, and spoken to ,persons at the Port regarding this issue. He advised that the City does have hired, paid staff to pr-ovide,expert, ,unbiased,. professional advice to assure that-the City is following reasoned and-legal procedure in dealing with the wetlands. He added it ,would be unreasonable-to believe that the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach would pay the price required to acquire the Hellman-Ranch and restore"it to wetlands. He explained that ,in the next thirty years, the Ports must .. restore .four square miles of wetland since they will b~ ' filling five square miles for docking area, and even though the Hellman Ranch as well as all other-sites along the coast are included on their ,list for potential restoration, he expressed his doubt that the Ports would-pay,$150,000 per acre to acquire,the land and an additional $60,000 per acre to restore the wetlands, or 500 million-dollars to satisfy their ,obligation. -Mayor Hunt noted it would, possibly be more advantageous and.less,costly for the-Po~ts,to_restore offshore. He said ,the fact that-the Hellman property is on their restoration,list.is irrelevant, and looking to them for ,a ,resolution would-not seem to be [ealistic. Mayor Hunt made reference to the high tate of tennis facility usage in the City, and noted the upcoming-loss-to the public of the three Zoeter courts. He cited the usage as making the need for tennis facilities very clea[ and--said that need can be fulfilled as part of the Hellman development, poss~bly four new courts, and if there is a development, he pledged-to work towards ,insuring that recreation benefit. Mr. Hunt stated whatever revenue is derived from a development is a function of density, the higher-the density the greater the revenue. In terms of balance,in the case of this development, he pointed out the-developer will pay . approximately 22 ,million, dollars for the--Iand, one,must then add the ,money that the developer must haye, plus the benefits the City may [equire, then offset that with . density, having to build more units if the City is going to make ,heavy demands ,of money--and/or benefits., He expresed his-feeling that the City could be less demanding-in.their requirements, so-long as the development is at least ,self- sufficient ,over a period of years. He stated he generally favored the inclusion,of the golf course ,in the,development, which would provide three hundred thousand hours or more of public recreation, the public desire evidenced by,their participation. He noted that golf is a growing activity, that the[e is a shortage of facilities in urban areas, that people in Seal Beach are being increasingly restricted from this recreation by the usage of such facilities in other communities. He also pointed out that golf is a.user fee activity which could be a revenue, source and a golf course is asthetically pleasing, therefore he felt it is a good investment and should be a requirement of the development. Making reference to the Scenario 3.2 mentioned by Councilmember Risner and the--alternative--anticipated-to be presented by Mola, Councilman Grgas requested that the consultant, Kotin, Regan & Mouchley, be invited to-address the 3.~ Scenario at this time, explain their findings and 1-3-89 recommendations, and what that Scenario would mean to the City and developer, which,may have a bearing,on,the Council's impreasion of the alternate plan of the Mola Corporation. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared at recess at 8:20,p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:32 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. Councilman Grgas again stated his request that the consultant address the 3.2 scenario prior to presentation of the Mola alternative. Discussion followed with regard to the Council's preferred order of presentations, further public-testimony, consultant presentation, or the Mola alternative. Mr. Thomas Jirovsky, Vice President, Kotin, Regan & Mouchley, ,advised he had prepared the financial analysis for the previous report presented by Mr. Mouchley, and that he was.recently,notified by the City Manager that ,the City would like an additional analysis prepared of a reduced yield on-the Scenario Three previously discussed, noting that it was indicated to them that the developer had advised only two hundred thirty-three ,detached single-family homes could be placed--on the site with the retention of the eighteen hole golf course, wetlands and the enlarged Gum Grove Park. Mr. Jirovsky stated he had prepared the supplemental analysis using the,same assumptions of ,the prior-analysis, average price of $443,000 plus an average premium of $40,000 per home. Under Scenario 3.1, which also assumed a nine percent annual inflation in housing prices, the internal rate of ' return dropped from 25 to 14 percent, and the profit margin dropped from l5 to 4 percent. He noted he was also asked to indicate what additional ,number of units or change of housing prices would be necessary to make Scenario Thr-ee economically attractive, reflected in Scenario 3.2. Mr. Jirovsky reported he calculated an average $70,000 price increase in current dollars was-needed to generate the sufficient profit margin and IRR to make the project viable in their opinion, and that the analysis also carried forth an assumption ,that prices would ,increase at a continued nine,percent per year. He advised they performed an additional analysis, Scenario 3.3, which retained the $553,500 average price, in, current dollars and assumed that no further inflation occurred, under that Scenario the IRR dropped to II.S percent and-the profit margin dropped to less than I percent, therefore the project is clearly not economically viable. Be explained ,it is not anticipated that housing prices will be flat for the next four years, no~ can they project, that they will increase nine percent from the current level. Mr. Jirovsky stated their general conclusion was that,Scenarios 3.1, ,3.2" and 3.3, all being the same basic scenario, are not economically viable given the risks ,that-would be facing the developer due to the dependence on future inflation, unless someone would be willing to guarantee the ave~age prices or make ,another type of subsidy. Councilmember Risner challenged the sameness of Scenarios 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 based-on the price of the homes, with 3.3 being the same as 3.2 but without the inflation rate, and stated-it seemed to ,be unrealistic to evaluate all of the-plans with a nine percent inflation rate, then the 3.2 plan that appears, that it may work with ,a pre-tax IRR of 32.2 percent and a profit-margin of 16.2 percent, she questioned the reasoning ,for Scenario--3.3 without an inflation rate, adding that she believed that if that situation were applied to, ,the other scenarios there would be the same, amount-of decrease in viability. Councilman Laszlo asked how many years the inflation rate is based upon. Mr. I I I 1-3-89 I Jirovsky responded until 1993 when-the project is sold out. Councilman Grgas referred to the question regarding the numbers due to"the deletion of ,the inflation,rate in Scenario-3.3, and expressed-his understanding-that that,was to show what the order of magnitude change could be if any given assumption were deemed to be invalid, in,other words in, assuming a $553,500 price is a reasonable number but if inflation fell short of the nine percent assumption, the developer's profit margin could go from 16.2 percent under Scenario 3 to potentially zero if the assumption is not realized. An alternative to that would be assumption of a 5 percent inflation rate ,and a sales price,of $553,500, and questioned if that is an economically viable number given the risks involved in this development, is it a number that the developer or the City could rely on as being an achievable number. Mr. Jirovsky again pointed out that they did not do,a market-study, and stated that in terms of what a developer can rely on, a-better-question is what his lender will rely-on, ,and that he felt the $553,500 can be shown to be..a-reasonable price based upon a,few recent sales, yet qualified his statement due to the rapid appreciation over-the past two years, explaining that lenders will not consider just a recent few sales and apply that to a large project,and continue to-inflate for the next five years given the recent economic expansion. He explained that,-Scenario- 3.3 was only ,meant -to show a range of probabilities and how sensitive the return to the developer is given reasonable changes in assumptions of sales price or inflation rate. Councilmember Risner referred to Scenario I, the proposed plan, showing an,IRR of 24.6 percent and 14.8 percent pre-tax profit margin, and questioned ~hat-the percentages would be if there were no inflation rate applied, suggesting that if the,inflation rate was deleted for Scenario 3, that effect should likewise be shown for each of the scenarios. Mr. Jirovsky responded that if no inflation were applied to Scenario I there would most, likely be a similar percentage drop,in the profit, margin, and,that the threshold return that the lender would look..for would consequently be ,reduced slightly-as well, if the ,inflation is removed, the threshold ,return would be lowered, possibly ' between IS to 20 percent for the IRR and 12 to":I:3-percent for, the pre-tax profit margin, conCluding that he would believe that Scenario I with no inflation applied would probably be at or below those thresholds. Councilmember Risner read a recent Los Angeles Times article and quotes of J. M. Peters, Orange County developer, relating to .continued inter-est of buyers in-acquiring a detached home...the norm-being five to six units per acre... the move-up market-continuing to be viable...luxury homes $750,000 and up small part-of market...a continued strong market and prices in 1989 with nine to ten percent appreciation rate-next year and thereafter...the demand for 35,000 homes annually in Orange County...with annual produ~tion of about 25,000...29 percent per square foot increase in the prices of, homes -over the past three years.. Mrs. Risner said she had ,been told by the Mola people that their single family development-in Huntington Beach sold for about $450,000 initially and are now selling for ,$750,000. The Mola representative clarified that those units are on the water with boat slips. Councilman Grgas referred to a November 8th news article reporting ~Orange,County average home prices decline 3.4 ,percent--in October from September's record high...analysts saying ,the decline signaling a cooling off per iod of,.California I s hottest housing market,. and an article of December 1st repor-ting .signs of the demand for lavish housing may be cooling...local builders may turn to small, less expensive units to stay at work...a slowdown of interest in houses placed for sale...the market I I 1-3-89 remaining strong but too early to tell if it will resume the furious pace it maintained for the most of this year,ft a quote of the president of the National Association of Homebuilders addressing a,Newport Beach meeting. Councilman Grgas noted for- every argument there is a counter and stated he wished to rely on the opinion,of the City's experts. Councilmember Risner countered that Mr. Peters is as expert a developer ,as can be found. Conversation continued with regard to selection of the financial analysis consultants, I the cost of their services, and consideration of the facts provided by KRM. Councilman Grgas asked Mr. Jirovsky for clarification of his comments regarding the economic ' viability of Scenario 3.2. Mr. Jirovsky responded that his statement was that the two hundred thirty-three unit single family detached housing project was not a viable alternative, explaining that you ,can ,not pick a price and project an inflation rate and deem,it is fact, stating that was his reasoning in using the, Scenario 3 and merely applying three ,different economic assumptions. He clarified further that ,he was not implying that Scenario 3.2 was not valid, but that the two hundred thirty-three units is not valid, since it is ,possible that 3.1, ,3.2 or 3.3 might occur, but ,given the range of those possibilities it is not economically viable. Mr.-Grgas asked if he would recommend a developer proceed with a two hundred thirty-three alternative., Mr. ,Jirovsky responded in the negative. Mayor Hunt,noted,that the key factor appears to be the selling price, recalling that $443,000 had been presented as an expert opinion of the average sales prices in the initial analysis. Mr. Jirovsky clarified that the $443,000 was an assumption used based upon the appraisal that was done in January 1988, and was not their firm's opinion of the selling price. With regard to the $553,500 sales price I reflected under Scenario 3.2, he clarified that ,figure was a result of analysis on their part,to determine what price was necessary to ,make ,that Scenario feasible. Mayor Hunt asked if KRM had an,estimate of sales prices-in 1988/89 dollars. Mr., Jirovsky advised they could not provide that figure since they had not conducted detailed market research of the specific product proposed. ,He added he-believed the apptaisal was valid as of the date it was prepared, noting that there has ,most likely been appreciation of the numbers contained in the appraisal up to the time it-was forwarded to ,theit firm. Mr. Jirovsky confirmed that he was comfortable, in using the $443,000 as a baseline number, that he felt it was reasonable, also satisfied with the nine percent7 explaining that he did not feel it appropr-iate to take the-peak of the market ,and inflate at nine percent ,from that point. ,He,clarified that the nine-percent represents their opinion of the long term average appreciation for this kind of product, a reasonable starting point, specific to housing and not cost of living. With regard to a reference to Scenario 3.2 and reflected square footage ,price of $193.26, Mr. Jirovsky explained, that different ,size ,houses will-reflect,different price ranges, the smaller the house, the higher the cost, and that $193.26 would not ,be considered unreasonable. ,Councilman Laszlo asked if,the calculations reflected the cost to build the golf course and I it's potential sale. Mr. Jirovsky advised that a cost to develop the golf course was included of approximately 4.5 million dollars, with a sale assumed at a-break even price. Councilman, Grgas noted that it has been rumored that the golf course could sell for about 12.5 million dollars and asked if that could ,be considered-a viable number. Mr. Jirovsky stated that based..upon an-economic consultants report that ,was done for,Mola, of which they received a, COPY7 the income stream for various years following opening was projected at about $500,000 which would indicate a value l-3-89 I range of 4 to 5 million dollars without substantial future inflation. He verified that the sale of the golf course was assumed as part of the cash flow revenues for the developer in Scenario 1, and the rate of return of 14.9 percent assumed the sale of the golf,course for 4.5 million. Mayor Hunt made ,reference to the,sales price of several single family residences-aIl-below $400,000, and,recalled a statement that the new units at Seal Beach Boulevard and Electric were sold for $600,000, reported that was a false statement and pursuant to the,agent those units..have not sold. Councilmember Risner questioned the financing methods considered under-Scenario, 3.2. Mr. Jirovsky reported that the IRR of 23.2 percent assumes all equity financing, and clarified that-they did an analysis assuming,a combination of debt and equity, for the calculation of the IRR they only measure-that as if it were, one-hundred percent equity. with regard to leverage financing, he stated that the IRR on the equity-will go up to, the extent--that the borrowing rate is less than the IRR"as an example, the interest rate for prime is substantially-less than 23 therefore the return on equity would go up, however stated that is not the issue because the threshold return they used of 25-percent-was the threshold for one hundred percent equity financing, and ,if 80 percent borrowing were assumed, the threshold would go up as well. I Councilmember Risner again requested-that the 3.2 Scenario be considered as something to explore further which would allow the community to have the things they have expressed, the gOlf,course, the Park, and 25 acre wetlands.--She stated that-rather than trying to find arguments as to why it will not work, asked ,the Council if they felt it could be explored with some modifications, a land use plan that may be workable"if not-two hundred thirty-three homes ,maybe add some townhomes as an alternative to six hundred condos. ' Councilman Grgas replied that he ,felt-that has been ,looked at, stating he too wanted the best plan for the community, a plan-where there will-be some assurance that it is going to be built, and-again made reference to the independent experts that were hired to evaluate the proposal and have reported their analysis to-the City. Councilmember Risner pointed out ,that the figures used in-the analysis were from an appraisal of nearly a year ago,-she also made reference to the current housing price market., Mr. Grgas noted several properties in Old Town for sale for more than a year at a price of $500,000 or more. ,He-stated,also that he felt most of the members of the Council ,understand that 3.2 is not a viable alternative, therefore-the, options ,are to consider the current plan or look at the alternative to be presented. ,Discussion continued. Mayor Hunt-stated he had indicated that if there were a possibility that two hundred thirty-three homes, one hundred thirteen on the presently proposed,single family site and one hundred twenty within the footprint of the condos, he would support it, however it appears that the probability of that is not great, therefore he would ,remain open to fu~ther analysis if that, is desired. Mr. Grgas referred to comments of Mr. Jirovsky where he stated that in order to assure that the developer receives reasonable rate of return he has to be guaranteed sales price, in other words, if you,want--the project you ,could subsidize the developer for the amount of-money-that he may not make if the-project doesn't succeed, a guarantee of the developer's return. Mrs. Risner responded,that you would never guarantee a--return'on investment,-however on Redevelopment Agency, projects such as this, if there are community desires and..tax increment producedy many Agencies do use the tax increment to assist in the,project area, , adding that she would be willing to use tax increment for I 1-3-89 Gum Grove,and other areas. Councilman Grgas asked if there would be a willingness to subsidize,public,imp~ovements to insure the developers rate of return and guarantee that the project will be built. Conversation continued. The majority of the,Council expressed their preference that the Mola Corporation pr-esent their alternative proposal, , prior to public testimony. Mr. Kirk Evans"Mola Development I Corporation, ,4699 Jamboree Road, Newpo~t Beach, stated that although he would like to respond to comments of the Council directly, he-did not feel this would be, an appropriate time since,the request was ,to only discuss the alternatives, and they would hold their responses until the ,rebuttal period. Mr. Evans asked that the,record reflect that they originally came..to the City in early,1986, thereafter ,a letter was sent out on City letterhead signed by Mrs. Risner with a brochure enclosed showing the development-plan proposed, that letter sent to every registered voter in Councilmembe~ Risner's district. Mr. Evans ~ead-the referenced letter that noticed an October 13,-1986 meeting to consider proposed plans for a public golf course ,and residential ,community for the Hellman property. Mr. Evans stated he ,wish to make it clear that this-was not a,developer-generated-plan, that the plan was put together after meeting with the Council representative and a number of organizations-in the community. Mr. Evans stated that throughout this latest process they-have been listening to the desires of the community and have attempted to put forth a plan-based upon public testimony, recognizing the concern r-egarding,Gum,Grove Park and preservation of the full 10.4 acres, the wetlands, ,pointing out that the policy of the State and Federal government is to not ,destroy ,the wetlands and wherever ,possible build around them, State, policy also calling, for acre for acre r-estoration of equal I value, recreation facilities and tennis courts, a 3.6 acre , community park provided with three tennis courts, tot lot, grass area, and a trail that would connect the park with Gum Grove, also addressing ,comments to the effect that condos, are not in keeping with the Seal Beach character. Mr. Evans described their alternate proposal as: a development of four hundred forty-nine homes with three car garages, forty-one percent open space, direct connection from Regency to Pacific Coast ,Highway, ,a public street thoroughfare off of Seal Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway, public streets, no security gates, Gum Grove Park would,be accessible-from Seal ,Beach-Boulevard where parking would be provided and from Avalon where existing parking would continue, all of the wetlands ,in place in the area which they are presently located, which also includes those areas that certain people have said exists-on-site. ,He,again stated they have tried to accommodate public desires, however they can not accommodate those who desire no development. Mr. Evans made reference to the Scenario 3 from a land use standpoint only, and pointed out that the consultant did not prepare any plans for this site at the time two hundred ,thirty-three-homes were-proposed, ,that they simply took a one-hundred fifty acre parcel, deducted seventy-five acres to accommodate the golf course,-twenty acres for wetlands,-ten acres ,for Gum Grove Park, and the I acreage that was left, regardless of earthquake faults, liquefaction, and other constraints"multiplied that by six to arrive-at the,-density, what they did was to ,only put, togethe~ what was felt-could be done. Mr. Evans pointed out that the-golf course can not be shrunk ,any further, that they located as many single family homes as possible in the current condo area, that under this scenario Gum Grove continues-to be a reduced size, provides twenty-one acres of wetland, with some of the wetlands restoration as ,part of the golf course lakes, and provides for the driving range 1-3-89 I which is needed for ,the golf course to be viable. Mr. Evans stated they,felt the plan approved a-year ,ago was-viable, and if situations have changed and the community--no longer wishes the plan that was proposed, they have ,tried to develop a plan-to address the input of the community, thus the plan of four hundred forty-nine single family homes is being submitted for consideration. He stated this plan can work economically and if it is the desire of the Council, they would submit the application and ,look at the- environmental constraints ,of that plan,-and they would be willing to hold the original proposal in abeyance pending review of the-alternative. -With regard to--the scenario of two hundred thirty-three single family homes, Mr., Evans- stated they ran the numbers in the same manner as KRM, and determined that scenario is not financially or economically feasible, and to expect a developer to come up with 20 million dollars equity in a project is not realistic, the only way the two hundred thirty-three unit development would be considered is if the City were willing to subsidize that project. Mr. Evans,explained that a bank will look at what the dollars are today, they will not consider an inflated dollar value, the ,banking industry the determining factor of what can and can not be done, and it is their firm belief that with a two hundred thirty-three home scenario, there would be, a residual land value of somewhere ,around 10 million dollars which would requir-e--an infusion of approximately 12 million dollars over the term of,the project. In response to,Mr. Evans comments, Councilmember Risner again confirmed--she had written a letter early in this process and had requested the City to send the letter to each Hill resident which noticed and invited those persons to,the hearing on the proposed plan. -Mrs. Risner inquired if another plan could be processed while the current proposal is before the Council. --The ,City Attorney responded that although he did not believe the Council would want to consider a number of competing applications, project alternatives could be considered, under CEQA a ,requirement is-to look at-alternatives to-the project as,proposed. He explained that if during the course of the public hearings additional alternatives are proposed to be considered,-those could-be reviewed as-an alternative to the project proposed by the pending ' application and there could be further review and analysis of the project alternatives. He added that for any of the alternatives to take place, particularly,if there are fundamental changes to the project, an amendment to the Specific,Plan-would need to be done in,the concept of a project alternative review, also it would be necessary for the envi ronmental- consultant, retained by the,-Ci ty, to review the alternatives, as well as a staff analysis of the changes., He,-added that, ,a condition could be that all additional consulting-costs would be paid by the developer for..the Council to consider- alternatives, also if the developer provides an-appropriate extension on the pending application to-give-sufficient time to study the alternatives, the current proposal could be held in abeyance. Councilman Grgas inquired if the present plan is placed in abeyance and the alternatives are considered, would there be a requirement to go before the Planning Commission before being reviewed by the Council. Mr. Stepanicich--suggested that ,after the initiat analysis it could be brought ' back to the Council for initial review-and if the decision were to proceed with further review of an alternative, it would then be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation, noting that before amending the specific Plan the recommendation of the Commission would be required. -Councilman,Grgas referred to Mr. Evans statement that they believed the residual land value reduction over the life of the project would be I I 1-3-89 somewhere near 12 million ,dollars for a project of two- hundred thirty-three units, eighteen hole golf course and Gum Grove Park, pointed out that that is an accumulative number over- time ,and inquired, ,for negotiation purposes, what a reasonable discounted number would be in present day dollars, if there were a determination by the ,City to undertake certain ,public improvements that the developer would,otherwise be required-to provide. Mr. Jirovsky said he would tentatively not recommend that the city commit any more than 6,to 8 million dollars, however clarified that to be a very,inprecise figure and would depend on the discount rate and timing of the money ,they would otherwise spend. Councilmember Risner noted that to put 6 to 8 million dollars back into the project area over the life of the project and propose a scenario that would be acceptable to everyone in the City, it may be worth consideration. With regard to the 3.2 scenario, Mr. Ev~ns again explained that the consultant,did--not-do,any specific site planning in illustrating, that scenario, he merely took an average one hundred fifty acre parcel and subtracted the acreage for the various fixed uses. Mrs. Risner stated that if the Council were ,to look at Scenario 3.2, placing the single family homes in the ,footprint of the condos, and if there were consideration of allocating tax increment to benefit the project area, she would want to see a lo.4 acre Gum Grove Park. Mr. Evans recalled a number of people have criticized the golf course, and pointed out that the property is only so deep to be advocating ,the full Gum Grove Park,. Mrs. ' Risner stated possibly there could be some negotiation on the acreage to establish a reasonable amount acceptable to the, community. Mr. Evans clarified that the restrictions on scenario 3.2 are the same as exist ,on the ,current plan,with regard to Gum, Grove Park., Mr. Evans again-confirmed their offer to place the current application in abeyance and commence process of the four hundred forty-nine unit proposal, -and in order to expedite the process, they ,would go on record at this time that ,if the Council,chooses to look at that plan, they would-agree to start ,a supplemental EIR as soon as the City retains the-consultant, at their expense., Mayor Hunt ,asked if they would be willing to,look at the two hundred thirty-three unit scenario in the same manner. Mr. Evans replied that not knowing what the City's feelings are with regard to an economic subsidy, their answer would be no as it is felt it would be a waste of money, and the City's consultant has confirmed that it is not an economically viable project without a subsidy. He stated the scenario 3.2is not significantly different when it comes to the environmental constraints that many people have expressed their-opposition to, merely replacing the environmental constraints by one benefit, ,deleting the condos, which some people are supportive of, and if -this plan were in the process, given the opposition regarding- wetlands, ,Gum ,Grove Park, etc.,-they would be concerned with an expenditure for this application unless it is known that the-City is supportive of a subsidy for scenario 3.2. Mr. Evans pointed out that the entire development is-not within the, Redevelopment Agency Project Area, and in scenario 3.2 only one hundred twenty homes would-be in-the ,area from which tax increment is derived. Councilman Grgas suggested that the Council be queried, if-there would be-a willingness to subsidize the two hundred-thirty-three unit project. Councilmember Risner stated she felt there should-be,some consideration of modification to the proposals that are being brought forth, and to her would necessitate that Gum Grove Park be larger than ,4.7 ,or 6.8 acres, and expressed her willingness to-explore the use-of ,tax, increment to make the Scenario 3.2 development viable, however she could not commit to an amount. Councilmember Risner suggested that if I I I 1-3-89 I the ,projected profit is not as great, from ,a-reduced project, possibly the cost of the land from Hellman would also be reduced. Mr. Evans confirmed that regardless of the project, the land, costs, will not change. ,Mr. Evans made reference-to the existing General Plan for the Hellman property,which, since the early 1980's allows for a thousand units, and that he did not feel it was realistic to think, that if the,Mola,plan is-disposed of, and-the option allowed to lapse, then the Hellman's could sell the property for less money. He stated-that would not happen. Mrs. Risner asked if Mr. Evans concurred that zoning determines the cost of the land. Mr. ,Evans replied ,he would-agree that the cost of the land..is based on, the, zoning that presently exists, which allows,one thousand units on one hundred ten acres. Mr. Evans referred to the current application and ' acknowledged their willingness to reduce the six hundred sixty condo units to six hundred and make them twelve hundred square ,feet if that is -more acceptable, and stated further that the third story could not,be removed from the condominium structures, if it were it would have to be placed elsewhere, and clarified that the current condo proposal is for one hundred twenty units of six hundred square feet which would be combined for larger square footage. Councilman Grgas stated he was not opposed to Scenario 3.2 and was prepared to look at it further, however it should be understood-that it may cost money to implement that alternative. He said he would like to see the City Council move in the direction of sending back the four hundred forty-nine and two hundred thirty-three proposals for processing as alternatives, which in turn would mean it would be necessary to authorize-the staff to engage consultants to negotiate some number that would,be acceptable to Mola Corporation as ,a subsidy to make scenario 3.2 viable, assuming,all else were to fall into place, including a larger Gum Grove Park, also engage consultants to prepare a ,supplemental EIR"evaluate the impacts ,of the proposals, then the Council could consider and evaluate all three options. Mr. Evans stated if that is the desire of the council, to do a supplemental EIR there must be, alternatives, and they would have no ,objection to having a supplemental EIR prepared for the four hundred forty-nine proposal, with the alternative of the-other plan as well, so that any environmental document will address all aspects, which he felt would take no more than ninety days to complete. With regard to the wetlands, he offered that if anyone ,wished to-hear from their wetlands expert, who has been conferring with the Fish and Game and U. S. Wildlife, he was present in the audience and available to make a presentation as to what ,presently exists on the site and how he intends to prepare-the restoration plan. Mayor Hunt stated,that rather, than-considering whether to send one or both of the plans back for processing during this meeting, it,would be his preference to schedule this matter for the next meeting and make a dec~sion at that time. Councilman..Laszlo suggested a fourth alternative in relation to the Scenario 3.2 of possibly-one or two condo pads and other similar alternative housing, stating that the plan he believed to be preferred will require a subsidy, and in that regard he would anticipate there may be questions as to whether a subsidy would be through bonds-or straight revenues, also to what degree a subsidy would affect Redevelopment Agency and ,City revenues. Mayor Hunt suggested that at next meeting there could be consideration of having a mix,and single family-within the same footprint, which could be a desireable combination. Mr. Grgas stated that if there is a, desire to provide affordable housing opportunities on the site, possibly there could be a mix I I 1-3-89 somewhere in Scenario 3.2 of single family and air space development, that his preference would be town homes rather than stacked condos if, it were possible, affordable from a standpoint of providing a range of opportunities, not necessarily a subsidized housing. Mayor Hunt noted a mixed development as Mr. Laszlo-suggested could possibly, result in a lesser subsidy. Mr. Evans stated his initial reaction would be that there is much more value to a single family detached home than a condo given the five to six units per acre of single family development, and to go to a townhome style would most likely be about ten units per acre. Noting the element of time, he asked that when this is again considered in two weeks if staff could be directed to compile a list of environmental consultants for selection at that time. Mr. Knight advised that although the EIR . consultant, Michael Brandman & Associates, has the base data, LSA has done most of the significant wetlands analysis. Councilmember Risner indicated her preference of MBA since LSA is performing work for Mola. Mr. Evans noted that MBA has also done work for them, and that a great deal of criticism during this process has been directed towards the MBA prepared environmental report. With regard to considering plans at the next meeting that may-be alternatively processed, the City Manager stated it should--be understood that if there are alternatives referred back to the ,Planning Commission, present staff would not-be able to accomplish this process in a timely manner without supplemental personnel or assistance of consultants. The, City Attorney suggested it may be h~lpful to provide a staff report setting forth the exact procedures that would take place over the next few months, and offered to assist the Development Services Director in that r,egard. Mr. Nelson noted also that he had not heard agreement by the developer to assume the cost of the City's negotiator to determine a subsidy amount, which will require expert assistance. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared a recess at 10:04 p.m. The Council ,reconvened at 10:18 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling ,the meeting to order. It was the consensus of the Council to conclude the public hearing by 11:30 p.m. with a goal of concluding the meeting by midnight. I I Mayor Hunt declared the public testimony portion of the hearing on this item open., The-City Clerk reported the Council had been provided with a packet of ten communications received during and since the December 5th meeting, also copies of the various petitions received at that meeting, a letter from Mola Development Corporation dated December 9th regarding the LSA wetlands draft map, a communication from the City of Huntington Beach authored by the Mayor ProTem in support of Mola developments in that community, the supplemental report and-amendment thereto from KRM, and a letter submitted by Councilman Grgas at this meeting from a resident expressing support of the project, specifically the condominium development as affordable housing. The City Manager advised there were no additions I to the staff report at this time. 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 r-ecord. Mr. Riley Forsythe, 523 Riviera Drive, quoted a section of the California Coastal Act and stated that, the Council, as opposed to other agencies, has the power and opportunity to designate as many acres as wetlands on the Hellman property as they choose. -Mr. Forsythe made reference to provisions of a draft wetlands 1-3-89 I guide received from the National Wildlife Federation, and submitted same for the ,record. He said rezoning of this property would increase its value to the point ,where the possibility of acquisition by an entity such as the Port ,of Long Beach may be ,an impossibility, and that the wetlands and park acreage issue must be established before a development is even considered. Mr. Forsythe added that the development ,proposed will fur-ther increase the City's financial problems by at least $21,OOO per year. He questioned the construction,of condos ,on land that has an active,fault line and liquefaction problems, read an excerpt from,the most recent Time-Magazine regarding the Armenian earthquake and alleged compatable land conditions existing at, the location of that earthquake with those on the Hellman property. Mr. Forsythe stated his opinion that it does not make sense to approve a project that has so many adverse impacts-on the City, environmentally and financially, in addition to the public opposition. Ms. Sara Jones, 214 - 17th..Street, s,aid she was in attendance to express her opposition..to the proposed project, however spoke favorably of the possible alternatives that may be more acceptable, and commended Mola Development for seeking direction from the Council and for addressing some of the expressed public concerns. Ms. Jones stated her opposition,to,the present plan was based upon traffic and the, size of the condo units, and although affordable , housing is important, increasing the transient population would be a distinct possibility. She stated that although she felt the property will be ' developed, the nature of the development and mix should be the important issue. Ms. Jones asked that serious consideration be given to access onto Westminster Boulevard as a condition of the development. Mr. Bill Morris, 1729 Crestview Avenue, expressed support for the apparent direction of the Council to reduce the number and increase the size of the condominium units. He stated a thirty foot wide,grove does not constitute a,park and would be of no benefit to the Hill residents, that a passive park of greater,acreage is needed. In reference to alternative plans that may be given further study, Mr. Morris suggested that they be used as a basis and that a planning firm be retained to refine them for ,the most-efficient proposal, noting that the Park acreage continues to be reduced under the 3.2 scenario. Mr. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, member of the Save Gum Grove Park Group,-stated they want the entire Gum Grove Park preserved so they can restore and maintain it., He advised their group did retain an attorney, Mr. Ray Gorman, and proceeded to review Mr. Gorman's background and experiences with regard to the California Coastal Commission, Coastal Act, California Environmental Quality Act, federal coastal laws, State planning and zoning law, and matters of litigation and negotiation. Mr. Voce made reference to a November 7th letter from Mr. Gorman addressed to Mayor Hunt and the City Council and read a number- of excerpts from the eighteen page communication relating to the Gum Grove Park and wetlands issues. Mr. Voce concluded that pr-ior to the--time any..development on the Hellman site can be considered the park and wetlands concerns must be resolved. ,Ms.-Soretta Fielding, Seal Beach BOUlevard, recalled sometime back the desire of everyone was to secure as much open space as possible in conjunction with this development, and stated that through the discussions it appears the open space ,is directed only to a certain segment of the population of the community, and asked the Council to consider that-whatever open space is determined that it be left as such for people of all ages to enjoy and never subject to development. I I. 1-3-89 Ms. Maria Dahlman, 1724 Crestview Avenue, stated her opposition to the Mola proposal with regard to the,size and number of condos, traffic, and loss of Gum Grove Park. She spoke-favorably of considering alternatives, and said the wetlands issue should be resolved before going forward. Ms. Dahlman questioned the logic of losing Gum Grove,Park and in turn purchasing and developing a five acre site-for recreation with Quimby monies, a ,site she said was undesireable,due to location, surroundings, noise, and potential danger to children given-the proximity to the oil wells.- She suggested that the homes, condos or portion of the golf course,be located in that area, reinstate the acreage of the wilderness park area ,with the five acres, and develop a tot lot nea~ the Gum Grove. Mr. Keith,Sneedon, 302 - 15th Street, questioned the democracy of the processing of this issue. He suggested that all plans be rejected, and then the desires of the people be sought to determine what may be acceptable, ,starting with exact determinations for wetlands and Gum Grove Park. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, ,stated-there was,no reason for the City Council to approve six hundred square foot condo units ,for the project when,it has previously been determined such size to be too small for a rental unit. She compared the condo development with Marina Pacifica of five hundred seventy-two, three-story units, the proposed development having a-density not desireable for,Seal Beach. Ms. Morton distributed a map and portions of the Hellman Specific Plan to the Council. She expressed her opinion that before any development is considered the City should look to the future, establish a plan for the thirty-eight developable acres of the remaining seventy-eight on the Hellman site, and stated that she mentioned this because it appears attitudes regarding long standing goals are changing, Gum Grove Park and a future community park possibly only a dream., Ms. Morton stated that,by using the maximum development standard density-of,27.5 dwelling units per acre, there could be one thousand forty-five additional units built on the thirty-eight remaining acres or a total of over eighteen-hundred on the Hellman site, and although this would be a worst case scenario it is a potential. She also cited the planned hotel at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway as also causing more density and traffic, and questioned if the City is going to high density because of the golf course and wetlands. Ms. Morton also made reference to policy plan sixteen contained in the draft Local Coastal Plan calling for the adopted Specific Plan for the Hellman Estate to ,be modified as necessary to preserve wetlands-on site. She suggested that--the pJ;oposed plan be denied and-that Mola return to Hellman for an adjustment of the price for the land that can not be built upon, as the City will not allow seven hundred seventy-three dwelling units on the,one hundred forty-nine acres. Ms. ,Morton said that the profit of the developer should not be a City - concern, where the lowest possible density and open space should. Discussion followed. The Development Services Director explained that one must look at the gross density of the project as the uses proposed for the site will continue with-the ,property, gross density, including the golf course, condos"etc., being 5.2 dwelling units, and net density, ,applied to a specific product or type, the condominiums net 27.5 dwelling units per acre maximum. He stated it would not be appropriate to say the remaining thirty-eight acres will have a gross density of 27.5 dwelling units per acre,..the proposal ,for that area is to remain oil extraction since the anticipated life of that use is a minimum of ,twenty-five year-s, and the basic accepted time line for an environmental impact repo~t is around twenty years and at the end of that use the applicant would I I I 1-3-89 I have to come to the City to amend the Specific Plan in accordance with a plan that may be prepared at that time. He explained ,that although a plan for the remaining acreage could be developed-with an applied density or use requirement, but whether that would be viable in twenty-five years or more would be highly speculative. Ms. Jane McCloud, 700 Balboa Drive, referred to her frequent use of the wilderness area during her eighteen year residency, stating that the Grove is not only trees of more than ninety years old, but also marshes and meadows, used and enjoyed by people of all ages. She said that although the trash and debris left on the site by some is inappropriate, her attention focuses on the beauty of the area and contact with the animals and plantlife. Ms. McCloud expressed her feeling that the reduction would result in a narrow buffer, an inadequate area for park, plants, animals, and people, with no privacy or contact with nature. She recommended that the Council continue to strive to save and maintain the current size and configuration of Gum Grove Park, that the access roads should remain for emergency and handicapped use and there should be routine police patrolling. She questioned whether- the park should be extended to Seal Beach Boulevard, specifically with, regard to safety from access. Ms., McCloud added that she felt it important to maintain the geographic continuity between the Park and wetlands as a total ecological system. She said she has not been in favor of the condos, too massive and an inappropriate design for the atmosphere of Seal Beach, stated her preference for single family homes and that the development should have minimum impact on traffic. Ms. McCloud stated she could utilize the golf course facility, however questioned the number of Seal Beach residents that would, and expressed concern regarding the proposed location for the baseball, tennis ,and tot lot facilities, suggesting an area closer to the Park. She added her feeling that ,any golf-course should be a quality facility, that there should be no golf course at the expense of ,Gum Grove park, and questioned whether it will even ,be built once the wetlands determination is concluded. Ms. McCloud said that the City should,not be responding to a developer's plan, the process should cease, and with citizen input the General, Plan and Redevelopment Plan should provide the guidelines for development. Ms. Alice Davis, 224 - 4th Street, stated-one of the reasons she purchased her home in Seal Beach ,seven years ago-was for the beach and Gum Grove Park, citing the importance to her of being near the-beach, nature, and open space. As a member of the Park Group she said they want to preserve the entir-e-park in its present configuration, and ,the manner in which it is proposed constitutes-no more than a buffer for the golf course. While aCknowledging the desire of many to play golf, she also cited the need for open space and parks by others, a golf course benefitting the golfer, a park benfitting anyone. She also made reference to Time Magazine, an article regarding the state of the earth. Ms. Davis asked that the Council save Gum Grove Park for the future of the City. Ms. Wendy Morris, 1729 Crestview Avenue, stated although alternatives are being proposed, the original plan remains under consideration, a plan she did not like, having too many faults and impacts on the quality of life in Seal Beach. ,Ms. Morris asked if a previously proposed compromise plan for other ,agencies or parties to buy and restore the wetlands and Gum Grove Park had been looked into. The City Manager advised that staff has researched all sources suggested, that there is,a potential for restoration monies, however no one is willing to pay the fair market rate for the land. Ms. Morris questioned how the market rate could I I 1-3-89 be so high if the land can not be built upon., Councilman Grgas explained that Mola Development would be buying one hundred forty-nine acres, that Hellman would not consider selling him only those parcels that are developable and then give the remainder to the City, where it is more likely Hellman would close off the Park ,and allow the area to further deteriorate. He added that the question may be whether therce are-agencies that would assist the development I by acquiring the wetlands or thrcough subsidy of the infrastructure improvements, which is suggested by the 3.2 scenario. Ms. Morris presented her, statement and elaborated on the reasons she believed the plan proposed was not the best for the City, her specific objections being the elimination of Gum Grove as a park, the size and number of condos, her preference being total 'deletion,-and the extension of a nature trail to--Seal Beach Boulevard. Living in the area adjacent to the proposed extension, Ms. Morris referred to and submitted a petition signed by-nine of eleven neighbors also opposing the extension, which would allow-a public access trail from Seal Beach Boulevard however would not allow for regular access by police patrol. Ms. Morris asked if police and fire departments ,had been consulted regarding access and potential problems resulting from such access. The City-Manager responded that discussions have been held with regard to vehicular access for patrols and emergency situations with a number of solutions considered,-that specific details and issues such as those referred to will be addressed ,as conditions of the map when it is considered, and noted the one hundred nine conditions already imposed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Morris stressed that she did not want an extended trail system without police--access. Ms. Morris expressed her concern with noise levels that will affect residences I adjacent to the oil production on the site ,as well as the proposed,additional five acres for recreation use. Ms. Morris questioned how the lake system pumps are to be powered, who would be responsible for liability in the case of an earthquake given ,the fault and liquefaction elements, and the provision for restricting erratic golf balls from backyards, proposed in the EIR through netting or the planting-of trees that will take-a number of years to be effective. She-stated there-is a need to reduce traffic, noise from McGaugh School classrooms either by'a sound wall or air conditioning as a condition. She also expressed concern with the First Street connector road and traffic impacts at-Westminster and Pacific Coast Highway, and the proposal that the City would be responsible for one-half of the cost of that roadway,construction. Mr. Knight responded that the pumps for the lake system would be electrically operated, and the City ,Attorney added that the geologic conditions of the property would be required to be disclosed at--the time of the sale of the units and would be the ' responsibility of the developer. Ms. Morris stated concern with drainage easements from the yards-of existing residences--onto the Hellman property, and noted the lack of response to her wr itten comments to, ,the EIR regarding same. The City Manager advised that in reviewing the grading,plans staff will need to consider existing law, regarding natural I course drainage of property, existing easements-determined, and if no easement exists, therce,are laws that would-apply to the downhill properties. With regard to the First Street connecting road,and the initial understanding that no westbound turn would be allowed onto Westminster Boulevard, the City Engineer ,explained that,this roadway-would connect approximately five hundred feet from the Island Village existing signal, and through discussions with the City-of Long Beach it has been agreed that the additional signal could be located within that distance and that the signals 1-3-89 I would be interconnected, and confirmed that the intersection at Pacific Coast Highway would allow both right and left turns. With regard to costs, Councilman Grgas ,explained that the developer ,can not be required to provide more than his contributory share-of the traffic impact, and that the City's ,share of the roadway costs could-come from the tax increment from the project. Staff further clarified-that the roadway would be ,one lane in each direction initally, an eighty foot right-of-way with a future ability for four lanes. ,Ms. Morris spoke for retaining the full size Gum Grove Park to, adjoin the wetlands, and questioned ,how any development could be considered until an actual acreage determination is made. I Mr. Rob Schonholtz, LSA Associates, reported their firm has made a number of examinations of the wetlands on the Hellman property"their determination being approximately 24 acres on the actual project site with some additional acreage outside the,project, the determination using the Coastal Commission wetland definition and following the methodologies used by DFG in 1980 and 1982. He reported Mr. Wright's mapping was-reviewed ,and unfortunately his -early comment that he had not perimetered the map has somehow been lost and ,the 35 acre figure has been accepted-as ,fact, explaining that their firm perimetered the map-and found 29.8, acres. He added that LSA has continued to do-further investigation of the area, that although the two mappings a~e 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 Hunt declared the joint public hearing continued until January 16th. With unanimous consent of the Council, ,Mayor Hunt declared a recess at 11:54 p.m. ..The Council-reconvened at midnight with Mayor Hunt 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 furthe~ 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 planes), 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 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. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3832 - ESTABLISHING REOUIREMENTS - TRAINING STANDARDS - PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS Resolution Number 3832 was presented to Council entitled -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING PENAL CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE I 1-3-89 SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS.n By unanimous,consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3832-was waived. Risner-moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3832 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3833 - COMPLETION - PROJECT NUMBER 570 - LAMPSON AVENUE OVERLAY Resolution Number 3833 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #570, LAMPSON AVENUE OVERLAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN BLAIR PAVING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF ,SEAL BEACH.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3833 was waived. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3833 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS_nNn THROUGH nSn Councilmember Risner requested Items npn, nRn and nSn removed from the Consent--Calendar, and Councilman Grgas requested Item nOn removed. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to approve the., recommended action, for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items np, 0, R, and S,. as presented. N. Approved regular demands numbered 72936 through 12967 in the amount of $411,765.78, and payroll demands numbered 33407 through 33567 in the amount of $l77,244.96 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. o. Bids were received until December 27, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. for diesel tank removal and conversion-of gaSOline tank from regular to diesel, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: I M. T. Walker Company $12,250.00 Awarded the bid to M. T. Walker Company as sole--bidder in the amount of $12,250.00 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson, None Motion carried ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM ,'!pn -.,AGREEMENT - EIGHTH STREET PARKIKNG LOT,AUTOMATION In response to Councilmember Risner, the City Manager I explained that the automated ,gate will allow the employees ' of the oil company, Sportfishing, and Ruby's to gain access to the parking lot during the hours when it is normally closed, and will not affect daily use by the,general public. Wilson moved, second by Risner7 to approve the installation of the automated parking system at the Eighth Street beach parking lot, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 1-3-89 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ITEM .0. -,REPORT - EISENHOWER PARK RENOVATION At the request of Councilman Grgas, the Council held this item over until the next meeting. ITEM .R. - ANNUAL ,FINANCIAL STATEMENT -- With regard to Councilmember Risner's question regarding the Zoeter property, the City Manager advised that no monies have been collected to date from the GemTel,lease-of the Zoeter frontage since the ter-ms of the lease had not yet been fully complied with, those terms relating to Southern California Gas and Southern California Edison Company easements, which are now being resolved. He noted that payments on the property will commence January 1st. ' Mr. Nelson also responded that a report will be-forthcoming to the Council regarding the Surfside Redevelopment Project Area and recommendations relative to its continued existence since Surfside has concluded payment for the indebtedness to the City for the revetment, although noting there may be a possibility of additional costs to,remove the revetment if so determined. Mr. Nelson noted that the Surfside Project Area was created for public purposes in,addition to the revetment wall, and confirmed that if there is no debt, there ,would be no..tax increment to the City, and if there were a new debt, he understood that the twenty percent setaside would come into effect.---He also reported-that based upon the advice-of the Redevelopment Agency attorney ther-e was previously no set aside required. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to receive and file the City of Seal Beach Annual Financial Statement for year ending June 30, 1988. I AYES: NOESl Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEM .S. - JULY 4th FIREWORKS SHOW, Councilmember Risner noted the increased cost over last year to participate in this activity,and--suggested that it be held over until the pre-budget workshop. The City Manager clarified that the request, is for $5,000, last year $3500, however..1f the Rossmoor Community Services District chooses to participate, the cost would be adjusted downward to approximately $3750. He added that this is only one of several small--funding requests, an issue that he wished to address during the preliminary budget discussion., Mayor Hunt-noted there was considerable participation at the fireworks display last year, and suggested that the District be contacted to inquire as,to their ,interest. The Public Works Director stated he felt continuing this ,matter until the next meeting would, be acceptable. -By unanimous consent, this item was continued until the January 16th meeting. I CITY COUNCIL ITEMS PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP It was the consensus of the Council to schedule the ,pre- budget workshop for Thursday, February 9th at 6:30 p.m. ARMED ,FORCES-RESERVE CENTER - CLOSURE LIST The City Manager noted the memorandum regarding the Armed Forces Reserve, ,Center and the fact that this Center was not on the list for closure, stating however that there have been comments-by some members of Congress that it ,should be or should be used for joint aviation. He added that it has been ,suggested through conversations that Councilman Laszlo has had with representatives of other cities that a joint effort should be made to formulate a plan of action should 1-3~89 it become necessary in the future. Councilman Laszlo reported Supervisor Wieder has scheduled a meeting in Leisure World for Saturday regarding the airport issue, also since the AFRC was not-on-the-closure list its 'mission should be safe for about another ten years. It was the consensus ,of the Council to appoint Councilman,Laszlo and Councilmember Risner to represent the City in a joint effort to develop a strategy to retain the Armed Forces Reserve I Center and its present military and disaster response missions. Councilmember Risner referred to comments made that the Housing Element of the General Plan requires twenty percent of the housing on the Hellman Ranch to be affordable, which she did not feel was a correct statement. She stated that neither the Housing Element of the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, nor State Redevelopment law makes such a requirement, however made reference to Health and Safety Code Section 33413 (b) (2) which she believed requires fifteen percent affordable housing when developed within a project area and when done by a private party, applicable to projects authorized on or after January I, 1975. She added that based upon the adoption of the Redevelopment Project Area in 1969 and last amended December 1975 it does not appear that the requirement applies to the Hellman property or to the Mola development. The City Attorney verified that under Redevelopment law there is no requirement for low to moderate income housing on that property. Mrs. Risner continued to present her statement, that Redevelopment law does make certain requirements on property tax increment income for,the benefit of providing housing for low and moderate families and persons and for projects formed prior to January I, 1986, where there originally was not a I requirement of the twenty percent housing aside, later the twenty percent ,was ,required only if the debt service requirements then outstanding did not permi~ the setaside where certain findings could be--made that,low and moderate income housing needs had been met. She said it seemed to be clear that as the increment increases the twenty percent housing setaside is required if the property tax increment is sufficient-to meet current debt service requirements, and added debt could not be undertaken to avoid the housing setaside. She cited an example of tax increment from a development on the Hellman property combined with the present tax increment, ,could then be subject to the full, twenty percent setaside. The City Attorney responded that approximately two years ago ,the ,City Council adopted the findings to address the requirement of the setaside, explaining that ther-e were a series of findings over and above the debt issue, and stated the manner in which that would apply in the-future to any tax increment generated by Mola is an issue that he would look into and report back. The City Manager clar-ified that previous reference had been made to one hundred units of-affordable housing, not twenty percent. ,Councilman Grgas questioned what other- area of the City ,would be available to place those one hundred units. Councilmember Risner- stated she felt the City's Housing Element is in need of updating, that revised SCAG I regulations should-be taken into consideration, adding that ' she did not want there to be confusion that these units must be on the Mola project., -The City Manager-noted that the Housing Element was adopted in ,1983 yet the five year period for revision commences with-the certification by the ,State, that date being July 1989, again pointing out that the Housing Element does require one hundred ,additional affordable units in the City,-and that the six to seven .hundred square foot condos,would have qualified to meet that requirement. Mrs. Risner recommended that consideration 1-3-89 needs to be given to the twenty percent setaside for low and moderate ,housing. Mr. Grgas asked that analysis of this issue should also address new State law that provides for a time frame for use of the setaside. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Beverly Casaras, Marvista Avenue,-made reference to the alternate plan submitted by the Mola Corporation and described it as being reasonable, single family homes, elimination of the condos, 10.4 acre Gum Grove park, wetlands, open space, a recreation area for tennis-courts and tot lot, and more importantly adequate parking for the residential units, a plan more compatible with the lifestyle of Seal Beach. She spoke favorably of public str-eets, an ungated area, and eliminating the need to subsidize the development, also stated her feeling that if there could not be an adquate size, first class golf course, it would be better to have none. She suggested that should there be acreage remaining, that may be a suitable location for some affordable housing, advised that she had heard that the developer will not be required to pay the premium price for the land on which he will not be able to build, and made reference to public participation provisions of the City,Charter. Mr. Galen Ambrose requested clarification of the procedures for the next meeting, noting that ,the Wetlands Society, now a non- profit corporation, had invited several-persons to this meeting to provide expert testimony, however they did-not have-the opportunity to speak. The Mayor and the City Manager explained that ,the intent is ,that a report would be forthcoming from the City Attorney with regard to procedures, a report from staff regarding the various alternatives and consideration of same by the Council, and a report-with regard to consulting services that may be necessary. The City Manager noted it may be necessary for the Council to refer-the alternative~s)-to the Planning Commission and/or other community reviewing bodies for their input. Discussion followed. The City Attorney clarified that discussion regarding the Hellman land is continuing to take place in the context of the public hearing, and explained that the Council would initially discuss the alternative(s), make a decision on ,the current application, determine whether the environmental analysis-would first come to the Council ,or be referred to the Planning Commission, and make a decision as to whether or not additional public testimony is desired. He clarified that since the public hearing is continued, any further discussion of the current plan or alternatives must be done in the context of that public hearing. Discussion continued. Mr. Wilton Wright indicated he wished to speak to the-wetlands consultant consideration. The City Attorney again advised that issue would be related to how a possible alternative may be dealt with and is within the confines of the public hearing, therefore recommended it would not be appropriate discussion at this time. Mr. Wright continued and stated he deals with a number of consulting firms throughout the County and that there seems to be a reluctance on the part of the proponent of this development to work with Michael Brandman & Associates. He noted the question has been whether ,they have the expertise, reported the past association of the head of the MBA wetlands division, and stated that MBA--has probably done more in that line than any other company in the area. Mr. Wright said that ,the talk ar-ound the environmental consulting community is that the reason Michael Brandman & Associates are not presently working on this project is because MBA set forth what the Mola Company would have to do to the project to get it through, Mola disagreed, therefore hired someone else. I I 1-3-89 / 1-16-89 Councilman Grgas and the City Manager requested that Mr. Wright submit a verification of his statement in writing. Mr. Wright asked when there would be an opportunity to respond to the plan proposed and make requests as to what should be considered in a supplemental EIR. The City Attorney clarified that at the present time there is only one application before the City, and should the decision be made to consider alternatives, requiring a supplemental EIR, I that would be an appropriate time for input as to further considerations in that supplemental EIR. There being no further comments, Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adjourn the meeting at 1:07 a.m. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried Clerk and ex-o of Seal Beach Attest: I Seal Beach, California January 16, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:04 p.m. with Mayor ,Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ,Hunt Councilmembers Grgas, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson Absent: None Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services I' Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Chief Stearns, Police Department Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk ~ ,