Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-01-16 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 ~ , 1-16-89 I WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Grgas, 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 PRESENTATION Dr. Harry Strohmyer extended an invitation to the members of the City Council to attend the Seal Beach Rotary Club's first annual Valentines BaIlon February lIth at which time the members of the City Council ,would be honored. Dr. Strohmyer explained that the Ball will be a fund raising effort to support Rotary projects such as Polio Plus, Grafitti Off Day, and a planned future carnival. I PROCLAMATION By proclamation, Mayor Hunt recognized the Seal Beach Host Lions Club for their support and assistance to the people of Seal Beach for the past ,fifty years. On behalf of the Lions Club, Councilman Grgas expressed appreciation for the proclamation, announced the fiftieth anniversary party on Saturday, February 18th, and noted that the Seal Beach Club is recognized statewide for it's membership and accomplishments. CONTINUED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - HELLMAN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Hunt declared the continued/joint public hearing between the Redevelopment Agency-and the City Council open to consider Amendment No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Riverfront Redevelopment Project, and the combined public hearing of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach to consider amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment la-88, Land Use Element, General Plan Amendment lb-88, Open space/Conservation/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No. 86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13l98, and-Precise Plan 1-88 open. ' Mayor Hunt explained that at the January 3rd meeting staff had been directed to report to the Council on procedures to be followed with regard to the present application and to consider any alternative development proposals that may be considered viable, recommendations regarding consultants for a supplemental EIR, fiscal analysis, and physical planning if needed to facilitate consideration of any alternative, and recommendations with regard to financial resources to fund the consultant services. Mayor Hunt requested that the staff outline the procedures for conduct of this meeting and possible consideration of alternatives. Councilmember Risner asked if it-would be acceptable to the Council to take public testimony until approximately 8:00 p.m., including that of a group who had requested to make a twenty minute presentation, after which Council deliberations could commence. Discussion followed regarding the conduct of the meeting, past and present guidelines for public testimony. The Mayor advised of the length of time certain individuals and groups have testified to date. A majority of the council indicated their desire to commence with the reports of the staff and City Attorney. The City Attorney noted that pursuant to previous Council discussion, the primary purpose of this portion of the continued hearing was to decide whether or not to consider I 1-16-89 project alternatives. He pointed out that the Council may consider one or more alternatives or variations thereof which could be referred for further evaluation, and if that were the desire, a continuance, agreed to by the developer, would be required, otherwise it would be necessary to take action on the pending application. Mr. Stepanicich suggested that the first consideration would be to determine the alternatives that ,would be desirable for further review, I that dependent upon the degree of changes proposed by the alternative(s)-a supplement to the-Environmental Impact Report would most likely be necessary to fully address the potential impacts of the alternative(s), thereafter the supplemental EIR, the financial and physical analysis would be brought back to the Council ,for a decision and possibly further amendment to the existing Specific Plan, initiated by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for its report. He added that at that time it would be necessary for the developer ,to either consent to the amendment or an action on the pending application would need to be taken by the Council. With regard to public testimony, the City Attorney advised that after considering the alternatives, it would be within the discretion of the Council to continue the public hearing until such time as the reports on the alternatives are again before the Council, however if the decision is to not pursue project alternatives,--the public ,hearing on the pending application would continue and an action required no later than the last day of this month. Mr. Stepanicich noted Amendment Number Four to the Redevelopment Plan consists of two components, the Hellman Ranch property and the Department of Water and Power property, and it had been suggested by staff that if the Council determined to continue the public hearing on the I current application and review alternatives, that it may be advisable to take an action on the Department of ' Water and Power portion of the amendment, a decision within,the options of the Council. He clarified that if it were the desire to also amend the Redevelopment Plan with regard to the Hellman property at this time, that could be done, explaining that no development could take place on the site until there is an approved tentative tract map for that property, and although the current application,provides for amendments to the Specific Plan regarding the wetlands issue, there could be no-action taken on the tentative map until the Specific Plan wetlands issue is-resolved. In response to Council, the City Attorney explained that if the developer agrees to an extension to study alternatives and after such studies the Council's preference is a specific alternative over the current application, yet the developer does not want to pursue the alternative nor grant further extension to go through the Specific Plan amendment process, the Council at that time may need to take an action on the pending application, and noted that ,based upon discussion at the prior meeting ,it was felt the developer was willing to grant an extension--for further study. Councilmember Risner inquired if the developer would have a legal ground to force approval-of the tract map if Amendment Number Four relating to Hellman were approved. Mr. Stepanicich explained that I the Redevelopment Plan amendment is general in nature and ' makes reference to development standards in accordance with the adopted Specific Plan, however suggested that if there were concerns of the Council, an action on the Hellman portion of ,the amendment could be delayed until the alternatives are considered and resulting reports are again before the Council. He clarified that if the Council determined to take action on Amendment Number Four as a whole at this time, the public hearing on that aspect of this matter would need to be closed. 1-16-89 I The Director of ,Development-Services reported-that based upon discussions at ,the January 3rd ,meeting,,--three potential alternatives wer-e-suggested for ,consideration: -A) an al te r-na ti ve ' pr-esen ted .' by Mola Development", the. pr oj ect proponent, proposing,construction of approximately four hundr-ed forty-nine two-story, single ,family dwellings with an average lot size of fifty by one hundred feet, the ' existing -Gum Grove dedicated, ,to the, ,<<;:i ty, a new three acre neighborho~d park,--wetlands of.approximately thitty-five to forty-acres, and no golf course, B). an-alternative--used as a conceptual, scenario generated ,to perfor-m the ,financial analysis ,by KRM,and,Associates of ,approximately two -hundred thirty-three dwellings,,--eighteen - hole, public golf course, entire existing Gum Grove-Park,-approximately ,twenty-one to twenty-five acres--of,wetlands,-and,C)--an, alternative combining--a number, of ..single family--homes, ,with some multiple family,dwellings~ which could be accomplished ,by ,using the cutrent ,project ,proposal with--further -reduction of ,the, condominium units" ,or, ,by redesigning the, aU single family alternative ,with no gOlf,course, alternative -A-, to ,include some condominium units, ,possibly ,one-hundred. ,Mr. Knight cautioned -that of, ,the alternat-ives suggested, the ,number of dwelling units should not ,be ,considered as,fir-m,and that financial.. feasibility, would need to ,be--futther considered. The Director recommended-that an environmental, consultant be retained to ,perform, ,envi ronmental- analysis, ,in preparation of the supplemental Environmental ,Impact Report, a land use consultant ,that-,would, review plans OJ:: pI'oject -alternatives that may come- from--the Council" and a financial consultant to perform a ,financial analysis, and financial feasibility with ,regard to project ,viability and/or use of City subsidies.-- He stated ,that ,if--it is ,the intent to perform further-,review-in,an--expeditious manner, the firms having, the, ,best work-ing, ,knowledge--of this- site are Michael Brandman Associates who prepared-the EIR for the Amended-Hellman Specific Plan,-and LSA who--has prepared, the most ,extensive mateI'ial-with regard--to on-site--wetlands. ,He ,noted that concern, has been raised with-,regard- to Mola Development having--retained LSA, to work on the-,wetlands issue ,with the Corps ,of Engineer,s ,and Fish ,and Game,--and stated however that the ,staff does not-have a concern in, using LSA7 that they would be ,retained, and paid--foI' ,by the-City-from,funds deposited,-with, the ,City-by -the--project,proponent,--the environmental ,document also I'eceiv-ing a wide, range-of ,staff, public, and independent review. --,Mr. ,Knight reviewed ,three consultant -possibilities ,for consideration: ,A) retain MBA as the lead consultant - in prepar-ation, of- -the - supplemental EIR, with-a subcontract,to,LSA for--wetlands--analysis"B) retain MBA,as--sole, consultant to prepare the supplemental-EIR, and in ,this case,-MBA would either have ,to per-for-m the wetlands configuration--on theiI' own or-use--the work of..LSA as base data, which is, a customary -practice of EIR--consultants" ,or C) retain LSA-as,sole consultant to,pr-epare the ,supplemental EIR., , ,In response to -Councilman Laszlo" ,the Director ' reported the time frame for the supplemental-EIR preparation is estimated between-thirty and-forty-five days,-explaining that--the,land--plann-ing with-regared to--the--two hundred thirty-thI'ee,plan would--require-minimum--work,wher-e the four hundred forty-nine-alternative with-no golf ,course ,would be a,significantly different plan--and would, require ,more , extensive work, involving different,water-,configurations, flood ,control - analysis,,--etc. '" also- that, once, the supplemental work-is--completed-it will be forwarded for review by--public,agencies and the publ1c--fol."a--period 'of thirty days. "with regards--to how the ,two ,hundred thirty- three ,scenario was, conceived, 'Mr.--Knight-r-ecalled that KRM had used a,two--hundred seventy-eight ,illustrative ,scenario in their financial analysis, after which Mola Development I I 1-16-89 mentioned two hundred thirty-three as a possible viable number at that time... The City Manager explained that KRM was retained,to perform a ,feasibility ,analysis to the question,of profit generated ,to the ,developer ,from the current plan, and in -doing so the consultant projected other hypothetical scenarios, ,substituting ,single family for condominiums and dividing the gross area thus resulting in the figure of two ,hundr-ed seventy-eight" the developer then I indicated that ,scenario was not possible and in turn came back with ,the two hundred thirty-three scenario. Mr. Nelson rcecalled that during the same time period the Council had expressed an-opinion that the home pr-ices,were, based on year old figures ,and that-they ,werce,too lOW, therefore KRM percfor-med--further analysis using the original plan, developing the 5.l ,and, !3D ,scenarios, ,applying var-ious outside constraints such as varying, ,housing prices, nine percent annual appreciation rate"no appreciation rate, modified or-, -full ,Gum Gr-ove ,Park, wetlands -of var ious acr-eages, golf course or no golf course, etc."attempting to show how ,susceptible, the proposal is ,to, modification of the variations. He verified,that,a higher price figure was applied in certain instances ,as the,result of Council discussion in,an ,effort ,to come ,up with a project, that may be viable. Mayor Hunt again-questioned how..the two hundred thirty-three figure came about. Mrc. ,Kirk ,Evans, Mola Development, explained that,they-removed the condominiums from the ,cur~ent plan, replaced them with single family with no changes to the golf course, Gum,Grove--park,-or ,wetlands, accommodating..two hundred-thirty-three homes, ,this being an attempt,to-show,that two hundred seventy-eight homes, twenty-five acres of wetlands ,and ,ten ,acres-of Gum Grove Park would not--work, and--pointed--out that ,this evening a scenario of two hundred seven homes is also,presented for I information, and ,consideration. ,Mr.--Jirovsky,stated that when-he percformed the-updated analysis of the two hundred thirty-three units, he was, ,inforcmed, that ,Mola ,Development had said they could only provide ,that, number-of units and keep the golf-course and..he-mistakenly,thought they were able to incrcease Gum Grove to ten ,acres ,rather than the previous, acreage- ,of.. 4.7 or 6.8, noting ,however- ,that would have ,no bearing on..the,remainder,of,the information pr-ovided. -To a ,question of Councilman,Grgas, Mr. Jirovsky confirmed,that the $553,500,price figure was derived as a sensitivity, ,analysis ,as to ,what would be ,necessary for a reasonable--rcate of,return--to,the developer and achievable in current ,market, however- for the ,purpose ,of --the ,feasibility analysis ,he-was ,uncomfortable ,with,applying..the nine percent inflation, rate to, those-prices as he,felt the economic cycle is ,approaching a,plateau where ,one, should not expect continued high ,inflation in-home--prices--for the,next couple of --years, adding that-he would not recommend that the developer proceed ,with a development of only two ,hundred thirty-thrcee ,units or less, giving that as an optimistic case assumption,--without some, form of cost ,relief ,in ,the magnitude--of severcal,million dollars..., In response to a question of-Councilman Grgas,-the Development Ser-vices Director stated that in the current, plan approximately five I hundr,ed ,seventy of the--six hundred ,sixty condominiums ,and ' two ,or three -of, ,the-single family homes fall within the ' , Redevelopment-Project,Area, ,that, the ,fiscal impact analysis for the EIR was ,prepared based upon how many of the units would,-lie witbin--that-arcea, which resulted in,a tax, incrcement of approximately $989,000" ,He, explained that under..the ,present ,consider-at ion of two hundr,ed thirty-three single family homes, approximately-one hundred twenty would be within the ,Redevelopment Project boundaries and ,would generate about $600,000 per ,year ,at a,$500,000 sales price, with no inflation taken into consideration, for the period 1-16-89 1 of twenty-three ,years, ,or- support a four ,to six million dollar ,bond.- Mr. Jirovsky,concurred,with,Mr. Grgas' statement that with a two hundred, two unit--configuration there may barely ,be enough ,tax incr-ement ,to cover ,a ,subsidy of six to eight million, and with each unit reduction there is further,r-eduction of tax increment. - Councilmember Risner asked,the consultant if he ,felt the..other,scenarios would be affected in,the same ,manner, considering the nine percent inflation, rate applied to scenario 3.,2, if..there ,is not double ,digit appreciation over the next two years. Mr. Jirovsky replied that 3.2 with,-the nine..percent appreciation would ,be an optimistic scenario, his concetn being that prices were..increased to current ,market where..other scenar-ios reflect year, old--prices ,and the,nine-percent-may be,mor-e,reasonable. -Mr. ,Grgas.asked if it, is true-that the higher the, cost of the unit ,the ,greater the pr-ice and inflation sensitivity, as an example, if up to ten percent inflat!on were applied to a-mid-pr-iced unit, ,affordable for purchase, that may be mor-e appropriate than applying the same rate to a-$500,000--or $600,000-unit where the appreciation ,may be ,lower. Mr-. Jirovsky,said he felt that the appreciation ,rate-would pr-obably,be more--uniformly applied, ,explaining--that--in most - scenar-ios it was--fel t - that the appr-ec-iation -was considered, ,a - reasonable midpoint where price ,is now felt to, be reaching- ,a peak" and in looking back he,would now possibly--consider using ,a higher,price for analysis with a,reduced..inflation rate ,of-between three to four-percent, ,the outcome of which would be,somewher-e between scenarios ,3.2 and-3.3, and--below,the threshold return.' He--explained that-the,prices used for ,the original analysis -were ,taken from the-January-1988 appraisal, 'and based--upon his knowledge-of the-overall,matket he ,felt the prices would be approximately twenty..petcent--higher, today. Council commented..on reported statistics of, ,sales countywide during the, past--year, ,in-Seal Beach,..the,variable,selling prices,,-and rate of inflation.....Councilmember--Risner said she felt it, difficult to believe that-the original ,plan would be-marginally,viable,..and it would-be-interesting to apply..a twenty percent ,increase to--approximate what the selling ,price ,may-be ,in today~s ,market. Mr. Grgas,responded that ,even--if ,the ,prices- of Altemat-ive ,1 were--inflated by twenty -percent and a -low appreciation, ,rate were, applied, that would ,be-done ,under-,the assumption,of reducing, densi ties ,to acquite, more ,acreage for- ,Gum ,Grove--park, the golf-course"or--the wetlands, ,the,question--being what would actually-be gained.--,The r-epresentative-from POD-stated he felt most of ,the discussion was being..based-on,assumptions of ,appropriate densities, product ,mixes, how much land is available for ,development ,and under,what--conditions, and explained-that assumptions ,will ,affect-any-unit number outcome, and, cited as an example ,the two, hundred seventy- eight and-the two hundred, thirty-three--modification, ,either of which could be--achieved--by modifying-the assumptions only slightly, ,as to the amount ,of land, ,available ,or the, densi ties. -- ,He explained, -that in.. ordet to retain, the, full size ,Gum Gtove.Park--it-would be-necessary thtough land use planning to determine ,how ,many units would -be needed, ,how they couldube ,allocated, ,how the-product could be changed, how the ,constraints, of,the, site--would--be dealt with, and would ,involve complex-analysis-that-would-take ,a ,number- of months.-- With-regard to developing ,a workable ,mix of housing units ,to replace the,three-story-stacked,condos, ,produce the necessary,tetur-n to--the--developer, -and provide between eight and ten ,acres ,of ,Gum Grove Park,-the..POD, representative hesitantly responded-that Alternative--6 of the..original analysis sets forth..a--product'mix..of,single-family attached, detached,-and condominiums under ,some assumptions regarding the-amount..of..land,avaUable, the product mix, and,that with such mix he ,felt it would be,difficult--to--retain the golf course and the park, and if the golf course were factored I .1 1-16-89 in, the number of units would be reduced considerably. He added that as a very pr-eliminaty estimate, if there were to be a golf course of-around,seventy-five acres, 10.4 acre park, twenty acres ,of ,wetland, ,and an approximate mix ratio of condos to townhouses to single family as envisioned by Ponderosa, ,he would guess possibly ,four ,hundred units on the site. He,emphasized that he was,not suggesting that such estimate ,would work, stressed that ,the, calculation did not take into consideration the physical factors of the I available land, and ,stated it is not professional practice to make such snap estimates. ,Mr. Knight clarified that the POD consultant was using the types of densities that had been ,proposed-by ponderosa. Again with regard-to average prices, and ,appreciation rates, Mr... Jirovsky ,explained that nine percent was felt ,to -be ,a ,reasonable number for long term average, in excess of ten years. With consensus of the--Council, ,Mayor Hunt declared a recess at-8:33 p.m. The,Council,r-econvened at 8:53 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. Whe..City,Manager noted ,the reference, being ,made ,to a number of statistics and-the..consultants having been asked to offer detetminations,that-are arbitrary ,and ,require complicated calculations~ ,citing as an example the discussion of housing mix. .. He -suggested that ,rather than fur,ther ,discussion of the variables of ,numbers, that consideration,be focused on the land..use, the current application, or alternatives that may ,be considered. ,Of Mr. ,Jirovsky, ,Mr. Nelson asked if ,the four hundred dwelling units wer-e ,considered and a product mix,wete cteated, would it ,be economically feasible. Mr. Jirovsky, responded..that the--first question ,would be what would compose the mix, if ,it were two hundr-ed ,single family, I one, ,hundred fifty -townhomes ,and -fifty condominiums it may be feasible, if the ,mix were one hundred, one hundred and two hundred, that would-most likely-not be feasible, with the question--remaining as to reasonable-size lots ,for single family and townhomes, ho~many,can actually be placed on that land. He offered-his opinion..that ,he ,did ,not feel there -could, -be, an adequate ,number ,of single family and townhomes to, make ,that scenario ,feasible, that dtopping from seven hundr-ed,plus units that is thought to be feasible, to fout hundred,would,not appear to be ,feasible unless the single ,family ,lot ,was consider-ably,smallet and the sales pr-ice-would not be affected to a great degree. Discussion continued. The--City-Manager again-utged that land use be the consideration, at ,this, time ,rathet,than,unverified and, confusing possibilities, noting that the Council has ,the option-of acting ,on ,the ,current plan, ,or consider the alternatives proposed-which in turn would be, teferred to staff, for, a supplemental ErR" ,f inancial analysis, etc. with recommendations coming ,back ,to ,the ,Council., Councilman Grgas,suggested that the ,alternatives ,recommended by staff for..further analysis be considered, ,the fout hundred forty- nine single family-dwelling alternative ,provided by Mala Development, -the ,two hundted thirty-three ,or ,now possibly I two ,hundred two ,single ,family dwelling -alternative with an eighteen hole ,golf ,course, ,full Gum ,Grove Park, and twenty to twenty-five ,acres, of wetlands, and, the-mixed use, alternative-comprised of,appr-oximately ~our,hundred,units, that-the staff be directed to provide-for ,the supplemental EIR and financial analysis ,and to-r-etain,the necessary consultants relating thereto, return that information to the Council for further,review-and-decision. -Councilmember Risner, ,noted her-- ,attempt -to - evaluate the- al ternati ves proposed to determine what would be acceptable to the 1-16-89 I public, Council, and the developer before referring an alternative for further- analysis, one consideration being the cost of such analysis, her understanding being that Mola would only pay the cost of evaluating the four hundred forty-nine plan. She expressed her feeling that if the City Council believes that the golf course can not be reduced in acreage and still be viable, and if the developer believes his profit is determined by density and can not explore an alternative to the condos without lessening the acreage for the golf course and shows no willingness to cut the condo footprint, then evaluation of other land uses seems to be futile. She made reference to the, original plan which proposed a one hundred ,five acre golf course and undetermined acreage for the Gum Grove ' and wetlands, noting there is now a range of estimated acreage for wetlands, also it is felt that some Park parking is necessary. Councilmember Risner stated the four hundred forty-nine plan, eliminating the golf course, appears to be the only alternative supported by the developer, although that plan will not be acceptable ,without major revisions, however if there were assurances that there would be a buffer zone for adjacent properties, the densities lowered, and a majority of the Council supported that alternative, some of her concerns would be eliminated, yet if there was not majority support to eliminate the golf course, further exploration of this plan would not-be warranted. Mrs. Risner made refe~ence to,the four,forty-nine diagram with regard to the referenced buffer area" suggested relocation of the street running through the project, possibly include some cul-de- sac areas, and elimination of some housing units, possibly in the location of the oil wells, bringing that alternative closer to four ' hundred units of single family, 3.6 acre neighborhood park with possibly four tennis courts, Gum Grove ,at 10.4,acres, 42.9 acres ,of wetlands, and no golf course. She added that the developer has said that placing the condos on the twenty-six ,acres with single family and/or other- housing mix will not work, yet she felt that alte~native worth evaluating, and in this case to accommodate the twenty-five acre wetlands the condos would need to be moved closer to First Street, and quite possibly reduce the condo footprint. Councilman Laszlo stated it was his impression that the Council would be looking to a development that would provide ,for wetlands, golf course and full-size Gum,Grove and that it appeared that could only be attained ,through the original proposal, yet the community is not supportive of ' that plan, and suggested that the four forty-nine alternative with thirty-five acres of wetlands and no golf course ,may be ,acceptable. Noting the lack of public input into the planning process for the Hellman plan, Mr. Laszlo suggested that the developer, with the citizens, and ,an independent mediator, could commence discussions to develop a new-plan for the subject property, a process similar ,to that for the Department of Water and Power site. Councilman Laszlo indicated he would support a ,golf course if it could be accommodated on,the site although it appears it can not, that four hundred units appears to be reasonable, and that he did not expect the other alternatives to prove economically viable. Councilmember Wilson stated she was opposed to subsidizing any plan, as well as further use of consultants, and that she felt the only workable plan was the original application, that it is viable, -eliminates the six hundred ,square foot condos, and adds five ,acres of additional recreation. Mrs. Wilson read several recently received letters which in part, supported the ,condominium units ,while objecting to the stacking, opposed all ,single family,units, supported private property rights, referred to the public hearing process as not meant to be a popularity contest but only a means to disclose I I ,- l-l6-89 opinions and concerns, more than fair ,share to be paid by developer and future residents, process the project expeditiously, etc. She also noted ,receipt of a letter from Huntington Beach Mayor pr,o Tem supporting the developer and his projects in that community. In response to Councilman Laszlo, the ,City Attorcney explained that in this case application has been made for a I tract map, General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and that the Council does have the discretion to,deny the amendments which in ,turn would allow the ,flexibility to-deny the application. He clarified that procedurally the Council is ,now at the point o~ deciding ,whether to review project alternatives, and if that is the decision then the application must be continued to allow such review. Mayor Hunt stated he ,was opposed to the four hundred forty-nine alternative even though it may bring greater revenue to the City, citing his reasons that the impact on traffic would be equal to or worse than the current proposal, a segment of the public would not be allowed the opportunity for affordable housing, that there would, be a long-term downturn effect on housing ,prices, ,significant loss of open space, and loss ,of the golf course and resulting recreation hours. Councilmember Risner indicated she would support the four forty-nine plan with the changes previously mentioned, and inquired if the developer had any,objection to her modifications. Mr., Evans stated-that if the majority of the Council chose ,to ,consider the four hundred forty-nine homes, they would ,want to meet with the residents of the Hill or any group to obtain some consensus regarding that plan, explaining that to modify that scenario at this time without consultant assistance, would be difficult. Mr. Evans indicated they could,support consideration of the four I forty-nine plan and pay for- the processing, noting however that that number is not firm, that the supplemental EIR would be based on that number and an alternative analysis in that document could include any other scenario that the City would want to look at and pay the cost of. Mr. Evans clarified that this plan provides for minimum five thousand square ,~oot lots, dwelling unit of fifty,feet in width with five foot ,sideyards, and a three car garage, and acknowledged that a mix of lot sizes could be looked at if that ,were desired. He again indicated their willingness to proceed ,with a single family alternative if the golf course alternative with fewer single family dwelling is not financially feasible, ,as has been stated it would not. Mrs. Risner asked if it were not within the jurisdiction of the Council to make modifications. to this scenario at this time if the developer is to pay for the cost of further analysis. The City Manager explained that if it is determined to further review the four forty-nine alternative, that would be considered the applicants alternative and the City would contend ,that the applicant would bear the cost of the supplemental EIR, however should the Council choose an alternative that the applicant does not agree to, that would be a City alternate and the City would bear costs related thereto, in addition, if a City alternate is chosen and is I not acceptable to the applicant and the applicant's alternate is not also chosen, the Council would need to take action on the current application by February 1st. The City Attorney verified that statement, and made reference to the previous meeting where an alter,native and a delay of the pending application was proposed by the applicant, which allows the possibility for consideration of other alternatives, one of which the developer must be willing to grant an extension on. ,He added that the Council can continue to consider alternatives on a conceptual rather than detailed basis at this time, that the consultants will 1-16-89 prepare the information with regard to the variations, thereafter all data will come back to the Council for further consideration and decision. Discussion continued. I Councilman Grgas moved that the four hundred forty-nine alternative be considered for further review, including supplemental environmental impact review, and staff analysis to determine the impacts of that alternative. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion with the understanding that variations will be considered. The City Attorney stated he believed the ,understanding ,was that there would ,be an analysis of what variations would be possible under the four forty-nine alternative. Councilman Grgas advised that it was his intent to only vote for this alternative at this time to allow for evaluation, and should the opinion be that a lesser number of dwelling units are possible, he would then ,give that option further consideration, that at this point he would defer the exact number of units to the staff and consultants given ,the environmental constraints and feasibility of project. Discussion continued. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Laszlo, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried I Council discussion continued with regard to considering alternatives of two hundred two ,and/or two hundred thirty- three units. Councilman Grgas asked if a majority of the Council were willing to consider a subsidy of the two hundred ,two alternative, and moved ,to consider that alternative which would include the entire Gum Grove Park, wetlands, ,and eighteen hole ,golf course in its' current configuration. Mr. Knight advised,that it could not be definitely ,stated at this time that the two hundred thirty- three alternative would allow for a-configuration of Gum Grove Park at ten acres ,of more, that ,the scenario developed by POD included those ' parameters however were unverified calculations, ,also that Mala submitted a two hundred two unit, plan that, was felt could be produced with all of the components ,provided, and,if,desired those scenarios could be looked at to determine exactly how many units could be accommodated with the ,Gum Grove, ,golf course and wetlands. Councilman Grgas pointed out that under either of these alternatives there is an implied subsidy requirement. The City Manager clarified that the only funds that would be available as a subsidy ,would the Redevelopment tax increment generated from this development. ,The City Attorney advised that the Council could determine the number of dwelling units that they would prefer to have studied further, whether it be two hundred two or two hundred thirty-three, however he would recommend the higher figure as it would allow for greater flexibility for the consultant to determine if it would fit on the site. Members of the Council continued ,to express their opinions as to how many units were felt could be placed on the project site. With regard to the cost for analysis ,of the two thirty-three scenario with a land planning component, Mr. Jirovsky stated the financial analysis would be in the area of two thousand dollars, and,Mr. Glover added that ,he did not feel it would be ,appropriate to estimate costs at this point not knowing the ,depth of analysis or scope of work. The Development Services Director suggested the cost could range from ten to twenty-five thousand given the background information that is already available. Councilman Grgas moved to analyze the two hundred thirty- three single family alternative with the eighteen hole golf course, attempt to ,preserve the entire Gum Grove park, and twenty-one to twenty-five acres of wetlands, with the I 1-16-89 understanding that the Council would be willing to accept a subsidy through Redevelopment Agency funds to achieve this alternative. In,response to Council, the City Manager explained that it appears there may be a shortfall for this alternative,somewhere between eight and seventeen million dollars, that it also appears that this plan may only generate four million dollars towards a subsidy. Mayor Hunt seconded the motion, and discussion continued. Councilman I Laszlo requested, if the motion is not approved, to be provided a report as to why this ,alternative is not feasible, he also objected to the City funding further studies or analysis. Councilmember Risner indicated she may be willing to consider this motion after considering the mixed use alternative, and stated that providing public improvements through the use of tax increment to benefit a project area would not be considered a subsidy. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas Hunt"Wilson Laszlo, Risner Motion failed Councilman Grgas moved to direct staff to evaluate the alternative combining,single family and multi-family dwellings, whatever ,the number may be, preserving the entire Gum Grove Park, as much wetlands as possible, with and without a ,golf course., There was no ,second to the motion. Councilmember Risner moved to evaluate an alternative that combines approximately four hundred single family units, townhouse units, and condos not to,exceed two stories, a golf course of approximately seventy-five acres, Gum Grove Park of approximately 10.4 acres, wetlands as close to twenty-five acres as possible. In,response to Council, Mr. Evans said ,he felt the current proposal is a mixed use I project with an ,eighteen hole golf course, the analysis determining that to be a marginally feasible plan, that if the density of that plan is ,reduced to increase Gum Grove and wetlands acreage the result would be similar to that of the two thirty-three alternative, ,thus they would find it difficult to justify an expenditure for such analysis. Mr. Evans added that they could most likely achieve a townhouse at twelve units per acre or around one hundred ninety such units, their analysis showing that that number with the one hundred thirteen single family units will not work economically and is not financable, somewhat less viable than ,the single family development due to the cost of the townhomes. ' Again with regard to associated costs for review of alternatives, the City Manager noted that one alternative has been referred, to which the developer has agreed to and will assume the costs, and if this scenario could be included in the ' scope of work as an alternative there would likely be minimal,cost, however if this sceanario were to create a much greater amount of analysis of alternative elements to the four forty-nine plan, there would be some additional ,costs, possibly up ,to ten thousand dollars. With regard to the golf course, the Development Services Director clarified ,that evaluation of a nine versus eighteen hole golf ,course would ,entail totally different design. Mr. I Grgas added that the ,consultant's report had deemed a nine hole course as not being a viable alternative. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner Wilson Motion carried With regard to continuing ,the public hearing, the City Attorney ,advised that ,at this time the Council could direct that certain consultants be retained ,and then continue the public hearing, also, since two alternative plans have been 1-16-89 I selected for further review and since no action will be taken on the alternatives or the application ,at this meeting, he suggested that as part of the environmental review process the City could hold public scoping sessions with the environmental consultant to gain further public input on the plans being reviewed. In response to the Council, he added that the Council could limit the number of sessions or the time duration thereof, and recommended that those sessions take place early in the process before the draft is actually prepared. He also advised that when the public hearing is continued the consent of the developer to do so will be necessary, and with the exception of the time needed by the consultants to complete their review, there would be no further time constraints at this time. I With regard to including the two thirty-three alternative and the related costs, the Director explained that since the majority of work will be accomplished under the four forty- nine scenario, it could most likely be reviewed at a minimal cost. The City Manager pointed out that the two thirty- three alternative included an implied subsidy from Redevelopment Agency tax increment which would require him to retain a financial consultant and an appraiser, that a market ,study would be required, and in turn will be confidential information to allow negotiation with the developer with regard to the amount of subsidy. In response to ,the Council, the Director explained that through the City's Specific Plan process there is a ,means for recovery of, monies expended relating to that ,Plan, including environmental work, ,on a prorata basis and usually at the time of building permit issuance. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared a recess at 10:30 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:44 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. I Councilman Grgas made reference to and read excerpts from a November II, 1988 letter from Assistant City Attorney William Strausz relating ,to the use of tax increment funds for groin improvements and sand replenishment. Councilmember Risner moved to include the two hundred thirty-three single family alternative for evaluation. She noted that there ,may be an implied need for Redevelopment Agency ,tax increment assistance..under this alternative, however the analysis will determine if that is so. At the request of Council, the City Manager restated the need under this alternative to engage the services of an environmental and financial consultant and an ,appraiser, the need for confidential information" and negotiation of a developer agreement. Discussion followed, and some members of the Council indicated they did not feel a subsidy would be acceptable, also,that if it is found through evaluation of the other alternatives, that the two thirty-three alternative may be feasible, ,it may be worthwhile to consider that scenario at ,a later date. Councilmember Risner asked that the staff be di(ected to retain an appraiser to evaluate and determine what the price of a home would be under the two thirty-three plan. The City Manager noted that a significant factor is the golf course, also the driving range, the- applicant--stating that without the driving range the golf course is not an ,economic entity. Mr. Evans (esponded to the Council that a report prepared several months ago compared an eighteen and.a nine hole golf course, set forth the anticipated income that would be derived from an eighteen hole course, that ,a nine hole course did not work, and that the golf course without a driving range had forty percent less income, also noting that the KRM analysis 1-16-89 showed the value of the golf course at about ,equal to what it would cost to build. Mrs. Risner again stated she wanted a firm sales price for the units under this scenario, and that she felt a home under the two thirty-three alternative would sell for more than under the other scenarios. Mr. Grgas noted that information would be forthcoming through the evaluation of the four forty-nine alternative, a sales price of comparable single family dwellings, size, quality, I etc., with and without golf course. Councilmember Risner restated her motion to retain a real estate appraiser to determine home ,prices under the two thirty-three alternative. Councilman Laszlo seconded the motion. Councilman Grgas moved a substitute motion that the analysis be conducted for no more than one thousand dollars and that KRM have an opportunity to review the analysis to determine that the sales prices are achievable. Mrs. Risner initially stated the..substitute motion was not acceptable, yet asked what the cost would be for a KRM review. Discussion continued. Mr. Jirovsky responded that the cost would be no more than a few hundred dollars. Councilman Laszlo seconded the substitute motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner Wilson Motion carried Mayor- Hunt ,outlined ,the actions yet to be taken, selection of consultants, ,continuation of the ,public hearing, possibly to May,lst, Redevelopment ,Plan as it ,relates to the Department of Water and Power property, time frame for scopiqg,sessions, noting a suggestion that they could occur concurrently with the Environment Quality Control Board meetings. I Councilman,Grgas moved that LSA be retained for the wetlands analysis and that MBA be retained as the lead consultant. Councilmember,Risner moved a substitute motion that MBA be retained as the sole consultant for preparation of the supplemental EIR. Considerable discussion followed., ,In response to a question of Council, the Director of Development Services stated that in his ,professional opinion to the Council, under both staff recommendations, retaining MBA with a subcontract to LSA for wetlands,analysis, or retaining MBA as the sole consultant, the consultant will be using LSA data, under the subcontracting arrangement they would be exchanging data, experts, ,and ,opinions, and with MBA being the sole consultant, ,they would be exchanging ,data, again explaining that in preparing EIR's any data that has been created is used. ,He said it is his understanding that LSA has been working ,on the wetlands issue for more than nine months, and in either ,case MBA must validate their information, that it is their reputation ,and responsiblity to do so, that consulting firms specialize in being as objective as possible under all circumstances, also that the staff is I retaining them with ,the assurance that they will produce an objective document ,that is legally defensible. He added that the time ,frame, for preparation would be similiar with either recommendation, and that the cost will be borne by the developer. Councilman Grgas restated his motion to retain,MBA with a subcontract to LSA. Mayor Hunt seconded the motion. 1-16-89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson Risner Laszlo Motion carried I Mr. Knight advised that it will be necessary to retain a land use consultant to develop the mixed use alternative and the financial analysis. The City Manager reported that Mr. Glover had informed him that POD would withdraw from consideration to provide land use services. The Director briefly reviewed the list,of land use planning consultants, and suggested that Pe~idian be deleted since they recently developed ,an alternate ,plan for Mola. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to authorize staff to select the land use planning consultant, based upon the scope of work, associated costs, and time frame. ,It was also suggested that it may be helpful if the consultant were to have some golf course experience. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I It was the consensus of the Council to retain the firm of KRM to conduct the financial analyses. The City Attorney noted that the next consideration could be the continuation of the hearing with consent of the developer, and separation of the issues for amendment of the Redevelopment Plan. Members of the Council acknowledged that it may be ,worthwhile to,consider the Department of Water and Power portion of the amendment at the earliest possible time. Gr,gas moved, second by ,Hunt, to continue the joint public hearing relating to amendment of the Redevelopment Plan, proposed Resolution Number 88-3, proposed Resolution Number 3819, and proposed ,Ordinance ,Number ,1278, until the next regular Agency meeting, February 20th. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-MEETING Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency meeting at approximately 11:20 p.m.. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I The City Attorney recommended that the public hearing on the remaining items be continued until, May 1st with consent of the developer, with some leeway also granted until May 15th if deemed ,necessary. It was pointed out that the Council may have the reports, supplement to the EIR, planning and financial ,data, etc. by May 1st however there may not be adequate time to make a final decision-at that meeting, therefore it would be necessary to continue consideration until the following meeting. The staff assured the Council that ,they would be ,provided with all related documents and reports as they become ,available. ,Mr. Evans agreed to grant the extension until the second ,meeting in May. ,The City Attorney advised that the extension will be required in written form fr-om the developer-. Mr. Evans questioned whether an appraiser .could be retained for a thousand dollars, expressing ,their concern that the City does have appropriate information, and noted that their firm could provide the information if the City would accept it. Discussion followed. With regard to a determination of housing prices under the two thirty-three scenario, Grgas moved, second by Laszlo, to 1-16-89 authorize the City ,Manager, to retain the services of a real estate appraiser at as reasonable a cost as possible, removing the previously authorized $1000 maximum. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Wilson Motion carried Grgas moved, second by Laszlo, to continue the public I hearing relating,to proposed Resolution Number 3820, General Plan Amendment la-88, proposed Resolution Number 3821, General Plan Amendment Ib-88, proposed Ordinance Number 1279, Hellman Specific Plan Amendment, proposed Resolution Number 3822, Tentative Parcel Map 86-349, Resolution Number 3823, Vesting Tentative Map l3198, and proposed Resolution Number 3824, Precise,Plan Review for Vestting Tentative Tract l3198, until the regular meeting of May 1, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried with ~egard to providing for the ,holding of scoping sessions, the City Attorney reported that the Development Services Dircector had pointed out that there will be a hearing before the,Environmental Quality Control Board on the dr-aft EIR, that ,meeting being an optional time to receive public, input, and if a separate,scoping session is desired,--he--suggested that ,it be held early in the process of preparing the supplemental EIR with the environmental consultant conducting such session(s). The Director stated that the,sessions could be advertised for public information through a news release, and, that they would be held during I the period that the EIR supplement ,is ,being ,prepared. The City Attorney clarified that the Council has two alternatives,-using the EQCB meeting to receive public comments, or,a separate scoping session could be held with the environmental consultant, noting that the supplemental EIR would subsequently be before the EQCB. Grgas,moved, second by ,Risner, that ,the separate scoping session with the environmental consultant be held. AYES: NOES: Gr-gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The-City Attorney advised that since action was taken to continue the public hearing, there should be no further testimony on the project or the alternatives. with consent of the Council, Mayor Hunt declared a recess at 11:41 p.m. ,The Council reconvened at 11:52 p.m. with Mayor Hunt calling the meeting to order. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3834 - COMPLETION - PROJECT NUMBER 600 - SIDEWALK, ,RECONSTRUCTION Resolution Number 3834 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 #600, SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION CITY-WIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN BRUCE ,PAVING COMPANY, INC., AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3834 was ,waived. Risner moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3834 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 1-16-89 I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3835 -,CITY ,MANAGER COMPENSATION Resolution Number 3835 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTERED CITY, ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS PROGRAM FOR THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND REPEALING, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE SPECIFIED, ALL MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3835 was waived. Wilson moved, second ,by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3835 as presented. Councilmember Risner stated she-would abstain ,from voting on this item as she was not present during the evaluation-process and did not agree with all provisions of the Resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None Risner Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3836 - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - ANTI-GRIDLOCK PROGRAM Resolution Number 3836 was presented to Council entitled RA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUPPORTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S ANTI-GRIDLOCK PROGRAM AND REQUESTING "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION, FINE UP TO $500" SIGNS FOR POSTING AT CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Numbe[ 3836 ,was ,waived. The City Manager noted that the correct reference in the Resolution is ,"fine" r-ather than Rfee." In response to Councilman Laszlo, the staff reported that the fine was established by State ,law, that the fine for drunk driving is also $500, and that ,the courts will retain a portion of each fine, the remainder ,coming to ,the City ,for it's enforcement effort. Councilman Laszlo ,stated that if this Resolution is adopted he would request that Lampson Avenue at Seal Beach Boulevard and the freeway entrances be deleted from the designated intersections. He asked ,if there is a-problem of intersections being blocked ,in this City, and if so, he stated the problems have ,been caused by development and the citizens should not be, penalized. Councilman Grgas stated he believed that ,this program has been ,adopted in both Los Angeles and Orange ,Counties in an attempt to make the driving public aware that they ,can ,remain stopped in an inte[section. The City Engineer reported some problems have occurred on Pacific Coast Highway and although he had not personally ,observed problems on Seal Beach Boulevard, there have ,been reported backups. He pointed out that since this is State,law and whether or ,not ,signs are posted, there is a fine of up to $500 for someone standing in the intersection and causing gridlock. Councilmember Risner expressed her objection to further signage. Discussion followed. The City ,Attorney noted that a question may be whether or not a citation would be enforceable if the signs were not posted. Laszlo,moved, second by Risner, to not participate in the progr-am at this time., The City Engineer confirmed that the proposed Resolution was a condition of obtaining the signs, and that he could not forsee any other ramifications other than the ,comment of the City Attorney. Mr. Stepanicich advised that the signage was a major aspect of the State program, and offered to review the provisions of that law for the Council. Councilmember Risner withdrew her second to the motion. Wilson ,moved, second by ,Risner, to postpone action on this item pending further review and report from the staff. I 1-16-89 AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson Laszlo Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3837 - SUPPORTING REPORT REVISION - WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN - SAN FRANCISCO BAY/SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY Resolution Number 3837 was presented to Council entitled nA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, URGING THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD TO REVISE ITS DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED nWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR SALINITY, SAN FRANCISCO BAY/SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARy.n By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3837 ,was waived. Risner moved, ,second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3837 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT--CALENDAR - ITEMS npn throuqh nWn Councilman Grgas requested that Item nS. be held over until next meeting, Councilmembers Grgas and Wilson advised they would abstain-f~om voting,on Item npn as they were absent from that ,meeting, ,and Councilmember Risner would abstain from voting ,on Item nQ". Councilmember Risner asked to be provided a response from staff regarding park bond monies that may be upcoming fo~ which application should be made, suggesting ,that there ,is a need to apply for such monies for development, improvement or additional purchase of parklands. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items np, Q, and S, as presented. R. Approved regular demands numbered 72968 through 13193 in the amount of $943,757.72, and payroll demands numbered 33568 through 33724 in the amount,of,$182,782.86 as approved ,by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I T. Appropriated-an ,amount not to exceed $4000 for participation in-the July 4th, 1989 Fireworks Show at the Armed Forces Reserve Center. U. Approved the request of the Recreation Department to use the 1986 Park Bond Act allocation of $74,000 to refurbish the Marina Community ,Center ,and to remodel the existing,restrooms to accommodate the handicapped, and authorized the City Manager to make application for final funding. V. Denied the,Notice of Action to Recover Prope~ty Taxes of the County of Orange to the complaint of Los Angeles,SMSA Limited Partnership, dba PacTel Cellular. W. Denied the claim of Anna Roach for personal injuries and referred same to CalTrans. I AYES: NOES: Gr-gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 1-16-89 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM npn - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Laszlo moved, second by Hunt, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 21, 1988. I AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Laszlo, Risner None Grgas, Wilson Motion carried ITEM non - CITY ,COUNCIL MINUTES Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 19, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None ' Risner Motion carried ITEM nSn - REPORT,- EISENHOWER PARK RENOVATION Grgas moved, second by Laszlo, to hold this item over until the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Gr-gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried SUNSET,AQUATIC PARK - PROPOSED EXPANSION The City Manager reported this item ,was continued from the December 19th meeting for further consideration and action by the City Council. I Councilmember Risner moved ,to support development concept ncn, providing ,for no overnight ,recreational vehicle campsites. She pointed out that ,Huntington Beach is affected by the ,expansion of Sunset Aquatic Park to a greater, degree than is Seal Beach, and after reviewing the staff ,report ,and action of the Huntington Beach Council, she felt this ,City should likewise support concept nCn. She added that the expansion plan will be ,coming before the Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Commission in February. Councilman Laszlo expressed his preference ,for concept nBn which ,includes ninety-eight recreational ' vehicle overnight camping ar-eas, stating he felt there is a need for such facilities and he did not feel they would adversely affect properties in the vicinity. Councilmember,Risner noted that citizens of Huntington Beach indicated that they did not want overnight camping. ' Mr,. Greg Derr, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, stated ,their agency prefers concept nBn, explaining that the ,vehicle camping area would be ,buffered with a berm and plantings to enhance the asthetics of the area. He added that if there were no camping,areas, there would be additional dr,y boat storage, also that ,through their contacts ,with r,ecreational vehicle corporations it was predicted the spaces will be reserved a year in advance., Councilman G~gas ,seconded the ,motion for discussion. Councilmember Risner, explained that Huntington Beach approved concept ncn with ,modifications, requiring certain roadway,impr,ovements, etc., and clarified that her motion was to support concept ,ncn ,as proposed without the modifications. Mr. ,Derr stated it would be their desire that the Council take an-action ,relating to the proposed expansion, and reported the plan ,will be submitted to the Orange County Harbors" Beaches and ,Parks and then to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Discussion followed. I Councilman Laszlo questioned a letter from a resident of the Coves submitting ,a complaint regarding alleged odors emitting ,from the sewer system. The Director of Public Works responded that the City ,serves Sunset Aquatic Park with water and sewer facilities, and that there is a force main from the Park ,running to ,an ,area in the vicinity of the Coves, and from time to time there have been complaints 1-16-89 regarding odors. He explained that it is felt the flow in the force main is currently low therefore,hydrogen sulfide gas is generated, which is the odor generator. He added that the Public Works Department will be experimenting with a chlorine powder which will be injected into the system and is anticipated will solve the odor problem. Mr. Jue also responded that the existing line should be large enough to accommodate the expansion at the Park~ however it would be I preferred that Huntington Beach take over the facilities since both the sewer and water lines run under Anaheim Bay and on occasion have-resulted in somwhat costly maintenance and repairs. The ,County representative confirmed that drainage ,facilities would be required for the overnight camping site, and advised that ' their studies showed that the existing sewer facility is capable of handling the proposed usage. He also explained ,that they had looked at running the line into the existing system on Edinger however that system is currently at capacity therefore could possibly require expansion ,of that system,or on-site retention and pumping after peak hours. He stated this decision will be made as the plans are further developed. Mr. Jue confirmed that there would be a sewage fee charged for the use of the City facility, and he believed there is a new flow meter on that line. Discussion continued. Member-s,of,the Council indicated,their intention to abstain from voting ,on ,this matter, citing, ,the lack of ,direct public testimony, unresolved,technical problems such as the sewage issue, and the ultimate decisions to be made at the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission and Board of Supervisors level. Vote on motion to support concept "C": AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Risner Laszlo Grgas, Hunt, Wilson I Motion failed Risner- moved, ,second by Hunt, to take no ,position on this matter. Discussion continued. The County representatives pointed out that the public input regarding this regional park that will serve all of Orange County may be made by only ,a few ,persons who reside near the Park, and that the plans ,proposed a~e,greatly reduced in intensity, from what was ,considered at the ,Coastal Commission level ,a few years past, noting ,also ,that if the ,expansion ,is reduced to a point,where the County will realize no return, the project will be determined infeasible. Vote on motion to take no position: AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Lasz 10, Risner, "Wilson None Motion carried After, further discussion, Councilman Laszlo moved to support concept "B" that ,provides for-ninety-eight new recreational vehicle overnight camping areas. Mayor Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson None" Grgas, Risner I Motion carried REQUEST ,- ,RUBY',S ,DINER - PIER SIGN Risner moved, second by Wilson, to hold this item over until the meeting of February 20th as requested by the applicant. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 1-16-89 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS There were no Council items for discussion. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communication open. Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration Society, identified for the Council the recently installed members of their Board and reviewed the creditials of each. He said that it had been their intent to provide expert testimony at this meeting, and suggested that their wetlands expert, Mr. Walton Wright, be used in conjunction with MBA and LSA, and proceeded to comment on plans for ,the Hellman Ranch property. The City Attorney advised that since the public hearing had been continued, it would not be appropriate to have further discussion on the application until the hearing is reconvened, that there will be an opportunity to present public comments before the EQCB and at the scoping session. In response to a member of the Council, Mr. Ambrose confirmed that he and his wife were the only Seal Beach residents on the ,Society Board yet other residents are members, and that his wife was,a legal ,secretary, he also alleged there has been, inadequate opportunity to address the Council. Discussion followed. Councilmember Risner stated she felt it was inappropriate that a record had been made as to the length of time members of ,the Council had spoken with regard to the Hellman property development proposal. There being no fur-ther comments, Mayor Hunt declared Oral Communications closed. I CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adjourn the meeting at 1:00 a.m. AYES: NOES: Gr-gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried . ApprovEj~: erk and ex-of of Seal Beach of the Attest: I