Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1989-05-15 5-l-89 / 5-15-89 , ApprOv.e~: Attest: I Seal Beach, California May 15, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:21 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 I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney- Mr. Strausz, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 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 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION Mayor Hunt presented Mr. Steve Stockett, Public Works Department, with a commemorative plaque recognizing his twenty years of employment with the City. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION I Selection of Mavor Mayor Hunt declared nominations for Mayor open, and nominated-Mr. Victor Grgas. Councilman Laszlo nominated Mrs. Joyce Risner. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to declare nominations closed. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Roll call vote: In support of Mr. Grgas for Mayor: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson In support of Mrs. Risner for Mayor: Laszlo, Risner Mr. Grgas was declared Mayor of the City of Seal Beach for 1989/90. 5-l5-89 '-' ~'- ~ /' Mr. Grgas assumed the Mayor~s.,chair~and then presented a gavel plaque to Mr. Hunt recogni~ing -his service and contribution to the City as Mayor for 1988/89. Selection of Mavor .ProTemoore Mayor Grgas .declared nominations for Mayor ProTem open. Councilmember Risner nominated Mr. Frank Laszlo, and Councilman Hunt nominated Mrs. Wilson. Risner moved, second I by Wilson, to declare nominations closed. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Roll call vote: In support of M~s. Wilson for Mayor ProTem: In support of Mr. Laszlo for Mayor ProTem: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson Laszlo, Risner Mrs. Wilson was declared Mayor ProTempore of the City of Seal Beach for 1989/90. PROCLAMATIONS - Mayor Grgas proclaimed and urged the observance of the week of May 14th through May 20th as "National Peace Officer Memorial Week." The Mayor proclaimed June 5th through June 9th, 1989 as "Management Week." "National Public Works Week" was proclaimed by the Mayor for the period of May 21st through May 27th, 1989. The month of May, 1989 was prOClaimed "Selective Service System Month" by Mayor Grgas. Mayor G~gas p~oclaimed May 14th through May 20th as "Transportation Week." I CONTINUED PUBLIC.HEARING - HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT- Mayor Grgas announced the continuance of this public hearing until this date 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 l3l98, and Precise Plan 1-88. The Development Services Directo~ presented the staff report, noted that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report-had been prepared, submitted for comments, and that responses have.been prepared to those comments. Mr. Knight reported receipt of a late communication from the Environmental Protection Agency, copies of.which were provided to the Council, and that the consultant was available to respond to that communication. The Director reviewed the specific components of the project as originally p~oposed for seven hundred seventy-three single family and condominium units, Alternative "A" of four hundred forty-nine single family units, Alternative."B. of I four hundred thirty-three single family and townhome units, Alternative B.l of four hundred twelve single family and townhome units, and Alternative C of three hundred eighty single family, -condominium, and townhome units. Mr. Knight pointed .out that the staff.~eport addressed the status of Gum Grove Pa~k, low to moderate income housing issues, and suggested amended Specific Plan text for use once the project concept is chosen. He also reviewed the actions that could now be considered relative to the proposed project and the alternatives. With regard to processing 5-15-89 I through other approving agencies such as the Coastal Commission and Corps of Engineers, Mr. Knight explained that there is no guarantee that if either the proposed plan or Alternative "C", the golf course plans, receive -approval that they would not be rejected by the Environmental Protection Agency, noting that the responses from the EPA and Fish and Game have indicated the feeling that the applicant will encounter difficulty in processing a golf course plan through these agencies, where Alternatives "A" or "B" may be less difficult. He added that it is felt that the processing time for the "A" or "B" alternatives, proposing no golf course, may be shorter as the concept of those plans more closely meet the regulations of those approving agencies. Councilman Laszlo stated it appeared evident that a golf course plan would result in intrusion of wetlands and a longer approval process. Mayor Grgas responded that he felt the length of process may be extended in the case where the wetland areas are disturbed by development, however the golf course would have little bearing on the time frame where those plans require full restoration of the wetlands acreage. Councilmember Hunt agreed that invasion of the wetlands would be the issue, not the fact of whether or not there is a golf course. Mr. Knight -clarified that eighteen months is felt to be a standard time frame for processing. Councilmember Risner quoted from a May 8th communication from the Fish and Game which indicated Alternatives "A" and "B" as potentially environmentally superior....if implementation results in an expansion of wetland acreage and wetland habitat values, also from an EPA letter that said a project should avoid disturbing existing wetlands, and the author stating there would be some concern with a golf course/wetlands scenario. The Director acknowledged that there is some minor wetlands disruption in both Alternatives "A" and "B" that will require mitigation, review by the Corps of Engineers, and may require EPA approval and a 404 permit. Mayor Grgas stated he felt everyone in the community wants to achieve specific objectives, a quality project, maximum usable recreational open space, preferably owned and controlled by the City, maximum wetlands, minimum number of units on the site, with maximum revenues generated to the Agency and the City, and in turn, the developer having goals to obtain approval of a plan, proceed through the other approving agencies, maximize profits given the risks involved, expedite the process, and develop a quality project. He stated that although considerable attention has focused on the Alternative "B.l" concept, after review of all plans, -the economic analysis of each, and numerous discussions with-the developer, consultants, and interested citizens, he felt there is another alternative that may be feasible and achieve most of the goals previously stated. Mayor GIgas referred to the proposed alternative as "C-l" and described same as portions of two plans under consideration, incorporating a portion of the original proposal for an eighteen hole golf course and superimposing nine holes on the "B.l" Alternative, providing for two hundred eighty single family units, maximizing Gum Grove park,-providing an eight to nine court tennis facility, maintaining wetlands ac~eage, providing a basis for expanding the golf course onto the northerly portion of the Hellman site in the future, and maximizing revenues to the Agency and the City. Some discussion followed regarding the plan proposed by Mr. Grgas and the consultant services utilized. I I Mr. Tom Jirovsky, Vice President of Kotin, Regan, and Mouchley, stated he had been contacted this date to provide 5-15-89 a brief analysis of Alternative "C.l" with regard to economic viability of two hundred eighty units, nine hole golf course, and forty plus acre wetlands in tact, using the updated appraisal figures, and estimating premiums at $l20,OOO for lots on the golf course and approximately $30,000 premium for the remaining homes in that community. Mr. Jirovsky stated that if it could be assumed that approximately ten million dollars of infrastructure were placed in-a Mello-Roos District without severly impacting I the tax rate on the home buyers, it was found that the feasibility of the C.l plan met all of the rate of return criteria and had a residual land value that was in excess of the twenty-two million cost, assuming conventional financing. Mr. Jirovsky qualified his comments, stating that as the plans and designs continue to change it has been necessary to use broad order of magnitude estimates of land development costs, yet if a Mello-Roos District is approved for the site, it is felt that "C.l" is economically possible with litle or no tax increment assistance. Mr. Strausz advised that Mello-Roos is considered a special tax that is levied only upon the property within the development which is served by the public improvements that are constructed, those special taxes levied solely to pay the indebtedness, such as the issuance of bonds, the proceeds of which are used to construct the improvements, and that the City would not be liable for payments beyond the special tax that is levied.- Mr. Jirovsky stated that based upon past experience he had used l.5 percent of the estimated home price to calculate a ten million dollar Mello-Roos, that being a common percentage in the-Southern California area. Mr. Jirovsky added that other than the property taxes-from the Redevelopment Project Area, the revenue to the City is estimated to be approximately $160,000 per year, the cost of I services about $l40,000, not including the private golf course, and if the golf course were public there would be the ability to retain an operator to maintain it. He clarified that none of their analysis to date have presumed any operating costs of the golf course would be assumed by the City, rather, that the revenues from the golf course would cove~ operation costs. As a point of clarification, Mr. Jirovsky stated his calculations assumed a base tax rate of one percent and that the additional Mello-Roos tax would be one-half of one percent, the annual tax satisying the bonded-indebtedness. Mr. Strausz added that in the event of default due to insufficient taxes, that would indicate that certain property owners failed to pay their tax, therefore their parcels would be subject to tax foreclosure as is provided-fo~ under other such circumstances. Councilmember Risner questioned the financial feasibility of a nine hole golf course with no driving range. Mayor Grgas offered that if "C.l" is-allowed to proceed through the review process he felt that the financial aspects will be addressed, this proposal requiring that the developer dedicate the improved golf course to the City. Mayor Grgas declared the continued hearing open for public testimony. The City Clerk reported receipt of comments to the Supplemental EIR from the Wetlands Society, a resident I communication in support of Alternative "B", a letter and petition from Crestview Avenue residents relating to Gum Grove Park and the location of a driving range, a letter from the Port of Long Beach dated April 17th and submitted by Mola Development on May 1st, a letter from the California Coastal Conservancy dated May l, 1989, and a communication in support of City acquisition of land on the Hellman site and expansion of the Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Tim Roberts, Director of Operations and Finance, Mola Development Corporation, reviewed in some detail the actions 5-15-89 I over the past three and one-half years in processing the original plan proposed for the Hellman site, the eventual return to the City to consider amendment of the Specific Plan to include a twenty acre wetlands parcel on-site, the subsequent issues raised and extensive public testimony. He reported the efforts of Mola Development to design an alternative development plan, addressing as many concerns and design constraints as possible, such as the wetlands, size of Gum Grove Park, the fault zone, low density, and active recreation. He stated it was then their determination that a golf course could not be accommodated on the property while addressing the other constraints, therefore the decision to design a quality active recreation area instead, the result being the "449" or Alternative "A" plan, they then further refined the project design, specifically the circulation and product, resulting in the Alternative "B" plan of three hundred thirty-seven single family and ninety-six townhome units. Mr. Roberts reported at that time Mola Development attempted to discuss Alternative "B" with as many members of the community as possible, the result being Alternative "B.l", three hundred twenty-eight single family and eighty-four townhome units, incorporation of cul-de-sac roadways for circulation control, a direct relationship betweem the future open space wetlands and enhanced Gum Grove Park, relocation of First Street dwelling units in order to encourage a larger area for environmental enhancement of wetlands. He noted that certain agencies have been conducting studies with regard to possible participation in a future enchancement program. Mr. Roberts explained that the recreation facilities of "B.l" intended to include tennis courts, a playground, basketball courts, the recreation area and Gum Grove Park tied together for future accessibility and ease of use. Mr. Roberts acknowledged the plan mentioned by Mayor Grgas, an effort to incorporate the golf course recreation use into the project, and reported there has not been adequate time to review that proposal or its financial feasibility, therefore they could not offer their endorsement of it at this time. Mr. Roberts stated although their firm endorses the "B.l" plan as a quality project, they would be willing to work with the City to evaluate the proposed "C.l". He explained that in considering alternative plans to the proposed incorporation of a golf course, their understanding had been that the desire of the City was not necessarily a golf course but rather quantity of recreation, therefore the eighty-four townhomes of "B.l" have been deleted and replaced by an additional nine acres of recreational facilities which would accommodate two ball fields, another tot lot, more parking, also tied together by the trail system, for a total of nearly sixteen acres of recreational use land. In response to Council, Mr. Roberts reported the revised "B.l" plan would allow approximately three hundred forty units, 2.26 units per acre on the total acreage, confirmed their intention to restore Gum Grove Park, and noted that the viability, financial feasibility, and amount of subsidy required of the City under the conceptual "C.l" proposal is unknown at this time. Mr. Mola also pointed out the constraints of the subject property, wetlands, Gum Grove park, etc., and noted that the "C.l" nine hole golf course plan does encroach Gum Grove Park, explaining that their lack of support for Alternative "C" was partly the result of the location of the golf course holes. Mr. Mola advised of their willingness to review the golf course proposal and of their desire to p~ovide a development for all to-be proud of. He noted offsite costs have increased approximately twenty-five percent over the three and one-half years according to their consultants, and stated if the City can afford the maintenance of a nine hole course, and the I I 5-15-89 resulting shortfall, they would-study the concept, also if the City can contribute Redevelopment funds to cause the "C.P concept to work, then they could develop that plan. He pointed out that deleting the eighty-four townhomes results in a loss to them of about ten million dollars, and in an effort to offset the possibility of a golf course, they had in turn included the additional recreation area. Mr. Mola confirmed their willingness expend monies to restore Gum Grove Park. Mayor Grgas noted that the analysis of "B.l", minus the baseball diamonds, by the City's consultants, KRM, showed a residual land value of twenty-two million dollars and would be marginally attractive based upon their assumptions, and questioned how that plan could continue to be attractive with the reduction of eighty-four units. Mayor Grgas again requested that "C.l" be reviewed as a potential of meeting the most expressed objectives. Mr. Mola indicated agreement, yet asked that time frames for local review and actions be met. with regard to the use of Redevelopment Agency funds for the purpose of maintaining parkland or a golf course in a Redevelopment Project Area, Mr. Strausz responded-that the law is quite specific on that point and provides that tax increment revenues shall not be used for normal operation and maintenance. The Development Services Director stated-park maintenance costs would-be included in a fiscal impact analysis, those costs creating a greater negative to the project than what is proposed under "B.l" since the revenue generated by the townhomes is being removed and replaced with additional costs, and suggested those costs could be-covered through formation of a Mello- Roos or Landscaping and Lighting District. The City Manager cautioned that st~ong-objection is often realized when a small group of property owners are burdened with financing a citywide benefit. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Grgas declared a recess at 9:16 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:40 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Mr. David colgen, attorney-with the law firm of McKitrick, JaCkson, -Demarco7 & Peckenpaugh of -Newport Beach, stated their -firm represents Mola Development. Mr. COlgen suggested that an essential element under constitutional law is that any land owner or developer is allowed a reasonable return on investment, and in order to have a return there must be a project, and--to have a project one must -obtain all of the requisite governmental approvals. He stated that after the numerous meetings, discussions, etc. with various environmental- -agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Commission staff, the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, by the City and his client, -they are sufficiently-convinced that the City's Alternative "C" would not be approved by those agencies even if it were to receive City Council approval, therefore after a considerable length of time approval would not be realized and a proposal would be required to commence again to attempt to meet the policies and guidelines with regard to preservation of wetlands. Mr. Colgen noted that if "C" were approved by the City while knowingly it cou~d not be approved by the othe~ agencies, such action could very well be construed as over-regulation, and in that case Mola Development could probably come to the City seeking compensation for delay. Mr. Colgen stated instead of the or iginal proposal, their feeling now is that plan "B-.l" can be approved by the other agencies, an environmentally superior project that substantially avoids the wetlands and meets the guidelines of EPA and Fish and Game. With regard to the "C.l" proposal, Mr. Colgen noted mention of a possible condition requiring dedication, improvement, and I I I 5-15-89 I maintenance of the golf course, stated he wished to disabuse the Council of that taking place, and made reference to the Nolan ve~sus Coastal Commission, u. S. Supreme Court case, which clearly takes the position that there must be a substantial nexus between any exaction, condition, or fee imposed on development, and that the condition or exaction imposed by government -must bear substantial relationship to some burden that is created by the development. with regard to development of the "B.l" plan, Mr. Colgen pointed out that Gum Grove Park is being preserved, community parks are proposed, the wetlands are not being disturbed, the developer meeting any burden that may be created on the community. Mr. Colgen added he did not know of any legitimate interest that would be advanced by dedication of a golf course by a private individual to the City, or to the maintenance of that golf course, it is also felt that a Mello-Roos District would not be acceptable to create a lien against the property for maintenance of the golf course, nor would they have interest in the construction thereof. Mr. Colgen -acknowledged that Mola Development would look at the "C.l" proposal, stated he did not believe it could be accomplished, and confirmed that dedication of the golf course would not be acceptable. Councilman Hunt noted comment that indicated "C" would not be acceptable to the developer as that plan would invade the wetlands, however pointed out that the original plan proposed by the developer involved invasion of the wetlands, the Council still having the option of approving the original plan, and it was his understanding that the City would not realize any liability if the original plan were approved. Mr. Colgen acknowledged that Mola Development had-made the original proposal, yet as time has lapsed it has been shown how the environmental process is intended to work and it is now felt the other agencies would not accept that plan, therefore Mola now supports a plan that is felt to be environmentally superior and can be approved.- Mayor Grgas confirmed that Mr. Mola had offered to dedicate the golf course property at the time .C.l" was being discussed in a negotiation format. The City Manager asked for clarification of Mr. Colgen's statement that Mr. Mola is no longer backing the-original application that is before the City, and if that was meant to be a withdrawal of -same. Mr. Colgen stated it was not a withdrawal, however the preferred plan is Alternative "B.I". Council discussed the procedures to be followed-for the remainder of the hearing with the intent to provide direction-to the Planning Commission by the end of-this meeting, their report and recommendations to be returned to the Council for the meeting of June-19th. The City Attorney noted that the extension of the Tentative Map and Parcel Map expires this date, -and-if the Council referred one or-more alternatives to the Planning Commission, it is understood Mola Development would once again grant a time extension, also if action is taken to deny the original plan, findings would need to be made. I I Mayor Grgas invited members of the audience -wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and-address for the record.- Mr. Galen Ambrose, Wetlands Restoration Society, noted the society~s past - recommendations to the Council with regard to the 2020 Plan, funding sources, etc., and stated the Society-also submitted a plan for consideration that proposes all but about twenty acres to be open space and wetlands, -the City -having the power to zone the property-open space while not denying all economic use to the property owner. He explained that their plan proposes the portion of -the site along--Seal Beach Boulevard for approximately seventy-nine homes, allowing the 5-15-89 developer to purchase the land at a reasonable cost, provide him a profit, while eliminating the problems relating to the wetland areas. He stated the remaining one hundred five acres may then be considered for acquisition by the Port of Long Beach for open water restoration credit. Mr. Ambrose asked that consideration be given to their plan, and introduced a geology consultant to the Society. Dr. Robert Winchell stated he was a professor of geology at Long Beach State University. Dr. Winchell commenced his comments by I stating no project should be allowed on the Hellman site as the area is replete with a series of geologic hazards such as seismic shaking, fault rupture, lurching, liquefaction, differential fault compaction, expansive/contractive soil, flooding, pollution, etc. He stated about five percent of damage is associated with fault displacement, ninety-five percent from shaking associated with the foundation materials in the vicinity of the fault, and in California although the Alquist-Priola Act restricts building within a fifty foot setback from a fault, second thought and question should be given to the building and construction codes. He made reference to damage and loss of life resulting from other earthquakes such as those in the Long Beach, Sylmar, and Compton areas. Dr. Winchell stated the materials of the Hellman site are not the type that reasonable persons would develop, alleging the site to be one of the most dangerous that could be contemplated for anything other than passive use, the only reason to build on such an area being the return to the property owner and developer. Dr. Winchell questioned how such an area can be planned for development where there is even absence of absolute evidence of the width of the fault, and charged that the Council has not had proper information to adopt any plan that could result in the loss of life and property, the Council having a moral I and possibly legal responsibility in this case. He noted that at the time similar information was presented to the Coastal Commission they indemnified themselves against potential costs that could result. Dr. Winchell offered to meet with the Council, make a visual presentation relating to his comments, and provide literature references. At the suggestion of Council, Dr. Winchell agreed to provide information to City staff. With regard to the City's ability to indemnify as stated the Coastal Commission had, the City Attorney responded that the City could impose a hold harmless provision as a condition of development approval, however there may be question as to whether or not such provision could be enforceable, explaining that it is believed that if a project is built in accordance with existing standards that there would not be a liability to the City, noting that there have been cases that have not upheld similar types of hold harmless agreements. Mr. Stepanicich explained further that there is an immunity under -State law regarding a legislative body's approval of discretionary decisions, yet a second issue being if there were a mandatory duty on the City's part that was violated, approval of building plans as an example, that situation could lead to a potential liability, yet if the plans were approved in accordance with-existing standards, liability would be unlikely. Councilman Laszlo noted that Dr. I Winchell had voiced serious charges, and requested that he provide info~mation that would substantiate his comments. In response to Council, Dr. Winchell stated the epicenter of the 1933 Long-Beach earthquake was approximately four miles off of Newport Beach, that quake misnamed, and that there is enough se~ious concern associated with the Newport/Inglewood fault in terms of future quakes being localized along that fault that some-consider it the most dangerous fault in California. - -With rega~d to dissemination and verification of the information referred to by Dr. Winchell, the 5-15-89 I Development Services Director stated that although he was not personally a geologist, a State geologist was hired to trench the site, provided extensive reports regarding the liquefaction, other geologic concerns, identification of the fault, etc. that meets the intent of the Alquist/Priola Act, and explained that additional work will be performed before permits are issued to provide even greater assurance that the initial geologic work was correct. He added that unless Dr. Winchell has further specifics to this site, there is considerably more data available on the subject site than the State would have. Dr. Winchell stated he did not know the subject site specifically, just the characteristics, having a greater knowledge of the Bolsa Chica area. He added that in speaking with an individual in charge of the special hazard zone study being developed by the California Division of Mines, it was stated they do not accept any of the information provided them to date, and that they can not confirm the width of that fault. I Mr. F~ank Elsworth, 1921 St. John Road, stated about less than one-half of one percent of Leisure World residents play golf, approximately fifty play outside Leisure World, about one hundred fifty play regularly, therefore golf should not be an important factor. Councilman Laszlo alleged that Leisure World supports the golf course on the Hellman site so that condominiums can be built on the Leisure World course. Councilman Hunt took exception to that statement. Councilmember Wilson offered that although some Leisure World residents do play golf, there are many more throughout the City, and stated her support for the golf course is based upon the additional open space and trees that would be associated with the project. Mr. Laird Mueller, 11th Street, compared the various amenities of the alternatives under consideration, questioned the greater need for a golf course or large recreation park, and the financial responsibility for same. He expressed his objection to the City bonding to purchase a golf course. Mr. Mueller submitted two petitions, one signer favoring Alternative "C" and twenty-nine supporting the "335" plan, no support for subsidizing a golf course, yet support for more parks and wetlands. Mr. Muelller expressed his support for the "335" plan and no golf course. Councilman Hunt asked if Mr. Mueller would support investigating the possibility of purchasing land for the City with Redevelopment Agency monies -at approximately one fourth the appraised price. Mr. Mueller responded he could support acquisition if it were not on a long term basis. Ms. Helen Potepan, 1870 Sunningdale Road, commended the developer for his efforts towards Alternative "B" and expressed concern with the comments made by the -geologist. Mr. Jake Muller, Whittier Audobon Society, spoke in support of retaining maximum wetlands. Mr. Ron Alkana, 613 Bayside Drive, expressed support for the open space and recreation advantages afforded through the "B.1" plan, a development allowing use by all residents, and stated his concern with traffic on Bolsa Avenue, suggesting that with development of this property speed bumps or some other means be provided to lower traffic speed. Ms. Suzanne Andre, 1300 Crestview, stated her support for the "B.l" plan, less units, less traffic, full Gum Grove Park, nearly sixteen acres of parkland, tennis and other recreation facilities, with the possibility of developing the recreation uses over a period of time. She reported that there is now a new potential for flooding the wetlands at some-point in time by means of an accessible culvert rather an underground channel, that information derived from a study done by the Ports of Long Beach. Mr. Roberts responded that it had been thought that there was a syphon that was the source of the ditch that I 5-15-89 runs through the property, the syphon traversing out of the property, under the cooling channel, and exiting into the River, and in order to bring as much water as possible onto the site for an enhanced wetlands restoration plan would have required widening of that syphon or additional sources under the cooling channel which would result in considerable expense. He reported the recently completed hydrology study presented to the Ports, identifies sources of water to the area reserved for future enhancement, the subterranian I source going around rather than under the cooling channel, a less complicated and less costly source. Mr. Roberts explained that the $75,000 to $lOO,OOO per acre estimated restoration costs not only included bringing in additional water but the type of wetlands restoration and vegetation, the new source for water would tend to reduce those costs. The Mayor requested that this information be provided to staff. Ms. Dorothy Geisler, 13811 Thunderbird Drive, commended those persons that continue to bring forth new information relevant to this project, recommended that the comments of Dr. Winchell be investigated further, and should the fault be determined to significantly impact the project, she stated wetlands and park would be an alternative, and if development, "B.l" would be her preference. Mr. Robert Lamond, 4808 Blackburn Avenue, Long Beach, representing the Sierra Club, spoke in support of wetlands -on the site. Ms. Marilyn DeWitt, 644 Sandpiper Drive, commended the review process, the response to public concerns by Mola Development, and Plan "B.l". Mr. Anton Dahlman, 1724 Crestview Avenue, stated that although his neighbors support a golf course plan, he questioned the City being in the real estate business, the risk potential of a City-owned golf course, and stated his preference for the "B.l" Plan. Mr. Ron Moore, 604 Taper -Drive, urged support for the "B.l" Plan I and much needed recreational opportunities, pointing out the inadequacy of baseball facilities -for the community. Mrs. Miriam Kelly, 1125 Catalina Avenue, said she felt a golf course and wetlands are not compatible, expressed her . support for the modified "B.l" plan which includes tennis courts, a tot lot, walking trails, and preserves Gum Grove Park. -Mr. Frank-Clift, 4489 Dogwood Avenue, spoke in support of further review of the "C.l" proposal, stating he did -not feel it invades the proposed wetland area, and generates the least amount of traffic. He also invited the community to utilize the underused facilities in the new College Park. - Mr. Art Boynton, llll Seal Way, noted what had started as-twenty acres of wetlands is now forty, that a small loss of that acreage-would not be significant, and stated that many people would avail themselves of an executive three par golf course, a golf course also providing more greenry and open space and a benefit to the sale of the development. Mr. Boynton said he felt there was merit in the-"C.l" proposal that deserved further consideration. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, stated he did not feel there has ever been-a project before the City that has caused so-much adverse comment and expense for the citizens. -He questioned the financial feasibility of the project given the unknown land cost, charged that the City will need to subsidize the development regardless of the I plan chosen, and that the recreation facilities being referred to are-within a gated community and not available to the general public. The Council advised that the parks would be open and accessible to the public. Mr. Stark suggested that the one should take pause with regard to the geologist's report, -made reference to the number of lawsuits involving redevelopment agencies as the result of poor construction and unstable land, suggesting that the developer be required to post a bond if he chooses.to build on this site with the fault. He also expressed objection to 5-15-89 I considering a Mello-Roos which, he said, would allow the developer to-borrow money at a reduced interest rate on the City's credit. With unanimous consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at 11:22 p.m. The-Council reconvened at 11:34 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. with regard to the effect on the City in the event of a Mello-Roos default, the City Attorney responded that Mr. Strausz had previously advised that the obligation is secured by the taxes and ultimately by the value of the property. Mr. Stepanicich advised that in discussion with the applicant, it has been agreed that the expiration deadline for the Parcel and Tentative Maps will extend until the end of this meeting even if it should extend into May 16th. In response to Council, Mr. Strausz advised that the City would not be liable in the case of default of bonds issued by the Agency using tax increment from-the project area, the law specifically addressing that, explaining also that if tax increment bonds went into default there could be an affect upon the credit rating of the Redevelopment Agency involved, whether it would affect the credit of the City would be very speculative, noting that most municipal credit rating agencies look to the source of the payment of the bond. In response to Councilman Hunt, Mr. Strausz confirmed that real estate procured through bond money could be used as collateral, and it would be at the discretion of the Agency as to whether or not it wished to pledge that land as security for repayment of the debt. The Mayor also noted that most bonds are insured. In response to Ms. Janna Lindquist, 248 --15th Street, the Mayor advised the "C.l" proposal provides for one hundred thirteen, zero lot line single family homes surrounding the golf course. Ms. Lindquist referred to a news article citing Seal Beach as a preferred area to raise -a family, and expressed support for the "B.l" plan. -Ms. Jamie Smith, 215 - 16th Street, added her support for the "B.I" alternative. Ms. Betty Cheevers, 13783 Alderwood Lane, spoke of a meeting of the Leisure World Golf Club some months back, who was present, and who made introductions. Councilman Hunt responded that Mr. Sharp, member of the-Planning Commission was not present at that meeting, and that he had not introduced Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans indicated his concurrence with Mr. Hunt's response. Ms. Jane MCCloud, 700 Balboa Drive, stated her first preference for the Hellman site would be the proposal of the Wetlands Restoration Society, the second the "B.I" alternative with it's recreation amenities and preservation of Gum Grove Park, trail system and restoration of wetlands. She noted her concern for greater access for wildlife passing between the Grove and the wetlands, expressed opposition to the "C.l" proposal due to it's intrusion into the Gum Grove and limited golf course, and spoke against any financial participation by the City in the development without a vote of the people. Mr. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina Avenue, expressed his support for open-space and wetlands for wildlife, and concern with the proximity of any golf course to wetlands. Mr. Mueller again addressed-the Council, made reference to comments relating to the purchase of land at a quarter of its value and to acquisition of additional acreage for recreation use, and the issuance of bonds to allow the purchase, yet questioned the responsibility to pay for maintenance. Ms. Wendy Rothman, 300 OCean Avenue, stated her objection to "C.l"-is that it intrudes on Gum Grove and the wetlands, and that any additional land obtained northerly of the subject site would not be a substitute for Gum Grove. Mr. Ambrose stated he felt the responses in the EIR appear to be incomplete, and I I 5-15-89 requested-that the Restoration Society plan be included and referred to the Planning Commission. Mr. FranK Mola again indicated their endorsement of the "B.l" plan as modified with the addition of baseball diamonds, and requested that action be taken to allow proceeding to the next phase of processing-in a -timely manner. The City Attorney explained that it would not be necessary for the Council to certify the EIR at this time to make a referral to the Planning Commission, noting however that if "C.l" were considered for referral there would be a need for some additional review by the environmental consultant of the impact on the small pocket of wetland area. Mr. Oakin, 13801 El Dorado Drive, questioned the continuing pursuit of a golf course. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to conclude public testimony for this meeting and continue the hearing until June 19th. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Laszlo suggested that the "B.2" and "C.I" alternatives be referred to the Planning Commission, and asked if -there was support to consider the Wetland Society plan. Councilmember Risner presented her statement regarding the development under consideration, the background and the review-process. She said she felt that the Council should now move forward, transmit what is felt to be the best plan for the community to the Planning Commission, noting that "B.l" appears to have the greater support through public testimony and from the developer, a plan where the developer will restore the full Gum-Grove Park and-provide open space wetlands that exceeds what is thought to be the requirement of other agencies. She commended Mola Development for their efforts to address the I concerns of many residents, the citizen input impacting such things as involvement of the Port of Long Beach in wetlands restoration, a buffer zone for certain existing residences, increased size of the community park to accommodate tennis and basketball courts and a childrens playground, a trail system from Gum Grove to the community park, reduced dwelling units clustered-into three small neighborhoods, elimination of the housing off of First Street, deletion of a second-roadway, elimination of stacked-condos, etc. She added that this plan resulted in Kola obtaining a commitment from Long-Beach-for the expenditure of money on the feasibility of a restoration study, the Port Task Force hiring Moffat and Nichol to conduct that study. Mrs. Risner stated the modified "B.I" is environmentally sensitive, is financially feasible for the developer, revenue beneficial to the Redevelopment Agency, and the City, and allows tax increment to be available for other projects. She spoke for forwarding the modified "B.l" plan to the Planning Commission, suggested modifications such as a buffer in the area of Surf Place, and a condition that a full wetlands restoration plan be required, also that the "C.l" proposal be forwarded for review. Mayor Grgas stated he felt "C.I" is economically viable, that the issue of encroachment on Gum Grove Park can be resolved, that the plan is not precise at this time however offers opportunities for adjustment I that may be in the interest of everyone. For clarification purposes, the City Attorney suggested that the modified "B.l" plan be referred to as "B.2". Councilmember Risner moved to refer alternative "B.2" to the planning Commission with a request that special consideration-be given to homeowners-on the westerly portion of the project, Coastline to Surf Place. Councilman Laszlo seconded the -motion. The City Attorney clarified that the Planning Commission would be reviewing and making a report 5-l5-89 I to the Council on the advisability of ultimately adopting the plan, the Commission having the discretion to make any recommendations felt appropriate to the Council, and explained there would be no requirement for a noticed public hearing by the Commission. The Council indicated their agreement to direct the Planning Commmission to consider this matter at their June 7th meeting with a report forthcoming to the Council for June 19th. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Laszlo, Risner Hunt, Wilson Motion carried Councilmember Risner stated she would support referral of "C.l" to the Planning Commission as a courtesy. Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to refer alternative "C.l to the Planning Commission, the same time frame to apply. AYES: NOES: G~gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Councilman Laszlo moved to give consideration to the Wetlands Restoration Society plan of seventy-nine units. In response to Council, the City Attorney explained that in order to take a final action on the Restoration Society plan, additional environmental review would be needed as to it's impact, as is the case with "C.l", and suggested that if there were inadequate time to provide further environmental data to the Commission, their report could be transmitted to-the Council for June 19th along with the addtional environmental information. Mayor Grgas seconded the motion, discussion continued, and he subsequently withdrew his second to the motion. The City Attorney advised, with concurrence of the applicant, that the statutory time frame for the Map would be extended until June 20th, to allow further consideration by the Planning Commission on June 7th and the Council on June 19th. Councilman Laszlo moved that there be no other plans proposed between this date and June 19th. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I- With regard to further consulting services, the Development Services Director recommended that the planning Consortium review the golf course plan, "C.l", and the possible impact on the wetlands, after which some further environmental review may be necessary, the "B.2" plan also requiring review as to fiscal and wetlands impacts, and confirmed that the same consulting firms would be used. Councilmember Wilson suggested that the consultant look at relocating the golf course holes in order to avoid the area of Gum Grove Park. Hunt moved, second by Grgas, to authorize expenditure of up to $7,000 for consulting services for further evaluation of the plans proposed. The Development Services Director confirmed that should the "B.2" plan be selected, the developer would be required to pay the associated consulting costs, also for those relating to "C.l". AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Grgas, Hunt, Wilson None Laszlo, Risner Motion carried 5-l5-89 With unanimous consent of the Council, the Mayor declared a recess at l2:41 a.m. The Council reconvened at 12:45 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. Councilmember Risner asked that the record reflect receipt of a letter from Bob Schonholtz of LSA dated April 13th, an April 17th letter from Geraldine Knatz, Director of Planning, Port of Long Beach, a May 1st communication from Reed Holderman, Project Manager, California state Coastal Conservancy, and a confidential memorandum from Mr. Knight to the City Manager dated March 31st. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1284 - ZONE CHANGE 1-89 - OIL EXTRACTION to MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - FIRST STREET - WATSON Ordinance Number 1284 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 1-89, A REQUEST TO REZONE A PROPERTY ON FIRST STREET (ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 043-313-01) FROM OIL EXTRACTION (OE) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD-4000)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1284 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Ordinance Number 1284 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3850 - ADJUSTING PARKING FEES - BEACHFRONT LOTS The-City Manager reported additional -information-had been provided the Council relating to parking lot fees of other communities. With regard to the impact on revenues should a weekend $5 rate be adopted ~ather than $6, the City Manager I stated he did not have those statistics however since the usage is greater -on-weekends, the reduction to projected revenues could be twenty percent or more. Councilman Laszlo expressed his-objection to the proposed $6 weekend fee. Mr. Nelson noted that the Resolution provides the opportunity for a resident pass at $40 annually, $60 for non-residents, most likely in the form of a sticker or card used in conjunction-with a drivers licencse for identification, and reported Huntington Beach advised that such passes are not used to any great degree. Councilmember Risner suggested consideration of-a flat rate versus the weekday/weekend rates. Councilman Laszlo noted in years past residents were allowed the opportunity to park for half price. and suggested this be a consideration on weekends during the summer months. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3850 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING RATES FOR PARKING FEES IN THE FIRST, EIGHTH, AND TENTH STREET OCEAN FRONT MUNICIPAL PARKING-LOTS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION- NUMBER 3706. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3850 was waived-. Mayor Grgas suggested that the City Manager could be requested to review the financial impact of reduced resident rates and report back to the Council. I Councilman Hunt-offered that -resident comments could be solicited through the news media. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson NOES: Laszlo Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1286 - ZONING REGULATIONS - FENCE HEIGHTS Councilmember Risner noted an error in Section 2-(K) of Ordinance Number 1286, -reference to six foot rather than eight foot fences. The Development Services Director 5-15-89 I reported that the Planning Commission had taken an action at their May 3rd-meeting to request the Council to postpone second reading of the Ordinance and refer this matter back to the Commission for additional study and recommendation, also to possibly include Lampson Avenue. Councilman Laszlo noted there are no eight foot fences presently along Lampson Avenue and that prior discussion of this matter had provided that Lampson could be included at some future date if desired. Discussion continued. Hunt moved, second by Risner, to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendation to the City Council. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3856 - DESIGNATING UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL FUND BALANCE Resolution Number 3856 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DIRECTING THAT ANY UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND AS OF 6-30-89 SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROPRIATED TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION RESERVE FUND AND/OR PUBLIC LIABILITY RESERVE FUND OF THE CITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3856 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 3856 as presented. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3857 - RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - ELECTRIC AVENUE Resolution Number 3857 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING SUMMARY VACATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 6" OF ELECTRIC AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN l7th STREET AND SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3857 was waived. The City Engineer presented the staff report, explaining that during construction of the eight single family homes on the 1700 block of Electric Avenue, the developer built retaining walls that encroached the public right-of-way as the result of an incorrect property survey, the wall on Seal Beach Boulevard having been removed and reconstructed, and the approximate four inch encroachment on Electric Avenue proposed to be vacated by the City and purchased by the developer at a cost of $ll,020. He noted that the subject sidewalk is more than twice the width of typical sidewalks in the downtown area, and that there are no present or future plans to use the property being considered for vacation for street purposes. Mayor Grgas noted that encroachment of fences and planters onto the public right- of-way, yet behind the public sidewalk, has been an on- going problem, and stated he has requested that the staff research some equitable, legal means of resolving this type of existing situation. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3857 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "N" THROUGH "T" Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the recommended action for Consent Calendar items "N" through "T" as presented. N. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of May 1, 1989. 5-15-89 O. Approved regular demands-numbered 74496 through 74658 in the-amount of $49l,498.69, and payroll demands numbered 34925 through 35095 in the amount of $217,989.77 as approved-by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. P. Denied the claim of Steve Hobberstad for personal property loss and referred same to the City's-liability attorney and insurance adjuster. I Q. Award of Bid - Projects 587 and 588 - Third Street Alley Water Main and Twelfth Street Sewer Main -- This item was reconsidered at the end of this meeting, and by motion held over for further review. R. Directed the issuance of a certificate of public convenience to Mary T. Anthony to operate a personal transportation service subject to-receipt of statement of proposed rates -and other conditions prescribed by Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code. S. Received and filed the change of meeting schedule of the Parks and Recreation Commission. T. Approved the revised agreement with the Seal Beach Journal for publication of legal notices and authorized the City- Manager to execute same on behalf of the City. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS-and COMMISSIONS Ad Hoc Airport Committee Mayor Grgas requested that the District One appointment to the Ad Hoc Airport Committee be held over. Environmental Oualitv Control Board Councilmember Wilson ~equested that the District Two appointment to the Environmental Quality Control Board be held over. Ad Hoc Retail Sales Committee Councilmember Risner reported that the Chamber of Commerce had requested-that a representative of their organization be on this Committee, and moved to change the composition of the Committee to include an appointment by the Chamber of Commerce and an additional appointment to be made by Councilmember wilson. Mayor Grgas seconded the motion. I with regard to the residency requirement for appointments other than those originally proposed, Mrs. Risner stated she felt that the Chamber-representative will be a resident however suggested that they be allowed to make the selection. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 5-15-89 O. Approved regular demands numbered 74496 through 74658 in the amount of $491,498.69, and payroll demands numbered 34925 through 35095 in the-amount of $217,989.77 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I P. Denied-the claim of Steve Hobberstad for personal property loss and referred same to-the City's liability attorney and insurance adjuster. Q. Award of Bid - Projects 587 and 588 - Third Street Alley Water Main and Twelfth street Sewer Main -- This item was reconside~ed at the end of this meeting, and by motion held over for further review. R. Directed the issuance of a certificate of public convenience to Mary T. Anthony to operate a personal transportation service subject to receipt of statement of proposed rates and other conditions prescribed by Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code. S. Received and filed the change of meeting schedule of the Parks and Recreation Commission. I T. Approved the revised agreement with the Seal Beach Journal for -publication of legal notices and authorized the City Manager to execute same on behalf of the City. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Ad Hoc AirDort Committee Mayor Grgas requested that the District One appointment to the Ad Hoc Airport Committee be held over. Environmental Qualitv Control Board Councilmember Wilson requested that the District Two appointment to the Environmental Quality Control Board be held over. I Ad Hoc Retail Sales Committee Councilmember Risner reported that the Chamber -of-Commerce had requested that a representative of their organization be on this Committee, -and moved to change the composition of the Committee to include an appointment by the Chamber of Commerce and an additional appointment to be made by Councilmember Wilson. Mayor Grgas seconded the motion. With regard to the residency requirement for appointments other than those originally proposed, Mrs. Risner stated she felt that the Chamber representative will be a resident however suggested that they be allowed to make the selection. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 5-15-89 Councilman Laszlo moved to appoint Mr. Jim Vames, 4125 Birchwood Avenue, and Mr. Bill LaBar, 4396 Candleberry Avenue, to the Retail Sales Committee. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilmember Wilson moved-to appoint Mr. Russell Gray, 13060 Del Monte Drive, to the Retail Sales Committee. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion. I AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Budqet Workshop Sessions After discussion, the Council selected Monday, June 12th at 6:00 p.m. as the-first workshop session, and Saturday, June 17th at 10:00 a.m. for a second session. Councilmember Wilson requested that her absence from the June 5th meeting be excused. Councilman Laszlo asked what action is going to be taken with regard to traffic impact fees and level of service. He made reference to the Transportation Super Committee draft report that was -made available at the April 20th League meeting, that report containing a Growth Management Element and Development Mitigation Programs, and requiring local jurisdictions to establish levels of service and impose traffic impact-fees. The City Manager reported the traffic mitigation matter-had been referred to staff. With regard to the June 19th procedu~es relating to Mola, the City I Attorney explained that the hearing will be opened and that the Council can make a final decision with regard to Specific plan amendments. Mayor Grgas expressed his desire for the-Council to work in a harmonious manner during the upcoming year. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications from the public. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session pursuant to-Government Code Section 54956.9(a) -to discuss an item of pending litigation, Borbon versus Seal Beach. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 1:31 a.m. and reconvened at 1:36 a.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney-reported the Council had discussed the item previously announced. RECONSIDERATION - CONSENT-CALENDAR ITEM "a" Hunt moved, second by Wilson, -to reconsider Consent Calendar Item "Q", award of bid for Projects 587 and 588, Third Street Alley Water Main and Twelfth Street Sewer Main, Item "Q" to be held over pending further review by the Engineering Department. AYES: NOES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I CONSENT CALENDAR Risner moved, second by Wilson, to reconfirm the previous action approving the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, with the exception of Item "On. _3~l5~89 / 6-5-89 AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT to adjourn the meeting at Risner moved, second by Wilson, 1:39 a.m. I AYES: Grgas, Bunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried Approved: Attest: I Seal Beach, California June 5, 1989 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:l1 p.m. with Mayor Grgas calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Grgas Councilmembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner Absent: Councilmember Wilson I It was the consensus of the Council to excuse the absence of Mrs. Wilson from this meeting. Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Thomas, Finance Director Chief Stearns, Police Department Captain Maiten, Police Department Captain Garrett, Police Department Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Chief Dorsey, Lifeguard Department Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Mr. Archibold, Assistant to the City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner 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.