HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 4743 1999-08-23
RESOLUTION NUMBER 41$
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
EUCALYPTUS TREE PERMIT 99-1 (BIXBY
OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER PROJECT)
THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE:
Section I. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing
regarding Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-1 on April 21, 1999, and approved the project
throug!t the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 99-6. On August 3, 1999, the
Orange County Superior Court issued a writ in the matter of City of Los Alamitos, et a1.
v. City of Seal Beach ordering the City to vacate Resolution No. 4660 and any approvals
relying on the Final ElR. On August 16, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 4726,
vacating Resolution No. 4660 and any approvals relying on the Final EIR, subject to and
pending further Court order.
I
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15025(a) and ~~ H.C and ill
of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff prepared an Initial Study and a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), to study the environmental impacts arising from
the proposed Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Development Plan and related General
Plan amendments, including this amendment. The DElR was circulated for public review
and comment from April 15, 1998 to May 29, 1998, in compliance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines. Upon completion of the public review period, a Final Environmental Impact
Report was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on September
9, October 21, and November 4, 1998. After the public hearing, the Planning
Commission found, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-37
that the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Development Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is adequate under CEQA. After considering the Final ElR and public
testimony thereto at a public hearing on November 9 and November 17, 1998, the City
Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 4660, certifying the Final EIR and adopting
a statement of overriding considerations. On August 23, 1999, the City Council
conducted a public hearing to consider revisions to the ElR and a statement of overriding
considerations pursuant to the August 3, 1999 writ issued by the Orange County Superior
Court. The approval of this resolution is within the scope of the project analyzed in the
Final EIR, as revised, and City Council Resolution No. 4728 is hereby incorporated by
this reference.
Section 3. Pursuant to the August 3 Writ, the City Council held a public
hearing on August 23, 1999 to consider approving this conditional use permit.
I
Section 4. The record of the Planning Commission hearing of April 7 and
April 21, 1999 indicates the following:
a. On March 17, 1999, Bixby Ranch Company (the "Applicant")
filed applications with the Department of Development Services for permits to remove
eucalyptus trees as a component of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project
development.
b. Specifically, The applicant is proposing to remove eucalyptus trees
on the subject property as a component of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project
implementation, located at the northeast and southeast corners of Seal Beach'Boulevard
Resolution Number~1~~
and Lampson Avenue. More specifically, the following eucalyptus tree removals have
been requested:
IJ Area A: Shopping Center - Permit request to remove all eucalyptus trees within
this area (Note: this permit does not include any eucalyptus trees within the 40'
wide windrow to be dedicated by right or easement to the City). The report of the
arborist indicates there are 100 eucalyptus trees subject to the permit requirements
within this area, and all of these trees will be removed.
IJ Area B: InstitutionaVhoteVrestaurant - Permit request to remove 84 eucalyptus
trees within this area (Note: this permit does not include any eucalyptus trees
within the greenbelt area to be dedicated by right or easement to the City). The
report of the arborist indicates there are 96 eucalyptus trees subject to the permit
requirements within this area, and 12 of these trees will be retained.
I
IJ Area C: Golf Course - Permit request to remove 121 eucalyptus trees within this
area. The project applicant indicates there are 334 eucalyptus trees subject to the
permit requirements within this area, and 113 of these trees will be retained.
c. Chapter 7D of the Code of the City of Seal Beach sets forth the
standards for the granting of eucalyptus tree permits.
d. The City Council adopted "Mitigation Monitoring Program" for
the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project establishes a number of specific action
measures which have been proposed to reduce the identified environmental impacts of
the requested eucalyptus tree removals to a level of insignificance in relation to this
development application. The applicable mitigation measures are conditions of approval
for Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-1 (5 mitigation measures), and are incorporated herein by
reference.
e. The report of the arborist, Greg Applegate, indicates the following
regarding the subject eucalyptus trees, by area:
I
IJ Area A - all or nearly all of the eucalyptus have been topped or severely headed,
many appear to be compased of stump sprouts and almost no seedling are
growing in this area. Swollen bases indicate intemal decay on many of the
eucalyptus. As one would expect, trees that have had poor care or have been
topped have generally lower ratings. Almost no trees were rated at 10. The
average structural condition was 5.67%. The average health rating was 5.98%.
The average root condition was 5.66. Topped trees are rarely rated over 5 and
topping effects both the structural condition, the health and root condition. In
this project many trees are in poor health, most have been topped, others have
advanced decay from poor pruning in the past, and still others have defects that
are not correctable. Trees have life-spans and this stock of trees is, due to
improper pruning and environmentalfactors, in effect "elderly".
IJ Area B - In contrast to the findings of the ElIl, all or nearly all of the eucalyptus
have been topped or severely headed and almost no seedling are growing in this
area. The eucalyptus growing along the side of the San Diego Freeway are
topped very severely because they are under the power lines. Otherwise this
group of trees is in slightly better condition than Area A. As one would expect,
trees that have been pelted by golf balls or have been topped have generally lower
ratings. No trees were rated at 10. The average structural condition was 4.77%.
The average health rating was 5.05. The average root condition was 4.66.
Topped trees are rarely rated over 5 and topping effects both the structural
condition, the health and root condition. As a group the trees in Area B have
grown past middle age and are in the latter part of their lives. In this project
many trees are in poor health or have been topped, and still others have defects
that are not correctable. Trees have life-spans and this stock of trees is, due to
improper pruning and environmental factors, in effect "elderly", Trees that are
in obvious, irreversible decline or are conspicuous hazard trees are
recommended for removal. "
I
Resolution Number-9.1.tf~
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated
in fi4 of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 7D of the City's ~ the City Council
adopts the findings of the Planning Commissio", and makes the following findings:
a. The requested eucalyptus tree removal permits are within the scope
of the analysis contained within the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Environmental
Impact Report, as revised, and no further environmental analysis is required.
I
b. Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-1, a request to remove 305 eucalyptus
trees within the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center project area is consistent with the
standards for granting permits of Chapter' 7D of the Code of the Citv of Seal Beach for
the following reasons:
IJ The condition of the eucalyptus tree(s) with reSDect to disease. danger of falling.
and proximitv to existing or proposed structures: As indicated by the consulting
arborist, regarding the trees within Area A ". . . all or nearly all of the eucalyptus
have been topped or severely headed, many appear to be composed of stump
sprouts and almost no seedling are growing in this area. Swollen bases indicate
internal decay on many of the eucalyptus. As one would expect, trees that have
had poor care or have been topped have generally lower ratings. Almost no trees
were roted at 10. The average structural condition was 5.67%. The average
health rating was 5.98%. The average root condition was 5.66. Topped trees are
rarely rated over 5 and topping effects both the structural condition, the health
and root condition. In this project many trees are in poor health, most have been
topped, others have advanced decay from poor pruning in the past, and still
others have defects that are not correctable. Trees have life-spans and this stock
of trees is, due to improper pruning and environmental factors, in effect
"elderly".
I
The consulting arborist indicates the following for the trees within Area B: "In
contrast to the findings of the ElR, all or nearly all of the eucalyptus have been
topped or severely headed and almost no seedling are growing in this area. The
eucalyptus growing along the side of the San Diego Freeway are topped very
severely because they are under the power lines. Otherwise thi.f group of trees is
in slightly better condition than Area A. As one would expect, trees that have
been pelted-by golf balls or have been topped have generally lower ratings. No
trees were rated at 10. The average structural condition was 4.77%. The
average health rating was 5.05. The average root condition was 4.66. Topped
trees are rarely rated over 5 and topping effects both the structural condition, the
health and root condition. As a group the trees in Area B have grown past middle
age and are in the latter port of their lives. In this project many trees are in poor
health or have been topped, and still others have defects that are not correctable.
Trees have life-spans and this stock of trees is, due to improper pruning and
environmentalfactors, in effect "elderly". Trees that are in obvious, irreversible
decline or are conspicuous hazard trees are recommended for removol. ..
. IJ The interference of trees with existinl! utility services and/or streets and hil!hways:
As indicated by the consulting arborist, "The eucalyptus growing along the side of
the San Diego Freeway are topped very severely because they are under the
power lines,"
I
IJ The number of trees which the affected Drorerty can adequately SUlwort under
I!ood forestry Dractices: Area A is approximately 25-acres in area and the n:quired
tree replacement program would require a total of 400 new eucalyptus trees to be
provided to replace the 100 existing trees to be removed, either within or
immediately adjacent to this proposed shopping center development. The site is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate this number of trees. Area B is
approximately 13.7 acres in area, including the 5-acre greenbelt area to be
dedicated in fee or by easement to the City, and the required tree replacement
program would require a total of 336 new eucalyptus trees to be provided to
replace the 84 existing trees to be removed, either within or immediately adjacent
Resolution Numbe~1~,3
to this proposed development. The site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate this number of trees. Area C is approximately 150 acres in area and
will comprise the recontigured Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course, and the required
tree replacement program would require a total of 484 new eucalyptus trees to be
provided to replace the 121 existing trees to be removed, either within or
immediately adjacent to this proposed development. The site is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate this number of trees.
Overall, a total of 305 eucalyptus trees are requested to be removed, and 1,220 I
new eucalyptus trees will be required to be planted in accordance with the adopted
"mitigation measures" ,
IJ The extent to which alternative develllPment plans which do not endanl!er trees
cannot achieve the same intensi~ of uses as the orooosed plans. and the extent to
which the cost of alternative development olans is orohibitive: The City Council
considered several alternatives to the approved project which were discussed and
evaluated within the "Alternatives" section of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center
ElR, The City Council ultimately determined to certify the ElR, approve the
project, and adopt the appropriate Statement of Findings and Overriding
Considerations. The requested eucalyptus tree removal permits are within the
scope of the certified E1R and reflects the project as approved and as conditioned
by the City Council in its adoption of the "Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Further, the report of the project arborist indicates, "In the "Matrix of Findings"
and recommendations a large number of tree., have been recommended for
removal. While tree preservation is a worthwhile and economically attractive
goal, there are many instances where the cost of preservation outweighs JUture
benefits to be gained In this project many trees are in poor health, most have
been topped, others have advanced rkcay from poor pruning in the post, and still
others have defects that are not correctable. Trees have life-spons and this stock
of trees is, due to improper pruning and environmental factors, in effect I
"elderly". Trees that are in obvious, irreversible rkcline or are hazard trees are
recommended for removal.
c. Required adherence to applicable mitigation measures will ensure
that all appropriate actions to reduce environmental impacts to a level of insignificance
are completed and an adequate number of replacement trees will be provided in
accordance with the adopted "Mitigation Monitoring Program" for the requested
eucalyptus tree removals.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves
Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-1, subject to the following conditions:
1. Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-1 is approved for the following tree removals
within Areas A, B and C:
IJ Area A: Shopping Center - Permit request to remove all eucalyptus trees
within this area (Note: this permit does not include any eucalyptus trees
within the 40' wide windrow to be dedicated by right or easement to the
City). There shall be no more than 100 eucalyptus trees removed from this
area. A total of 400 new eucalyptus trees shall be provided to replace the
100 existing trees to be removed, either within or immediately adjacent to
this proposed shopping center development.
I
IJ Area B: InstitutionallhoteUrestaurant - Permit request to remove 84
eucalyptus trees within this area (Note: this permit does not include any
eucalyptus trees within the greenbelt area to be dedicated by right or
easement to the City). There are 96 eucalyptus trees subject to the permit
requirements within this area, and not more than 84 of these trees are
permitted to be removed. A total of 336 new eucalyptus trees shall be
provided to replace the 84 existing trees to be removed, either within or
immediately adjacent to this proposed development.
Resolution Numbe~;'~
IJ Area C: Golf Course - Permit request to remove 121 eucalyptus trees
within this area. The project applicant indicates there are 234 eucalyptus
trees subject to the permit requirements within this area, and 113 of these
trees will be retained. Not more than 121 trees shall be removed in this
area. A total of 484 new eucalyptus trees to be provided to replace the 121
existing trees to be removed, either within or immediately adjacent to this
proposed development.
I
2.
All eucalyptus tree removals and the replanting program shall be in
accordance with the reports submitted by the consulting arborist, Greg
Applegate, relating to Area A and Area B, respectively dated February 19,
1999 and March 10, 1999.
3. Not more than 100 trees shall be removed from Area A. Not more than 84
trees shall be removed from Area B. Not more than 121 trees shall be
removed from Area C.
4. All eucalyptus tree removals shall be in compliance with Mitigation Measures
G-ll, G-13, M-4, M-S and M-6, as adopted !>y the City Council on August 23,
1999.
5. This Eucalyptus Tree Permit shall not become effective for any purpose
unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant
in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and
returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period
has elapsed.
6.
A modification of this Eucalyptus Tree Permit shall be obtained when the
property owner proposes to modifY any of the conditions of approval for this
Eucalyptus Tree Permit.
The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modifY this
Eucalyptus Tree Permit if any violation of the approved conditions occurs,
any violation of the Code of the Citv of Seal Beach, occurs, or for those
reasons specified by Article 28, and in the manner specified in Article 25, of
Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.
I
7.
8. This Eucalyptus Tree Permit shall become null and void unless exercised
within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as
may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for
extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum
of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal
Beach ~c:ting ~f held on the ~/tL~ day of
O~ , 1999, by the following vote:
A YES: Councilmem
I
NOES:
Councilmember
ABSENT:
t
Mayor
Resolution Number 1/'lJ/::J
ATTEST:
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
COUNrY OF ORANGE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
}
}
}
SS
I
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do h~ that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number ::a on fIle in
the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Cit}; Council of the
Chy of ~' "~"",,,.....,bdd 00 1he .;l~",t day
of ~~/J, 1999.
I
I
I
I
I
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Counly of Orange
'I am a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the county afore-
said; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or inter-
ested in the above-entitled matter.
I a.m the principal clerk of the printer
of the SEAL BEACH SUN, a
newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published weekly in the
Oily of Seal Beach, County of
r:-prange and which newspaper has
;<been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of Orange, State
of California, under the date of
2/24/75. Case Number A82583; that
the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (sel in type not smaller
than nonpareil), has been published
in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates, to-wit:
,1--ue; c.J .(. q- f rz.-
all in lhe year 1999.
I cerlify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
cor reel.
Dated at Seal Beach, CA,
Ihis ~ day of fVG....J J."--- , 1999.
~
A~
/
Signature
PUBLICATION PROCESSED f?Y:
THE SUN NEWSPAPERS
216 Main Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 430-7555 . (949) 759-7726
Resolution Number
This space is for the County
Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
NonCE OF PUBUC HEARING - L CD"dlllo"a' U.e Permll 98-'5 _ -
Marnon Hmor C8I8 faCIlity
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Ihllt In M Eucalyplus Tree Permll 99-, _
KCOrdance with the August 3. 111I Removel of eucalyptus trees WJth...
Writ of Mande.e '''ued by Ih, In Areas -A- and -9- (commerclaf
Orang. County Superlar Court" lhe devebpment BJ'8BS)
Clly Council 0' the City of S..I . H
Beech Will hold. pubUc hearing on Vesrlllg Tenralwe Tract Map No
Mond8Y. AuguSI 23, 11191 81 7:00 15797 - 75-101 resldentlm SUbdt-
p.m. In the City Council Ch.mbe.... VIsion
211 Eighth SIreet, Sui Beach, C.... 0 Conddlonal Use Pennft 99-5 _ Off. I
Iloml. to: gremlSB aIcohot ..le8 81 Sav-On
1 ConSIder Revisions to the Bbcbv Old ruq
Ranch Towne Cenl.r Flnaf EIR ProJecl Overview: The proJ)osed
(SCH 97091077) - CertIfication of mlJCed.use prCljecl conSlsls of com-
t:.IR by City Council; Adoption of merclal, resldenllal. recreallonal..
Statemenl Of Ovemdlng COnard.. t Inslrtutlonal, and open space uses
ations and as ",evfousJy approved by the City
, f Councd In November 1998, and as
2. Reconsider: d8SCl1bed In Ihe Revrsed EIR under
A General Plan Amendmenl98-t _ . conSIderation as perl of thts public
Amendments to various elements :. heanng The EIR approval was
of the GenenII Plan to melntak1 con- challenged by SBveral partres and
IIsteney between the General Plan' 1 the CIty has been Instructed by the
snd the -~ set eoulllo sat _., Y8C8IO, snd_
ap....u.._ prO! Retolubon No 4660 approved on
1 Land Use Element Amendment NOVember 23. 1998, certlfyrng the
2 Open ~aceJConser- Final EIR for the Projed.1h8 NOtIce
vatlOn/R8Creatmn Element of Oefenmnatldn fried on Novem.
3 Bicycle Roule Element ber 24. 1998. and any and all
4 HOUSIng Elemertt acllons of any body Ihal rely in
5. Crrculatlon ElelTl8n1 whote or In pari on the ~ RaI1ch
6. Noise Element EIR,IncIudmglhe Seal BeeCh Pbwt-
8 Zone Ctw1ge 98-1-Am.....dl..ds nlng CommlSsron.
to Zonrng ~ap to malntarn consIs- Th8 sIIe Is approximately 218 aaes
leney between the Zoning Map and In SIze. The major project compo-
the General Plan. nents are as follows' (1/, 286.967
I a b 0Il!_ "'___1 square fool retarl shoDp ng center
1. Tenn s u ~R1- UellleltlU ('n_..I.......8I1t Are. ~A-)' f') '04
Commorols! re-2) 10 P- -........... . .
lind Use fP- n room holel. 15.000 square leet of
.__ 'A' d '8- . restaurants. 160-bed IInlor usrst-
2. Develo~nl ""- 8M - ed IMng facility, 5 acres greenbell
- General Commerctal (C-2) (Devetopment Area -81. (3) 157-
and RecreatlOn-GoII (R-G) to acre reconflgured private goll
General Commerctal (C-2) course and a priYale/publlc d!M!'19
3, Development Area -r: - Gsn- rang. (Oovalopm'" Ara. 'C"), (4)
eral Commerctal ~ and 75-101: detached resldenllallUbdM-
Recree.bon.GoII -G 10 sian and 2.5 acre comnn.lrvty ark
Recrealron GoIIIR _ _ (Development Are. "0-). an! (5)
4 Dewlopment Area - G8ner- a'8drca1fon of exIstfng 6 735 BIxby
aI CommeraBl (C-2) and Old Ranch TenniS CiJb &lie 10 CfIy
Recrealion-Golf (R-G) to Resr- (DeveJopment Area -E1.
dentlal Medium Oenslty (RMo)
CodeSecUon.:Sedkm 2~2600
C. Tentative Parcel Map No 97-165 _ Zone Changes
_pan:sllzmmol1387-aaocom_
merclalslle Section 2~25Q3.2504 - Condl.
tional Use Permits
o TenlatlveTract Map No 15787- SectIOn 28-1B03-Plannecl Sign
parcellzabon of 26 045-acre com- Program
mercral shopping center SeclIOn 28-2317(4) _ HeIght
E oevelopmenl Aareement - Spec. V.rlBbons
lfies duties and responSIbilities of SectIOl128-2751-f770 _ DeveJ-
Cdy snd BDCby Rant/l Company 10 Dprno"l Agresm....
enlU'8 DRlIed completion and c:om-
p1181'1C8 WIth all mlbg8llon measufllS Section 7Q.4 - Eucafyptus Tree
and conditions Permits
F. SIIe PIanRevlew98-1-Slleplan Chapter 21 .SubdMsrons
review for 26 045-acrl shopping AppIIC8nt: Bixby Rench Company
center development Kllchell Development Comrv1:7
G CondRional Use PermO fJ8.16- Manion SenlOf' UvIng Se
drlve-ltwough WIndow and 24-hour Owner: BIXby Ranch Company .
operatron lOr proposed drug Blore Krlchell Development COmpany
WIthin 26.045-acre shopping cen- Marriott Senior UvIng Servtc:es
ler Ai 1M above bme and place all Inter-
H. Conditional UII Permit 98-17 - esled persons may be heard If so
home center and Qutdoor garden desired II you chaJIenge the pro~
.. center . Ildlons In c:ourI. you may be limned to
raising only lhos8 Issues you 01 some-
I. SUe Plan ReYIBW 98-2 - freeway one else r8Ised at the public heBnng
identifk:allon stgn'- described k1lhls notrce. or 111 wntten
J Helllht VarIaIfon 98-5 _ archllec- correspondence dehvered to the City
, . ,",liIlaalureo above 35-1o?i height 01 50s! Besch aI, .. priollo, the pub-
: IImll ~ . lie hearing.
K. Planned Sign Program 98.1 _ DATED This 9th day of August, 1999
overall shopping center sign pro. .IollMe M..Yeo. CrIy Clerk' . .
gram t NlIstMid In Ihe i!aI Beech Sun:.Jour-
nal. - {f"''''''9