The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Min 1998-11-23 \ 11-17-98 I 11-23-98 AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried CLOSED SESSION It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to continue the Closed Session items until the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned the meeting until Monday, November 23rd at 6:30 p.m. to meeting in Closed Session. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 1:00 a.m. I Attest: Seal Beach, California November 23, 1998 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:32 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brown Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane Absent: Councilman Yost Councilman Yost joined the Council in Closed Session at approximately 6:33 p.m. Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Doane moved, second by Boyd, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane None Yost Motion carried CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the four items identified on the 11-23-98 I agenda, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Majcherek versus the City of Seal Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case Number 789093, Stull versus Bank of America, and Workers Comp Case Number MON 023729, and pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b), one issue of anticipated lititgation. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:33 p.m. and reconvened at 6:49 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order, the City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items identified on the agenda, gave direction with regard to to Case #MON 0235729, and no other action was taken. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Attest: Approved: I Seal Beach, California November 23, 1998 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:08 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brown Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None -I Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works! City Engineer Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Boyd requested that Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar, Councilman Yost requested Item "B" removed, and Councilmember Campbell said her intent had been to request consideration of the Bixby Development Agreement first under Continued Business however legal counsel advised 11-23-98 that was not the proper sequence of considerations. The City Attorney explained that the procedure is to consider Resolution Number 4660, the Final Environmental Impact Report, then the General Plan Amendments, and then the Development Agreement. Councilmember Campbell requested that Items "A" and "D" be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Brown noted a request of staff to remove the minutes of the regular meeting of November 9th from consideration of Item "K". Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried Councilman Doane said he wished to offer a clarification, as after the last meeting people had thanked him for the stand he took with regard to a substitute amendment that was made regarding residential use rather than the Bixby business plan, explaining that it was Councilman Boyd who made an amendment to his substitute motion, and as the maker of the substitute motion he accepted the amendment thereto, to that he and Councilman Boyd voted in favor of that motion, however it did not pass. Thereafter consideration was of the revision of the commercial plan which the Council then voted for. Councilman Doane apologized if he had given the impression that at that point only one more vote was needed to go back and consider houses instead of commercial. He said he would not go back, the Council has made a decision, what he favors is closure of this issue so that other City business can be dealt with, again, said he was sorry if he gave the impression that he would continue fighting for houses, and that would be an erroneous conclusion drawn by some persons. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications open, invited comments on any item so desired, noted that public comments relating to the Bixby project has been closed however offered that anyone wishing to comment on that issue may do so, exceeding the five minute per speaker period will be considered, and if Oral Communications exceeds the established thirty minutes it will be extended. Ms. Laura Brecht, 6th Street, member of the Los Alamitos PTSA Board, announced that Los Alamitos High School has been named as a National Blue Ribbon Distinguished School for the third time in the last eleven years. Ms. Brecht stated the intent is to place a plaque in front of the school to commemorate this award, the cost will be approximately $3,200, and asked if the City would make a donation. Ms. Shelly Sustarsic described the lengthy application process. Mr. Joe Siefer, College Park East, said he has attended two events in the past year that showed the arrogance of elected officials, the approval of the building of a new OCHA High School, besides the fact that about ninety percent of the individuals who spoke during the public hearings were against the expansion, and last week he witnessed this Council do the same thing with regard to the Bixby project, the vast majority of individuals who spoke during the hearings were clearly against the project yet the Council voted for it. Mr. Siefer stated he was filing charges of censorship with the District Attorney against the Mayor, claiming that the public was denied the right to speak with regard to residential development. Mr. Siefer made critical remarks to the members of the City Council as well as City staff. He stated he would boycott this project. Mr. Jim Sartain, Rossmoor, I 11-23-98 I complained about the Bixby project and the Council procedures last week. Mr. John Unrath, College Park East, predicted this to be the last time the public can speak to the Bixby project. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, made reference to the problems brought forth recently by Councilman Boyd regarding Central Avenue, to which he said that no one is paying attention to stop signs any longer, and requested that the Police Department issue citations. He said he was not up to date with the Bixby project, however he had traveled to Los Alamitos this date, traveled the freeway to Studebaker to Katella, that in order to avoid the intersection of Lampson, which he claimed to be terrible, and said the Council needs to do something about it. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, said to her it appears that the City Council has solved all of its problems north of the freeway, it will receive funds for low and moderate income housing, that along with those monies from the Hellman project will likely be used to upgrade housing in the downtown area, revenues from the commercial project can be used to fix the pier and whatever else downtown, the bridge will be widened, a permanent location will be realized for the community police and the Cable Foundation, everything has been done except for putting the yellow house up north, College Park will get the hard fought for community center. Said she felt that Quimby fees were spent outside of College Park East, and suggested that the $750,000 be dedicated solely to the community center site, income from the site should be turned back to this fund, a separate fund intended only for College Park East, and a CPE committee should be formed to determine the use of the funds and the facilities to be put there. She noted consideration of having a teen center downtown. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, complained about the zoning change for the Anaheim Bay Villas. Marybeth from Rossmoor criticized the Bixby approval. Ms. Delores Sartain, Rossmoor, criticized the Bixby approvals. Ms. Fran Johnson, Coastline Drive, criticized a member of the Council for not representing the people, and stated she wanted to preserve the trees. Mr. Larry Jones, Rossmoor, expressed the opinion that the City is only interested in money. Mr. Jerry Anderson, Sandpiper Drive, expressed his opinion that the Bixby project is a quality product, that the mitigation measures will not solve everything but they will work. Ms. Eu1a1ee Siler, College Park East, said the City should put the revenue producing commercial acres in an area south of the freeway, the traffic will be worse, and that the financial report is bizarre. Mr. Phil Chapirson, College Park East, felt the Bixby project, a mixed use plan, not just golf course homes, is better than helter skelter development. Mr. Scott Reyes, Laguna Place, said it is the best project he has seen. Mr. Greg Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, said he found it interesting how the City wants to put commercial on Seal Beach Boulevard but when the Boulevard crosses Pacific Coast Highway the City wants to put in houses where the zoning is already commercial and there are commercial businesses, claiming there to be no houses on Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Joe Siler, College Park East, commented on the Council procedures at the last meeting and questioned traffic calculations. He also stated that the Base would not close if homes were approved. Ms. Cibella Willenius, College Park East, said she had collected many of the signatures against this project, and asked that the Council answer to everyone of the three thousand three hundred fifty-nine people against this. There being no further comments, Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications closed. I I 11-23-98 . . CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "A" thru "M" Yost moved, second by Boyd, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except for Items "A, B, D, and I", removed for separate consideration. C. Received and filed the staff report relating to receipt of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Steering Committee Newsletter, and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control for information purposes. I E. Received and filed the report from staff relating to the receipt of the Orange County Council of Governments First Quarter Progress Report, FY 1998/99, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. F. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Housing Element Update - Status Report, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission for information purposes. G. H. proclaimed the remaining holiday months of 1998 and all of 1999 as "Buckle Up For Life Challenge" and encouraged all to buckle their seat belts every time they travel in a motor vehicle. I Received and filed the monthly investment report for October, 1998. J. Received and filed the Sixth Quarterly Report relating to the Daytime Curfew Ordinance. K. Approved the minutes of the October 26th and November 9th, 1998 regular adjourned meetings. L. M. AYES: NOES: Denied the claim for damages of Candice vandeven and forwarded same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. Denied the claim for damages of Christie Radford and forwarded same to the City's liability attorney and adjuster. Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR I ITEM "A" - WAIVER OF FULL READING Councilmember Campbell requested the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions considered at this meeting. The City Attorney explained that if there is no motion to waive the reading, which requires a unanimous vote, then for each ordinance and resolution considered at this meeting there would need to be a motion to waive the reading in full. Yost moved, second by Doane, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions at this meeting. 11-23-98 AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane Boyd, Campbell, Yost Motion failed I ITEM "B" - DEMANDS Councilman Yost requested clarification of the payment to AKM Consulting Engineers in an amount of $12,850 and a telephone bill of some $7,000 plus. The Director of Public Works stated that AKM is the consultants for the sewer and storm drain master plans, the amount a progress payment for work completed to date, and confirmed that the problem area adjacent to St. Anne's Church will be included in these plans. As to the listing of the GTE utility/phone bill in the amount of $7,750, the City Manager explained that that relates to the recent telephone/voice mail system conversion. Mayor Brown requested that in the future the City Manager be forewarned of background inquiries during the meeting. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to approved regular demands numbered 21400 through 21494 in the amount of $471,811.23, payroll demands numbered 1690 through 1838 and 27633 through 27634 in the amount of $152,663.18, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I ITEM "D" - SCAG - AB 438 - HOUSING ELEMENT LEGISLATION Councilmember Campbell inquired of the City Attorney as to how this legislation will affect the low to moderate housing requirements in the City's Housing Element. The City Attorney explained that there is no impact on the existing Housing Element at the present time, the Element will be required to be updated in 1999, the Southern California Association of Governments will be preparing new housing numbers to which the allocation to Seal Beach has been of concern, to that staff will be presenting a proposal to lobby SCAG to have some influence on or possibly object to the numbers. He noted that there will be some changes in time but at the present there is no impact of the existing Housing Element. Councilmember Campbell said her concern is that in computing low to moderate SCAG does not look at the existing housing but whenever there is new development they look at a certain percentage of that having to be low to moderate, the City would like to have some of the existing housing qualified as low to mod, and inquired if it is known if that is part of what will be considered when they do their review, will it be changed. The City Attorney said he did not know if it will be changed however that will be something that will be proposed by this and other cities as many cities feel they provide more than their fair share, the cities will be lobbying SCAG to consider the existing supply of affordable housing. I Campbell moved, second by Boyd, to receive and file the staff report relating to receipt of the Southern California Association of Governments memorandum with regard to AB 438 Subregional Delegation of RHNA Allocations (Housing Element Legislation), and instructed staff to forward this item to the Planning Commission for information purposes. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried ITEM "I" - RIVERS END CAFE - IMPROVEMENTS At the request of Council, the City Manager reported the City 11-23-98 had entered into a lease agreement in 1996 with Mr. Balchin to operate the Rivers End Cafe at the city-owned premises at the First Street beach area, this taking place after a prior tenant had defaulted on the lease agreement and the premises had fallen into disrepair, the new lease required some investment on the part of the Ba1chin family to refurbish the facility and maintain the grounds. The Manager noted that the subject improvements consist of a new patio enclosure for inclement weather, a storage area also, however this requires a permit approved by the City Council, the recommendation would be to approve the issuance of the permits for this City-owned property. Councilman Boyd mentioned that this property had been vacant for some time and the City made an aggressive effort to lease it to create a visitor serving use as well as something the community would take interest in. He noted concern that this is allowing a structure that has been built to remain and now the permits are being requested to be issued, the staff report mentions that the Council takes a dim view of such things, which is true, the applicant is aware of that, and the recommendation is to accept the improvements and instruct staff to issue the permits, to which he asked if it is felt this is appropriate, if so is there a penalty, citing a scenario that if approved he would not like to see this type of after the fact permit process become a practice. The Director of Development Services explained that the Building Code has an automatic requirement for the payment of a double fee for any work that is done after the fact, that applies to any permit requirement, this is not unusual in that there are many projects in the community where persons do not realize they need a permit. In this case should the Council authorize permits to be issued the fee will then be double the standard fee, an automatic requirement of the Code. Councilman Yost pointed out that the area in question was considerably blighted before Mr. Ba1chin took over, it is now beautiful, a major difference to the area in a very positive way, stated he certainly does not condone after the fact permits, double fees seem to be an adequate penalty, noting too that he did receive a Coastal Commission permit, with the appearance of that once blighted area Mr. Ba1chin should be thanked. I I Brown moved, second by Yost, to approve the improvements to Rivers End Cafe and instruct the Director of Development Services to issue all necessary permits for said construction. Councilman Boyd stated he would go along with the motion, commended the restaurant, yet said his concern is that the City leases the restaurant, leases the facility, this is a public facility belonging to the residents of Seal Beach, the lease is for five years, a price was established based on what was assumed at that point in time would be the amount of square footage belonging to the public that would be allowed to be used for this restaurant, it has now been increased yet additional revenue is not being received. He said he takes a dim view of letting public resources be given away, this is done time and time again, after the fact permits are issued time and time again, and according to a speaker there were three thousand people saying do not ruin our quality of life, stop the Bixby project because it is public land and all the people should enjoy it, and even though this is a small space it is public land too. He expressed his belief that a solid position on this is needed and be answerable to the people of the City. Councilman Boyd again said however that he would vote for the motion as the restaurant has been an improvement, people in the City like it, visitors use it, but if the giving away of public I 11-23-98 I resources is going to continue that needs to be understood. Councilman Yost took exception to the comment that he is giving away public land, it has not been given away, the City receives a percentage of Mr. Balchin's gross with a set minimum, the patio cover is not permanently constructed over a structure, the City continues to maintain ownership, again said he does not condone after the fact permits, and agrees that the penalty should be paid. Further comments were that the usage has been increased as a result of the cover, and to that it was pointed out that the number of tables however have not been increased. Vote on the motion to approve: AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:18 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:31 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER - DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RESOLUTION NUMBERS 4660/4661/4662/4663/4664/4665/4666 - ORDINANCE NUMBERS 1436/1437/1438/1439 - RESOLUTION NUMBERS 4667/4668 - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1440 I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4660 - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The City Attorney read the title of Resolution Number 4660, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS." Doane moved, second by Yost, to waive the reading in full of Resolution Number 4660. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion failed I Mayor Brown commenced the reading of Resolution Number 4660 through Section 7. To Section 7 the City Attorney clarified that the reference to the memoranda of Culbertson, Adams and Associates should reflect the date of same as November 17th, 1998 and the Linscott, Law and Greenspan memoranda should reflect the date of November 23rd. Mayor Brown continued with the reading of Section 8, question was raised as to whether the fact that the resolution was not signed needs to be noted, to which the City Attorney responded that the resolution was adopted, it is simply a ministerial act for the Chair to sign the document, confirming that the resolution was adopted with conditions, it is uncertain whether the conditions were met, however fact remains that it is an adopted, effective resolution. Mayor Brown read Section 9, requested the reading of the following pages by Councilmember Campbell who declined the request. Councilman Boyd read Sections 10 through 12, to Section l2 Councilmember Campbell noted the statement that recirculation of the EIR is not required, stated some could take exception to that claiming that a new project had been introduced. Councilman Boyd continued with the reading of Section 13 and to that the City Attorney again clarified that the date of the 11-23-98 Culbertson, Adams and Associates memoranda was November 17th, the Linscott, Law and Greenspan memoranda was dated November 23rd, and Councilmember Campbell objected to the statement that 'the public has been afforded meaningful opportunities to comment', stating her opinion that the public had not been afforded adequate opportunity. Councilman Boyd read through Section 17, Councilman Yost read Section 18 through the end of the Resolution. With reference to Exhibit "A" thereto, the legal descriptions of the subject properties, Counci1member Campbell said the numbers reflected in Exhibit "A" are not consistent with numbers reflected in Tables elsewhere in this document. The City Attorney said as had been thought, the Tables were done prior to the legal descriptions being released to the City, the Areas of the Exhibit are correct, the Tables will need to be revised in accordance with the numbers in the Exhibit. Councilmember Campbell noted that Area A of Exhibit "A" reflects 26.045 acres yet the Tables reflected 25 acres, therefore her intent was to clarify which of the numbers were correct. With reference to Exhibit "B", Counci1member Campbell commented that the language of Section I-A-5, "development which is at least fiscally neutral, and preferably, fiscally beneficial to the City" had best be very fiscally beneficial to the City; Section II-A, Land use, Potential Impacts, questioned if the reflected 218.31 acre project site should be changed to 212.551, that in keeping with the number derived from Exhibit "A" or should the acres of the tennis club be included for a total of 219.291. The Director of Development Services offered to confer with the engineer who prepared the legals to see if one of the Areas includes the tennis club property. Councilmember Campbell clarified that if the tennis club is included the number would be 219.291 acres, if not the number would be 212.551 acres. The Director clarified that the legal descriptions provided on Exhibit "A" do not include the tennis club property therefore that number needs to be added. Counci1member Campbell stated again that number would then be 219.291, under II-A, Potential Impacts, as the acreage of the Project. A civil engineer for the applicant stated that his firm prepared the legal descriptions, that the total area, including the tennis club site is about 217.5. Councilmember Campbell again claimed that if the totals are added they equal 219.291. Referencing Section II-A-3-A1, "development areas A, Band D shall include walls, landscaped buffers and building setbacks in order to eliminate potential conflicts with adjacent residential and recreational uses....detailed plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services," Councilmember Campbell stated those improvements need to go before the Planning Commission not just Development Services. The Director of Development Services explained that the final subdivision maps by law have to come back to the Council for approval, as a rule the Council does not review final construction plans for block walls, the subdivision map will show where the walls will be located on the property yet there is generally not a Council review of construction plans, confirmed that the Planning Commission will review the location as part of their consideration of the tentative subdivision map but again they do not review final construction drawings. As to Section II- A-3-A2 and A3, it was further explained that the subdivision map will show the basic landscape setback area however the final design of the landscape plan is traditionally reviewed for concept, not the detail of construction. The City Manager interjected that in this case before these plans reach Development Services they will already have been I I I 11-23-98 I reviewed and approved with a greater level of detail. To Section II-C-3-C3, "loose and soft alluvial soils, expansive clay soils and all existing uncertified fill materials will be removed and replaced", Counci1member Campbell asked to what depth are such soils removed. The Director of Development Services explained that that will be based upon the report from the' soils engineer, they will have to conduct detailed soil borings and investigation, that to be contained in a report that also requires a peer review of another engineering geologist plus a City review by the engineering staff. As to Section II-D-1-D1, Water/Drainage, making reference to the Old Ranch Retarding Basin capacity of 87.6 acre feet, Counci1member Campbell inquired as to the original capacity, to which staff reported it to be 84. With regard to Section II-D-3-D3 relating to additional capacity, Councilmember Campbell asked if this has been rated to any specific year flood. The Director of Development Services explained that the 87.6 acre capacity is designed for a one hundred year flood, that is required mitigation for existing drainage improvements. Councilman Yost noted that during his survey of the area there was request that this project would mitigate above the level that increases the chance for flooding given the increase of impervious areas, to what level does it do that and how, a request for assurance that the flooding situation in College Park East would be markedly improved, one of the benefits of this project. The City Manager offered that the improvements are 'significant, however there was not a nexus, this project did not create the additional burden, it was the intent to try to build into the project enhancements above and beyond what was created by the impacts of this project. Councilman Yost noted about thirteen percent, a net improvement for College Park East. To Section II-D-7-D7, "...prior to final project design, a project specific Drainage Report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with applicable requirements of the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Seal Beach...", Councilmember Campbell inquired as to what stage of the project would this take place. The Director of Development Services stated this would be prior to issuance of any building permits for construction or grading activities. Counci1member read further language "describe the existing drainage network, existing capacity, pre-and post-project runoff volumes, and any necessary improvements to accommodate proposed project runoff volumes", to which she inquired that if it is found that other necessary improvements why pays for them, she would not want to find that it would be the City who pays, to that the city Manager advised it would be the applicant's obligation. councilmember Campbell noted that the project will have lakes, they will collect water when it rains yet they already have water in them, thus where will the water collect when it rains. Mayor Brown said for the majority of times they will know about the coming rain and will drain the lakes down in anticipation, however if there is an unexpected storm that is another problem. The civil engineer explained that the water in the lakes is what is called dead storage, it is not part of the Retention Basin volume, if the water is pumped down that would increase the available space for runoff however the assumption in the calculations do not count on that. Further, Councilmember Campbell noted then that there is standing water and inquired what measures would be taken for mosquito abatement, to which the Director said there are mitigation measures in the EIR that discuss those issues. Councilmember Campbell made reference to Section II-E-3(f) under Regional Air Quality - Long Term, "provide dedicated I I 11-23-98 turn lanes as appropriate and provide roadway improvements at heavily congested roadways," noted she had discussed this with the applicant this date, because there will need to be pocket turn lanes on Lampson going into and out of the project area otherwise this will just cause the relocating of accidents, and requested an explanation by the City Engineer as to what a pocket turn lane is on Lampson, her understanding is that westbound there will be a turn lane in to the project at the main location, questioned accommodation of the driveway and whether a left turn would be permitted by westbound traffic, noting that currently there is a median, an opening will need to be cut through that. The Traffic Engineer made reference to a conceptual drawing of the Lampson Avenue Plan, he pointed out the access points to the driving range and the Senior Care facility, there are left turn pockets for west and eastbound movements, there is another access at the existing tennis club, there is a left turn pocket inbound, there is no need for a turn pocket in the other direction because there is no development there to be served, at the westerly most driveway of the existing tennis club will have a raised median therefore there will be no turning movements, and access to the golf club will have access via the existing signal at Basswood, the Plan does not indicate a separate right turn lane into the project, as to a bus stop, explained those are typically established by OCTA, there is none planned at this time however the applicant or the City could install stops with OCTA cooperation. Councilmember Campbell stated that a stop currently exists, to that the project engineer advised that OCTA has requested a stop, and agreed that an inlet could be provided for same. Councilmember Campbell directed attention to Section II-F-3- F1, Potential Impacts, it was clarified that the Section did reflect six intersections, then asked how the term "fair share" is computed, what does the City expect to get. The Director of Development Services explained that for the intersections in Seal Beach the developer will be paying a traffic mitigation fee based upon the degree of improvements at the time building permits are requested, those funds will be used for all of the improvements within the City, for the intersections outside of Seal Beach there is a responsibility between the City of Los Alamitos and the Bixby Ranch Company to reach an agreement, an estimation in this City would be between $1.2 and $1.5 million depending on the final plans submitted. The Manager said for legal purposes the term "fair share" is for the purpose of showing that there is a nexus between the project impact and the fee exaction. with reference to Section II-G-1-G1, Biological Resources, the requirements of the California Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers with regard to on-site wetland habitats, and questioned if there were anyon-site habitats. The Director of Development Services responded that the EIR indicates that there are man-made created wetlands on the site, it is the opinion of the City's consultants that those do not meet the criteria of the Army Corps of Engineers for a 404 permit, the requirement of this condition is that the Army Corps be notified of the existence of those areas to allow the Corps to make that determination, if they make the determination that they are wetlands under their jurisdiction then the project applicant will have to comply with their requirements. With regard once again to traffic turn lanes, Counci1member Campbell asked if there is a requirement for a bus lane on Lampson from Seal Beach Boulevard, to which the Director explained there will be a right hand lane from the Boulevard to Lampson that will accommodate a bus making a turn, the same as any vehicle on the street. Counci1member I I I 11-23-98 I Campbell said her concern is that there is not a spot for a bus to pull into on Lampson, there are presently two left turn southbound lanes onto Lampson, if they come upon a bus then there will be a problem. The Director directed attention to F-3 that requires, prior to the issuance of a building permit, approval by the Director of Public Works of a Bus Stop and pedestrian Access Plan. Councilmember Campbell read Section II-J-1, Noise Impacts, suggested that the words "although" and "such incidents are exceedingly speculative" be deleted from the second sentence to read "...single-event and emergency noise levels from aircraft operations at the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center could exceed established noise thresholds." She cited noise from C-5 aircraft as an example. Ms. Culbertson, the EIR consultant, responded that the reason for using the term 'speculative' is that the building is sound attenuated in such a manner that the single event or emergency noise levels are not forecast to exceed the established thresholds, that language was used as a precaution, such an incident would be considered rare. Agreement was reached to delete the word "exceedingly" to be replaced with "infrequent." Reference was then made to Section II-J-3-J3 with regard to sound attenuation of non-residential structures such as commercial, hotel, and senior assisted living, to which Councilmember Campbell inquired about same for residential. The Director of Development Services explained that under State law sound attenuation for residential is required at 45 CNEL and State law overrides whatever the City may place in its documents. Councilmember Campbell stated her opinion that that provision needs to be in this document, a subsection (d), make that provision J4 and renumber J4 as J5. The Director suggested that J3 be revised to read "all structures" and delete the word "non-residential", then add the subsection (d) to refer to "residential, 45 CNEL." With regard to Section II-J-4-J4, specific reference to written disclosure relating to noise levels above standards, Councilmember Campbell requested that reference also be made to "residential units", and noted the importance of the statement in that Section of disclosure .....in all initial escrow documents as well as all subsequent sales or lease documents...", she read the remainder of that Section relating to noise levels should the AFRC be activated as a Disaster Support Area, and asked if there would be a disclosure for the Senior Care facility that planes fly over that site. The Mayor offered that he did not believe there was a requirement to do so and questioned where noise would come from if it were not for planes flying over the site. Councilmember Campbell urged that language be included to specifically state that planes fly over that site. As to any liability by adding such a statement, the City Attorney noted that there is conflicting evidence as to the flight paths, it is understood that the path is actually over the tennis club parcel, it appears that the point of Councilmember Campbell is that on occasion certain aircraft are too heavy to make the turn, which she confirmed. The Director suggested that with the applicants consent an additional clause could be added to this notification for any development in the area of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson to indicated that the area may be "subject to occasional overflight." That was agreeable to Councilmember Campbell. Reference was then made to Section II-K-1-K1, Public Services, which Councilmember Campbell read and asked if any determination has been made, other than in the Financial Analysis, as to what the increase would be for law enforcement, fire protection, and staffing, to which the City Manager responded that the Financial Report is where that analysis was made and included all departments. I I 11-23-98 Councilmember Campbell said she had not seen figures for fire services, specifically paramedic services, as the Senior Care facility will use more paramedic services than residential or any other development of this project, her desire is that that cost be computed correctly. The next reference was to Section II-L-1-L9, Councilmember Campbell noted that "church" use should now be deleted, substituted with "residential", then Section II-M-1, Impacts, the eighth line of the Section, "...the removal of a portion of the eucalyptus windrow along Seal Beach Boulevard...", the Councilmember clarified that the applicant is looking at only about one hundred fifty feet from the turn, actually from the street widening, Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard. Section II-M-3-M1, the word "church" to be deleted, the word "residential" added; to subsection M2, inquired if the photomontage is meant for visual purposes only and not requiring an action, to that the Manager said it is another tool if needed; to subsection M3, Councilmember Campbell commended the wording and requirement that a landscape plan be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, submitted to the Director of Development Services, the City Street Tree Division of the Public Works Department, and to the City Tree Preservation Committee, said plan to "...include a 40-foot landscaped setback along the Seal Beach Boulevard frontage containing the existing eucalyptus tree row," then asked if those trees will be trimmed in the future by an arborist. The Manager said they will be trimmed under the direction of an arborist, and the Director noted that as a result of reorganization the reference to Public Works Department should be deleted to read the Parks and Recreation Department. Reference to subsection M7 with regard to a landscaped berm along Lampson Avenue adjacent to the proposed driving range, this location on the north side of Lampson, question raised as to the height of the berm. The Director of Development Services noted that the mitigation measure is a ten foot high berm. Councilmember Campbell questioned the lighting as that relates to the air station, her understanding being that the lights will have shields over them, public lighting also, and potential impact on vehicle traffic, the response of staff was reference to mitigation measure subsection M12 which covers all outdoor lighting, and there will be no impact on vehicle traffic. with regard to subsection M9, reference to a landscaped buffer of ten feet to be provided along the northern perimeter of Development Area D, "church site" needs to be deleted replaced with reference to "residential"; subsection M10, lighting plan "...specifying the location and type of all exterior light sources...submitted to the Department of Development Services for approval", question if that plan will go before the Planning commission. The response of the Manager was that lighting specifications should go before the Planning Commission, and the Director added that that mitigation also requires that the applicant fund a third party review to assure that the Plan meets City standards. with regard to subsection M12 requiring that "outdoor lighting should be shielded, directed downward....., Councilmember Campbell noted this is to prevent planes taking off from the ARFC from mistaking the driving range lights for landing lights, and inquired as to their height. The Director explained that will be part of the Lighting Plan review process, that the applicant has submitted an application to the FAA for approval of the height for the light standards, and at this point said he did not recall what the specific height was. Mr. Bradshaw also said he did not recall the height however it is specifically stated on the FAA application, Part 77 of No Hazard, the site was reviewed, the lighting aspects as I I I 11-23-98 I well, the same plans were shown to the AFRC for their review and comment. Councilmember Campbell asked that the word "church" be deleted from subsection M14, changed to "residential." The City Attorney mentioned an uncertainty as to whether tinted glass would be desirable for the residential, suggesting that just the word "church" be deleted from subsection M14. with regard to Section II-N, Cultural Resources, subsection N2, reference to an archaeologist and native American Monitor, question was posed if the Archaeological Committee would make a recommendation, the indicated consensus was to not address subsection N2 further at this time. Section II-O-1, Recreation, Impacts, reference to "existing driving range will be opened to public use...", Councilmember Campbell suggested that the word "existing" be deleted, substituted with the word "relocated", and Mayor Brown suggested simply deleting the word "existing", to which there was concurrence. Section III-E, relating to the fiscal benefit of the Project to the City of $13.9 million estimated in fiscal year 2009-10, the applicant to pay over $1 million to the City for various projects and improvements, street and drainage improvements at the developer's cost, and dedication of significant parcels of property to the City, question being if the $1 million was for the tennis club facility, to which the Mayor clarified that to be correct, $750,000 plus $250,000. Councilmember Campbell stated this concluded her comments on the EIR Resolution, that her questions had been answered. I Councilman Boyd moved to waive the reading of all ordinances and resolutions, except Ordinance Number 1440 relating to the Development Agreement. Councilmember Campbell indicated she had comments to all of those documents. There was no second to the motion. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution Number 4660 as corrected and amended. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried Councilman Boyd inquired if it was the consensus of the Council to continue the meeting until business is concluded. Mayor Brown moved to continue the meeting until the conclusion of business or at least until 1:00 a.m. Councilman Boyd moved an amendment to conclude at 11:00 p.m. and continue the following morning at 9:30 a.m. There was no second to the amendment. Objection was raised with continuing until such late hour. Councilman Yost seconded the motion to continue until conclusion or 1:00 a.m. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4661 - LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1 - GENERAL PLAN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The City Attorney read the title of Resolution Number 4661 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." Mayor Brown requested that the Council make any comments desired in lieu of reading in full, Counci1member Campbell too invited comments yet requested the full reading. The City Attorney commenced the reading of Resolution Number 4661, inserting Resolution Number 4660 in Section 2. Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the lack of 11-23-98 mention of the Environmental Quality Control Board deliberations. The City Attorney explained that State law does not require review by independent environmental bodies, the EQCB is a local body only required by this City, State law requires only that the Planning Commission make a recommendation. The City Attorney continued the reading with Section 3, and deleted a duplicate sentence relating to the "Archaeological Advisory Committee staff report and minutes of September 2, 1998." The Director of Development Services provided revised numbers to the Table of proposed Project Land Uses, Development Area A, size 26.045 acres, Development Area B, 13.567 acres, Development Area C, 157.290 acres, Development Area D, 15.649 acres, Development Area E, 6.735 acres, total of 219.286 acres. It was clarified that reference to the Community Police Facility described in Area D includes the Cable facilities, all on the same parcel/lot. The Director noted the number of Feet/Acres/Etc. for Development Area C, the golf course, should likewise reflect 157.290 acres, confirmed that the proposed uses for Area A should not reflect a service station/mini mart as that use was deleted, also the community police center deleted from Area A as it is reflected in Area D, the Bixby Village. Councilmember Campbell again questioned the total suggesting it should be 219.291 rather than 219.286. The Director said he had calculated based upon the survey numbers of the applicant's engineer. The City Attorney read the entire Table as revised, and clarified that the 30,000 square feet of restaurant use was the total square footage for that use. As to the seventy-five single family homes of Area D, the Bixby Village, the Director stated the 12 acres is a rough assumption of the actual area to be devoted to residential use, suggesting that the acreage be dropped and replaced with "75 single family homes" to be more precise, the Council indicated acceptance of that suggestion, noting that the actual acreage is about 12.99. To a question of Councilmember Campbell as to the square ,footage of the Senior Assisted Facility, staff advised that the plans for that facility have been submitted for public hearing before the Planning Commission, that the exact square footage could not be recalled at this time, however the parking for those types of facilities is based upon the number of beds, that the reason for using the bed/unit figures. The City Attorney continued the reading of Resolution Number 4661 with Section 4(b), correcting the total approximate acreage reflected in paragraph (b) to read 219.286, reviewed in its entirety the Table entitled Existing and Proposed General Plan and Zoning Designations of which the Proposed General Plan/Zoning was amended to read Quasi-Public Golf Course, 157.290 acres, Residential Medium Density, 12.99 acres, General Commercial, 14.495 acres, and Total, 219.286 acres. Councilmember Campbell referred to the tennis facility site, currently zoned C-2, and inquired as to the difference between PLU and R-G. The Director explained that the Recreation/Golf designation is for privately owned property, allowing different uses than in the Public Land Use zone, also confirmed that parks, including the 2.5 acres of Bixby Village, are zoned PLU, as will the landscaped areas, bikepaths, etc. along Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, and clarified that the eucalyptus grove on the golf course will continue to the R-G, the grove portion in the shopping area will be PLU. The Mayor continued the reading of Resolution 4661 with Section 4(c). Councilmember Campbell stated her personal disagreement with Section 5(a)-4 that reads "permits development that does not interfere with the operational capabilities of the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center" I I I 11-23-98 I and subsection 6 that reads "adequately mitigates project- related traffic and noise impacts." A typographical error was corrected in the Land Use Table, Section 6-2, the Total of Residential Low to reflect 670.6, explained that the Commercial, General, Undeveloped of 0.3 acres is the State Lands property as part of the Hellman project. Staff noted their intent to recalculate the numbers reflected in the Land Use Table based upon the changes made. Under Section 6-3, Existing Medium Density Residential, first paragraph was corrected to delete the area designated as "Suburbia" which is one and the same as Bridgeport, therefore amended to read "...four existing medium density areas...", the third paragraph amended to reflect 26 rather than 25-acre Towne Center and "75 residential lots on approximately 13 acres..." rather than 12 acres. Reading continued with Section 6-4, the first paragraph amended to read ..."General Commercial zoning designations for a total of 34.61..." rather than 33.07 acres, "...26 acres located generally across from the Rossmoor Center..." rather than 25, and "...8.5 acres located at the corner of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard..." rather than 8 acres, and for the purpose of clarification it was noted the greenbelt was revised to be 5 rather than 5.5 acres. With regard to Section 6-5, Councilmember Campbell noted a statement that with the inclusion of the tennis club facility the acreage for parks would exceed that required for College Park East yet her understanding is that the requirement, based upon population, is supposed to be closer to 28 acres and that has not quite been met, to that Councilman Boyd clarified that 6.74 plus 12,.84 and 13 and 2.5 exceeds 28 acres. I with the .conclusion of the reading of Resolution Number 4661 Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt Resolution Number 4661 as corrected and amended. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried Boyd moved, second by Brown, to approve the waiver of reading of ordinances and resolutions. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane Campbell, Yost Motion failed Mayor Brown offered that it may be well to read the documents in full, yet it may be of more benefit to focus on the highlights that may be of interest to the public. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4662 - OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1 - GENERAL PLAN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4662 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." With reference to Section 5(c), "...5 acres of landscaped easements...around the overall site perimeter of Development Area B~.." CouncilmemberCampbell inquired when this would be coming to the City. The Director of Development Services explained this would be part of the dedication requirements at the time of the subdivision map approval, the parcel map is before the Council at this meeting for final approval of the tentative parcel map, the final parcel map will be considered for approval when all of ll-23-98 the conditions have been checked by the County of Orange for compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, that will be dependent upon the engineers of the applicant complying with the conditions, then getting the map to the City, there will be no permit issuance for grading or construction until the parcel map is approved. Question was again posed as to a time frame. Mr. Bradshaw responded that he felt their thinking in the way the project would move forward, given the condition that the commercial be initiated and the shell be in place before permits can be pulled on the residential component, they would likely commence the mass grading, moving all of the dirt to the residential location and the commercial location and the two locations on the south side of Lampson, that will be done under one grading permit, then there will be structural grading with the footprints for the residential, that is believed what is thought to be the time frame for pulling permits for the residential. As to the commercial there is already a site plan submitted for approval, they will be waiting for Bixby to pull permits for the commercial, they will likely be looking at late April, that is the commercial component for the twenty-five acre site, the grading permit possibly in January, he could not address a time frame for some of the other sites until there are users, it is thought that the residential would be ready and waiting for the conditions to be met precedent, it is his understanding that the off-site work needs to be completed before there can be an occupancy permit issued for the commercial component, concurrent with that would be the street work, and he would have no idea as to the time frame for the bridge widening. Councilmember Campbell inquired specifically as to when the landscaped area would be commenced, what is the time schedule, the corner . first, or retail, or what. Mr. Bradshaw noted that all of the off-site components, Marriott would be included with the Senior Care facility which will trigger all of the off-site work to be done on the 8.5 acre site for the 5 acre setback area, at the same time all of the work related to the commercial, the forty foot setback, the tree trimming, the twelve foot sidewalk, all work with the commercial would be based upon getting an occupancy permit, therefore that work would need to be completed within that time frame. Councilmember Campbell asked if that meant that the landscaping would not be seen until the Senior Care facility, hotel and the two restaurants were completed. Mr. Bradshaw said the first applicant coming in will be Marriott, they are anxious to move forward, and based on Bixby getting the mass grading done and having the site prepped, at the same time they will commence preparing the off-site areas as well, all coming in on one design application. Councilmember Campbell said of concern is not what is in the agreement, rather, what is not, thus the request for a time frame. The Director explained that the Development Agreement, which becomes effective thirty days after the second reading, that is when the offer of dedication of those greenbelt areas is effective. The Manager noted however that the improvements occur when Marriott comes in. Councilmember Campbell noted that some people have felt that the Lampson/Seal Beach Boulevard corner property was an eyesore, her intent was merely to get a feeling of when the landscaping would go in, at the beginning or the end. Councilmember Campbell read the majority of Section 5(e), the provision for 2.5 acres of park area in conjunction with a 75 lot single family home subdivision, to which she inquired if there was a schematic of the proposed housing area and location of the parks. The Director explained there needs to be an application for a I I I 11-23-98 I Vesting Tentative Tract Map, at this point there has not been an application for the residential component, only the general configuration is before the City at this time, however noted an exhibit in the Development Agreement shows that particular area, to which he pointed out the basic residential/park areas as a result of moving the shopping center northward. Councilmember Campbell then referred to Section 5(f) citing the General Plan Amendments as "...beneficial to the short term and long term land use goals of the City...promote the public health, safety and welfare; and are in the public interest", stating she had a problem with that Section. Councilmember Campbell moved forward to Section 6~4, Neighborhood Parks, and suggested that the Marina Community Center should be shown under Special Use Facilities, the park area should be broken out and shown separately. She asked what the community center at the tennis club site is going to be called. The Director noted that the tennis facility is listed under Community Parks, also, the City Attorney recommended that changes that are not part of this project should be made at a later date, make notations and they will be looked at. Councilmember Campbell agreed to the waiver of further reading of Resolution Number 4662. with no objection, further reading was waived. Brown moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4662 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4663 - BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT - AMENDMENT 98-1 - GENERAL PLAN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4663 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." Doane moved, second by Boyd, to waive the reading in full of Resolution Number 4663. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried Brown moved, second by Boyd, to adopt Resolution Number 4663 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4664 - HOUSING ELEMENT - AMENDMENT 98-1 - GENERAL PLAN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4664 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." Brown moved, second by Boyd, to waive the reading in full of Resolution Number 4664. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane Campbell, Yost Motion failed 11-23-98 Councilmember Campbell agreed that Sections 1 through 4 need not be read, and requested that the Tables set forth under Sections 4(a) and (b) be amended to reflect the correct numbers. The Director acknowledged that the Tables may have universal corrections based upon the actions of the Council. The City Attorney requested that reference be made to the revised copy of Resolution Number 4664, provided to the Council at this meeting, as certain corrections and changes were pointed out and are now incorporated into the new draft. Councilmember Campbell noted again that the 0.3 undeveloped land under Commercial/General is the State Lands property, as reflected in Table 16, also pointed out that no additional golf course land was gained, the acreage dropping from 310.5 to 265.8. It was clarified that that reflected the zoning for the area that included the sod farm and so on at the rear of the Bixby golf course, the 265.8 reflects the golf course. Councilmember Campbell noted the deletions to Section 6-2, Table 17, Vacant Site Analysis, relating to Concept planning, with regard to Section 6-3, referring back to vacant residential and non-residential sites set forth in Table 17, Councilmember Campbell questioned the figures of "...145 detached and 100 multi-family..." and "...representing the potential for up to 145 detached dwelling units..." The Director clarified this refers to both the Hellman and the Bixby projects, 70 units on Hellman and 75 on Bixby. Councilman Yost noted that this is a significant decrease from what is in the Environmental Impact Report, they had asked for l25 moderate to low income houses, moving the project north shrunk that, a definite benefit for a number of reasons such as decreasing the area for development, reduces the pressure on schools, reduces the traffic, it represents a down zoning of the property at the northern end from C-2 to residential, and the Development Agreement provides that those homes will be consistent with the homes in the Rossmoor Highlands to the north, all of which are positive things. with regard to Table 19, Councilmember Campbell questioned the Low Density, Potential Number of Dwelling units for College Park East, reflected as 1,649 which she said it is believed should be 1,666 because the Medium Density category reflects 60 CPE Condos, thus the two figures equal 1,726 dwelling units in College Park East. The City Attorney again clarified that that is not part of this amendment, yet staff will make note and review those numbers. Councilmember Campbell commended the deletion of certain language from Section 6-5-C, Anticipated Impact. The City Attorney directed attention to the Section entitled Program, explaining that under the existing Housing Element the City was under an obligation to conduct public hearings to determine the appropriateness and benefits of redesignating portions of the Bixby Old Ranch Parcel for uses including residential development, therefore the Anticipated Impact is what has taken place in 1995 and 1998 as there were numerous public hearings to determine the appropriateness, the language reflected in the new draft Resolution 4664 is new, this was based upon comments of the Council at the last meeting, and explains why 75 units is more appropriate than the 125. Councilman Yost said especially since they are located towards the northern end where they are less likely to be impacted by the AFRC or impact the future function of the AFRC, that brought out in testimony by Ms. Culbertson as well as the Airport Land Use Commission letter which stated that commercial development was preferable to residential development on the section that is now the commercial site. . Councilmember Campbell said what is of concern is when one gets into .the low to moderate requirements, the Housing I I I 11-23-98 I Element had a requirement for twenty percent very low, forty percent low, and forty percent moderate, inquired if those percentages will apply to the 75 houses to meet the ten percent requirement, which is then 8 houses reserved for low and moderate. The City Attorney advised that would not apply under the proposed amendment, the 8 units will be made affordable, still market rate housing, but made affordable to persons of lower income that can not afford market rates. Councilmember Campbell concluded her comments relating to the Housing Element, however said she continued to have some disagreements with it. Further reading of Resolution Number 4664 was waived. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt the most current Resolution Number 4664 as presented. The Director of Development Services offered to provide certain corrections to numbers reflected in Section 6-5. To that the Council indicated consensus to direct staff to make those corrections as deemed necessary. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4665 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT - AMENDMENT 98-1 - GENERAL PLAN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4665 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." Councilman Boyd moved to waive the reading of Resolution Number 4665. Councilman Yost seconded the motion provided that Councilmember Campbell could pose her questions. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I Councilmember Campbell read a portion of Section 4(b) relating to "...cut-through traffic into the unincorporat~d community of Rossmoor...revisions include the shifting of the entire twenty-five acre retail shopping center to the north so that no portion of the center is south of St. Cloud Drive and elimination of any exiting traffic...onto St. Cloud Drive...", and inquired how this is going to be done, how can traffic be stopped from going straight ahead, to that Mr. Bradshaw had responded earlier in the day that there will be a 'right turn only' and a 'left turn only', the answer is enforcement and it is assumed there will be signs. The Director advised that there will be signs and traffic diverters forcing a lane to go left or right within the driveway itself, angled in those directions and not straight across. With regard to Section 6-1, Councilmember Campbell read the paragraph relating to Seal Beach Boulevard - San Diego Freeway interchange improvements, to which she asked what are the improvements. The Director reported those to be along Seal Beach Boulevard at the on and off locations both north and southbound at the intersection, explaining that currently at the south bound ramp, the southerly side of the freeway overpass, there is one left turn lane and two travel lanes, the improvements would involve three travel lanes and two left turn lanes, and confirmed that this mitigation was defined in the EIR, confirmed too that there will still be one left turn lane onto the northbound 405 for southbound 11-23-98 traffic, for northbound traffic there will be a free right turn lane onto the northbound on-ramp and three through lanes of traffic where there are now two. The Director clarified that the revision to the Circulation Element is in fact the one paragraph of language in Resolution Number 4665 just referenced and discussed. No further discussion of Resolution Number 4665 was requested. Boyd moved, second by Boyd, to approve Resolution Number 4665 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4666 - NOISE ELEMENT - AMENDMENT 98-1 - GENERAL PLAN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4666 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (NOISE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN) ." Councilman Boyd moved to waive the reading in full of Resolution Number 4666. Councilman Yost seconded the motion provided Councilmember Campbell could present her questions. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried A suggestion was made that the Council break after consideration of Resolution 4666 and then consider the Development Agreement Resolution. I Councilmember Campbell read Section 6-1 in reference to page 12 of the Element, Measurement Data, speaking to the AFRC noise contour map, the AICUZ study and the AELUP, to which she asked why the Wylie Research Report is not being used as that is the latest noise study. The Director responded it is because the AICUZ has not been revised to incorporate that document, this works off of the federal documents, also, the Airport Land Use Commission has not adopted that document at this point, it is understood that the AICUZ will be proposed for amendment by the National Guard to incorporate the Wylie Study, when it is it will go before the Airport Land Use Commission and they ultimately change it, then staff will come back to the Council with a recommendation to change the language of this Section based upon that future revision. As to Section 6-2, relating to page 16 of the Element, Estimates of Future Noise Environment, Airport Noise, referring to CNEL contours associated with AFRC, level of operations per year, "...which in 1996 was approximately 43,700...", Councilmember Campbell asked why 1996 figures are being used if the newest Report is not being used. The Director explained that it is not certain that that document, although still the one they are using, may not have the most current information. In the same Section councilmember Campbell read the sentence "...there are no plans to restore fixed wing jet aircraft activity...", said that statement is questionable and should be deleted, she has knowledge that the Army Reserve is considering stationing UC35's there, that is a small jet similar to a Leer jet, they are new, coming to the Reserves from the Army. To the comments of Councilmember Campbell it was suggested that the language be revised to read "...there are no known plans...", suggested that the language be left intact until there is contradictory information from the Army I 11-23-98 I Reserve, also noted as well that there is no information that the statement is fact, noted too that the Army Reserve was requested to submit any information contrary to this statement, none was submitted. Councilmember Campbell read the last sentence of Section 6-2, .....thus, the contours for Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center in this element are in reality much closer to the airfield noise contours and flight paths indicated in the 1994 AICUZ Study..." and requested that the language .....and will most likely remain that way for some time" be deleted as it is presumptive and there is nothing in writing that backs up the statement. To the prior sentence, language was suggested to read "...at present no plans have been submitted to restore fixed wing jet aircraft activity..", that language accepted by Councilmember Campbell, and the Council agreed to delete the language at the end of that paragraph commencing with "...and will most likely remain..." To Section 6-3, Councilmember Campell requested that the word "Naval" be deleted from the reference to "...Naval Air Station Los Alamitos noise contour map. . ." and revised to read "... AFRC. . . contour map..." The Director pointed out that language was contained in the previous document, further reading will show it is replaced with the AICUZ, AICUZ reflects the title change on the map itself. To the same Section, Councilmember Campbell noted that Figure 6.2-1 comes from the 1987 Noise Study, and this was designated as an Army facility in 1975. The Director stated the 1987 Noise Study map is the one included in the AICUZ document, explaining that the map that is currently in the General Plan indicates that it is from the Naval Air Station EIS, the new map is from the AICUZ study and is shown as the Armed Forces Reserve Center. Councilmember Campbell claimed that the map from the EIS is not the 6.2-1, that her 1975 EIS has a completely different noise contour. It was suggested that staff further review this issue for consistency. No further discussion of Resolution Number 4666 was requested. I Boyd moved, as amended. Section 6-2 second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4666 The City Attorney verified the two changes to as previously stated. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:55 p.m. The Council reconvened at 11:08 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1440 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Ordinance Number 1440 was presented for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND BIXBY RANCH COMPANY, REGARDING THE "BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN." Councilman Boyd moved to waive the reading in full of Ordinance Number 1440. Motion failed for lack of a second. Mayor Brown moved to waive the reading of the through page 1 of the Development Agreement. seconded the motion. Ordinance Councilman Boyd AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried 11-23-98 Councilmember Campbell commenced the reading of the Agreement with Section 1.1.2, questioned the term of the Agreement. The City Attorney clarified that the word "term" as used in that Section is in reference to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, that the actual term of the Agreement is ten years, there are some things that have varying terms, some a period of thirty years, the ten year period does not start until the effective date which could be as long as four years from now. Councilmember Campbell continued reading, as to the second paragraph of this Section she inquired as to the definition of density or intensity, asking if that is square footage. The Director responded that density is a definition used for residential development, a certain number of units per acre of land, intensity is generally utilized for commercial development of a specified number of feet of a specific type of use, retail or restaurant use as an example. The Manager interjected that this grants nothing in addition to the project approvals, the City Attorney adding that this is consistent with the project approvals. Councilmember Campbell continued reading from the second paragraph of Section 1.1.2, then passed over the reading of certain definitions. To Section 1.3.15, Old Ranch Tennis Club or Tennis Club, asked if the "...structures permanently affixed thereto..." include the kitchen appliances, to that Mr. Bradshaw responded that they were included, including the refrigerator. Mr. Bradshaw, from the audience, confirmed that to be correct. The City Attorney suggested that to avoid making substantive changes to the Agreement, the applicant has agreed to the preparation of an operating memoranda as provided by Section 4.9 to obtain concurrence so that any changes to this Agreement that are different from the first reading will be typographical and clerical errors, everything else will be included in the operating memoranda. For clarity with regard to the kitchen area of the tennis club, that will be the stove, refrigerator, and kitchen appliances. Councilman Yost added gym equipment. Mr. Bradshaw suggested that the City inventory those things that are not attached and considered part of the structure, provide him with a list of the things desired, they will be the City's, and the balance of the equipment will be removed. The City Attorney then recommended the deletion of the language after the word "thereto" of Section 1.3.15. Councilmember Campbell read Section 1.3.19.4 relating to signage of Area B, made reference to and read Municipal Code Section 19B-3, "Prohibited Generally...no advertising displays shall be placed or maintained on property adjacent to a section of freeway, which has been, or hereafter may be, landscaped as defined herein, if the advertising display is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on such landscaped section of a freeway", and Section 19B-4, Exemptions From provisions of 19B-3, "...the sale or lease of property on which such advertising display is placed...", "...designate the name of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which such advertising display is placed or to identify such premises...", or "...advertise the business conducted or goods manufactured or produced or services rendered upon the property upon which such advertising display is placed." Councilmember Campbell said her concern is that the 50 feet in height is greater than the City permits, staff advised that the height limit is 35 feet, this sign will be advertising the commercial center yet 50 feet is too high. The Director clarified that the property on which sign is proposed to be located is not a C-2 property, it is a Public Land Use greenbelt around the commercial area, Public Land Use allows concessions, approved by the City Council, I I I 11-23-97 I for any type of land use felt to be appropriate, the 35 foot height limit is for the C-2 zone, there is no height limit in the PLU zone, as an example, the Council has previously approved several cellular transmission towers in PLU areas along the freeway that are up to 70 feet in height. Councilman Boyd offered that the Council would have the discretion as to the architectural style and height of the signage, therefore is the desire to keep the sign at 35 feet or exceed that limit, and inquired as to comments from the applicant. The Manager stated there is a limit of not to exceed 50 feet, and Councilmember Campbell noted her preference for 35 feet. Mr. Bradshaw said he believed the sign was identified on the plan submitted to the Planning Commission for site plan review, the sign is intended to be a freeway facing sign and sits behind a large grove of eucalyptus trees in that particular area, it is not in a position to be an impact in any negative way to the 5.5 acre and landscape setback at the gateway entry on Lampson towards the tennis facility, stating again that the sign does face the freeway, the purpose is that it be seen from across the freeway, the sign is in keeping architecturally with the same design elements of the shopping center and will list the primary tenants of that area. Mr. Bradshaw said he did not actually set the height of the sign, yet 50 feet was determined to not be unreasonable so that people on the southbound side of the freeway could see it, it is not a typical pole sign, it is architecturally pleasing, it is not obtrusive, with the backdrop of trees it is not felt to be out of scale. He said as discussed today, there could be additional review, possibly a better line of sight could be realized in terms of scale with the freeway so that as this goes to the Planning Commission for review there could be further discussion, but he felt it would be unreasonable to just arbitrarily bring it down to 35 feet, the desire is to assure that this Center is successful, it is felt important to have the right kind of promotion, this is something that would be found with any center that had a freeway access or location, and from that 'standpoint this seems to be reasonable, he would have no problem reviewing this if it can adequately be demonstrated that 45 feet is the right height, yet he would hate to bring the sign down to 35 feet and then make it an ineffective way of displaying the key tenants in the Center. Councilman Boyd inquired as to the tallest building height in the Center, to which Mr. Bradshaw said possibly 40 feet for some of the roof lines, adding that this sign is not typical of the signs on Seal Beach Boulevard. To a question as to the height of the backdrop trees, Mr. Bradshaw said he believed they would be in the 55 to 60 foot range, the highest about 70 feet. The Mayor asked if the desire of the Council would be to leave the 50 foot height subject to further review, to which Councilman Yost expressed his preference that the Planning Commission consider the sign height issue, there is concern with the highest building being 40 feet, he would like to see the site elevations before giving the height a final okay. The Director noted that this will be part of the Planning Commission review of the shopping center development plan. With regard to the mention of a 40 foot roof line height question was raised as to the maximum height of 35 feet, to which the Director responded the applicant has requested architectural design features for a number of the buildings that are less than 42 feet which is allowed by the Code under the minor plan review process for which applications have been submitted, requesting a variance for height of the roof for Lowes, the roof peak for that one location would be 48 feet in height. I I 11-23-98 To a question of Councilmember Campbell, Mr. Bradshaw pointed out the location proposed for the subject sign, with Councilmember Campbell expressing concern from a visual standpoint for the people on Lampson Avenue. Councilman Boyd noted that the sign will be seen from Lampson and from the freeway, his preference would be to lower the sign and remove some of the trees from around it if feasible so that it will be visible, his preference would be to take an action on this issue, however Councilman Yost pointed out that the Council does not have the lines of sight and what it is going to look like from the freeway in terms of what is going to provide acceptable visibility from the freeway but not from College Park East. Mr. Bradshaw said the sign is intended to be single faced and only that portion facing the freeway will be illuminated, the front trough from Lampson Avenue will have trees blocking it, not thought to be a visual element along Lampson Avenue, clearly the issue is whether or not it is an effective sign, given the location of the off-ramp, it does face across a portion of the property for the on- and off- ramp movement, actually looking beyond that to the freeway, so there is a bit of distance that needs to be looked at, it is not sitting right on the freeway rather some 150 feet up the off-ramp so that it is actually facing over the off-ramp and into the freeway. A concern was expressed by the Mayor that it could become an ineffective sign for the business, and asked if this provision to be left to consideration by the Planning Commission. Councilman Yost agreed, suggesting that possibly they could have some better site elevations for consideration, Councilmember Campbell noted her concern that if Section 1.3.19.4 is approved as written they could have up to a 50 foot sign. The City Attorney cautioned again that unless the Council wishes to again consider the Ordinance for first reading it can not be altered, pointing out that staff has advised that this a maximum of 50 feet however the Planning Commission has the discretion to lower the height, the developer is aware of that, therefore recommended no change to the language of the Ordinance. The Manager suggested that the minutes can note that the Council has some concern with the height of the sign, the Director can report same to the Planning Commission, and the City Attorney mentioned that that can be part of the operating memoranda as well. I I Councilmember Campbell made reference to Section 2.8.1 relating to the term of this Agreement, questioning what is determined to be the effective date. The City Attorney explained that the effective date will be thirty days from the date of adoption unless a referendum qualifies for an election within that thirty day period or if litigation is filed and the time is extended until either the referendum or litigation is concluded, if the term is not commenced within four years of the anniversary of the date of adoption the parties can either give up the process or extend the term. He reiterated that the term is ten years however the effective date will not be known for at least thirty days, or after a referendum or after litigation. Councilmember Campbell commenced reading again with the second paragraph of Section 2.8.1 up to Section 3.1.1.1, relating to the subdivision of Area D into not more than 90 parcels, not more than 75 to be residential lots, and questioned the use and location of the remaining 15 lots. The Director responded that a number of those are small areas at the end of blocks for pedestrian walkways, access ways, landscaped easement areas, etc., they will show as lettered areas on a tentative map. She continued reading with Section 3.1.1.1, with regard I 11-23-98 I to Section 3.1.1.2 noted that Exhibit "R" was missing, to which she was informed by staff that Exhibit "R" will be reductions of the colored drawings representing the architectural styles of the buildings, and the Council then deleted the word "by" in the next sentence to read "..there shall be no access..." Reading continued. Councilman Boyd referred back to Section 3.1.1.1., Area D regarding the 75 lots, recalled discussion, and consistent with being placed in the operating memorandum, that the residential lot size would average 5,000 square feet, Mr. Bradshaw said it was 50 by 80 or 4,000 square feet, the City indicated preference for 5,000 square feet, the intent is to shoot for an average. Councilmember Campbell asked if this would qualify as low density, to which the Director explained that if there are lots of less than 5,000 square feet that does not meet the low density requirement, it is medium density, even though they may average 5,000 if there are lots less than 5,000 that is not low density. Councilman Boyd mentioned the housing set will be made available for ten to fifteen percent of the people that will qualify for housing in that medium density range. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney noted that the developer has agreed that the lots will average 5,000 square feet, that will be in the operating memoranda. I Councilmember Campbell commenced reading again with Section 3.1.1.3, Area C, the golf course, questioned what the reference to appurtenant driving range uses meant. Mr. Bradshaw stated that although the actual planning has not been done, it would be expected that there would be a small pro-shop for the driving range where the people that run the golf course would be housed, the balls or tokens would be dispensed from there, it is not intended to be a retail shop although it would have a small, limited amount of balls, clubs, or whatever that one could look at, but it would not be a facility that is aimed at competing with another golf supply facility, it would be a permanent structure, and confirmed that there would be only one such structure, at one end or the other there will be a ball wash area and a small structure for housing balls. Mr. Bradshaw clarified that he was speaking to the public end of the driving range, and there will be a separate staff running the driving range at the public end. Councilmember Campbell said she wanted assurance that this building will not conflict with the drainage or easements for the drainage, to which Mr. Bradshaw confirmed that it will be above the flood plain area in terms of elevation so that it will be dry at all times, thus it will not be in the flood easement area. Councilmember Campbell said she believed the concern with putting structures in the flood easement area is that it cuts into the ability of the land to be a flood basin, to which Mr. Bradshaw noted the area is small, the grade can be built up, and likely include the parking area as well to eliminate the problems with water impacting the driving area. To Section 3.1.1.3 the City Attorney amended the wording to reading "...appurtenant driving range uses...", the change to this Section will be placed in the operating memoranda to reflect 'a typical facility pro shop', language that will be provided by the applicant. I Councilmember Campbell began the reading of the Resolution once again commencing with Section 3.1.1.4, Area B, and said if the Senior Care facility comes back unapproved, asked if improvements to the on- and off-ramps could still be included. Mr. Br~dshaw said they had agreed to do that, he assumed that when she was speaking to that it would not be 11-23-98 the Conditional Use Permit of the City but some other agency, such as the State for the approval of hospital type facilities. It was offered that the City could not turn down the facility and still have that clause apply. Councilmember Campbell then went forward to Section 3.1.2 7, Project Phasing, which she read, and Councilman Yost noted that this provision is the result of discussions of persons in College Park, their concern was that Bixby would build the residential and not the commercial and leave the commercial vacant until such time as they felt residential approval could be sought, thus this Section is to ensure that the commercial is developed first. Mr. Bradshaw asked for some clarification, stating that he could foresee any issue associated with bringing up the residential structures yet there are finishing costs associated with the site that has to do with the grading operation and bringing in the utilities, and inquired if it would be reasonable that they could at least take it that far, as they would like to do as much of the site utilities as early as possible. Councilman Yost stated however a concern that the applicant does not have a significant investment in development and has done nothing on the commercial site, yet has gone to that level on the residential site. Councilman Boyd said his understanding is that they would like to bring in the grading plan and utilities for the entire commercial and residential at one time. Mr. Bradshaw noted however that he is not objecting to being at a specific point in terms of construction on the commercial before coming out of the ground with the 'residential, it is just that there is a cost benefit to do as much of the site work at one time as possible. The City Attorney mentioned vested rights with regard to building permits and noted that there is only one case, the AVCO case, where the developer spent $400,000 on grading and yet that did not give them the right to build, therefore they can grade, they can do the utilities, yet they can not obtain a building permit until at the point in time specified. with that, the Council indicated their concurrence. I I Councilmember Campbell began reading once again with Section 3.1.3, Subsequent Discretionary Approvals, Site Development Plan Review. With regard to Section 3.1.3.3, Responsibility for Paying Fees, inquired as to what point in time. The Director explained that it depends on the type of fee, some are due at the time of application for a building permit, some are due prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, all of those are specified in the Fee Resolution of the City. Councilmember Campbell read Section 3.1.3.4, Approval of Site Development Plans, and inquired who is determined to be "the City", the Planning Commission, the Council, the City Manager, or Director of Development Service. The Director referred back to Section 3.1.3.1 whereby the Site Development Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission, their decision is appealable to the City Council, if the Planning Commission decisions are not appealed they are then the final approving body, again, approvals of the Director of Development Services are appealable to the Planning Commission, their decisions are appealable to the Council. The City Attorney clarified that the Planning Commission has the initial review of the project. Section 3.1.3.5 next, Standard of Review, Councilmember Campbell again asked if "the City" means the Planning Commission and then the City Council. The City Attorney again clarified that for the whole of the 3.1.3 Sections "the City" is the Planning Commission and then the City Council if appealed. Councilmember Campbell read I 11-23-98 I Section 3.1.3.9 next, Revisions Required by Other Governmental Approvals, to which she expressed having a problem with. Mayor Brown explained that merely means that if another governmental agency causes a problem the City will cooperate with the developer to resolve the problem. The City Attorney explained this is a standard provision for development agreements, it was in the Hellman Development Agreement and an example would be when Hellman needed the Coastal Commission permit the City cooperated with the Hellman family. Section 3.1.3.10, Revisions Requested by Owner, Councilmember Campbell read, then asked if that is reciprocal, they can make changes yet the City can not. The City Attorney said that was correct, after the City has approved the Agreement there is no right to make changes, the developer may request but the City does not need to agree with their request, this process too goes through the Planning Commission. I Section 3.1.4, Assignment by Owner, subsection 3.1.4.1 was read in part, to which Councilmember Campbell said this took her back to the consideration of the Mola project, the concern there was what if the developer could not complete the project, this is an assignment by owner and what if they could not complete the project. The City Attorney said this again is standard for development agreements, it is at the request of a developer because they want to sell portions of the project, the same language as in the Hellman Agreement, in that case sell the golf course or individual houses, which would basically be selling the rights to a portion of the project, but more importantly all of the rights and obligations of the owner are transferred to the successors of interest, the City is primarily concerned with their obligations. Councilmember Campbell continued with the reading of 3.1.4.1, the City Attorney confirmed the involvement of their firm in preparing this Agreement, the real estate department particularly with the Assignment provisions, to assure consistency with the Hellman Agreement language. Councilman Boyd inquired as to the intent of Councilmember Campbell to approve this Development Agreement, tO,that she responded not at this meeting, this document is important and needs to be gone over thoroughly. To a question of Councilman Boyd as to when this Agreement was prepared, the City Attorney confirmed it was drafted about a year ago. Councilman Boyd noted that the majority of the language has then been in place for a year, at this point it should either be approved or tabled, and at this point substantive changes can not be made to the document without another first reading or through an operating memorandum. I Councilman Boyd moved to approve Ordinance Number 1440 approving the Bixby Towne Center Development Agreement. Discussion followed relating to whether or not reading should continue section by section, the Agreement having been available for review for a year, if substantive changes are agreed upon they would be included in an operating memorandum, etc. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. Councilman Yost said his preference would be to give Councilmember Campbell the opportunity to present her questions, possibly those that she feels are most important in that the all of the changes to the Agreement were read at the last meeting. At the conclusion of discussion and a consensus to extend this review for another twenty minutes, the motion was withdrawn. 11-23-98 with regard to Section 3.2.5.1, Old Ranch Tennis Club, Councilmember Campbell said the zoning designation is to be changed from "Recreational/Golf" to "Public Land use", and requested an explanation of Exhibit "J". The City Attorney corrected the title of Section 3.2.5 to read "Dedications, Reservations, and Conditions of Development, responded that Exhibit "J" is the Encumbrances of Record, the owner is to provide a Title Report to show utility lines, etc. before the City accepts the offer of dedication. Question was raised if there is a cellular tower on that property and if it will be included in the dedication. Mr. Bradshaw confirmed that there are cellular sites, they are not part of the dedication but they have spoken with the City and have agreed to include the two sites, the fees were taken up front on one site which has another three years, that is believed to be a $13,000 per year contribution, the other is on a five year lease for $15,OOO per year and they have agreed to turn those sites over to the City to help pay for the maintenance and operation. Councilman Yost expressed appreciation to the persons who supported the mixed use proposal as it is they who bargained some of these benefits from Bixby. The City Attorney advised that the cell sites will be part of the operating memorandum. To the question of whether the tennis facility property is free from all liens, encumbrances, etc., the City Attorney noted that Bixby can represent that however he has not seen the Title Report as yet. Again to Section 3.2.5.1, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to when the City would receive the $1,000,000 for tennis club and College Park East improvements. Mr. Bradshaw responded that it was the intent to have those contributions tied to events where Bixby receives funds, when there is transfer of title to a builder of the residential component there would be transfer of funds, to a comment that that could be up to a year, he noted that if the process goes forward quickly, the title is transferred, then the City would be in a position to receive the funds and move forward, also, it will take some time for the City to study what it wants to do, from a .timing standpoint it is felt. this is a fair way, recalled that when the church institutional was being considered that number was $100,000, when it moved up as a result of the residential use that seemed to be a good fixing point, and he has spoken with the Manager and the Attorney regarding same. with regard to the facility itself, Mr. Bradshaw mentioned that the City can take it over whenever it wants, or if the desire is to have Bixby continue to run it until that point in time they would be willing to do that as well. Councilmember Campbell asked if it is necessary to state in the Agreement when the money will come to the City, to that the City Attorney noted that the language reads "...upon acceptance of this offer of dedication...", the offer of dedication begins on the effective date, there is a five year period within which the City can accept the offer, that would be concurrently as the Agreement is drafted. The Manager said he felt it would be in the interest of the City to have Bixby continue to operate and maintain the facility until acceptance by the City. councilmember Campbell concurred that the City will receive the money at the same time as the tennis facility, she was merely seeking a specific time as someone had cautioned to make certain the money does not end up in an escrow account where the money would not be realized until such time as the project is totally completed, also when received that those funds are placed in a separate account. The City Attorney confirmed that language was added to specifically direct that those monies be used f~r the tennis club, Lampson, and College Park East, which he read. Councilmember Campbell I I I 11-23-98 I stated her desire to put together a group, a cross section of the community, to oversee how the tennis site is developed. Mayor Brown suggested that persons from outside College Park East also be included. Councilmember Campbell asked if the desire would be that a future Council decide the use of those monies, to that Councilman Yost pointed out that the Agreement already specified that those monies are to go for College Park East, and to that Councilmember Campbell said she did not want those monies going into the General Fund. With regard to Section 3.2.5.2, Community Police Center, it was confirmed that the existing Home Savings Bank structure will not be used as the location for the Community Police Center or the Cable Foundation, the Bank building will be demolished and there will be one facility built to house both, also that the owner will provide the City a tenant improvement allowance of $20,000. Mr. Bradshaw said it was brought to their attention last week that because of the nature of the studio facility that perhaps that was not an adequate amount to do the work that would occur in the larger part of the structure, therefor Bixby has agreed to increase the amount to $50,000, $20 a square foot, for the tenant improvement allowance, he had also mentioned to the City Manager that in the Agreement there is reference to the City having use of that facility for a thirty year period, and have offered that the City could take that in fee if it prefers to do that, then it is a forever situation. To him it seems that that goes along with the spirit of the tennis club, doing it in fee without a reverter, it is the City's, is clearly outside of the development area that was contemplated, the City's decision yet it is an offer that is on the table. The City Attorney noted that if the Council so directs that would be placed in the operating memorandum. Council indicated their consensus. I I Reference to Green Belts, Section 3.2.5.3.1, Councilmember Campbell read the sentence "...City understands and agrees that if it accepts this offer of dedication, it shall obtain the five acre green belt parcel in "as is" condition as of the date of acceptance of the offer, and that Owner has made no representations as to the condition of such land as of the date of this Agreement...", to which she noted that if the City accepts the land for the freeway on- and off-ramp improvements then the remainder of the greenbelt will be as is, asking if that means there will be no landscaping. The City Manager responded in the negative, stating that is believed to be a legal description or term, as the entire five acres around the perimeter of this site is a greenbelt, landscaped and maintained by Bixby. The City Attorney agreed that the language is a little misleading however the Agreement provides that Bixby will build the landscaping, then the City has a five year option to accept the dedication. Councilman Boyd noted that all of the greenbelts, landscaping, bike paths, etc. will be received in the end in an improved condition. The City Attorney corrected a typographical error to capitalize Tentative "Parcel" Map. Section 3.2.5.3.2, referring to a 40 foot wide area along that portion of Seal Beach Boulevard.....subject only to the encumbrances of record set forth on Exhibit "R".... to which Councilmember Campbell inquired as to Exhibit "R". The City Attorney said this too relates to encumbrances, Bixby will be providing a Title Report showing utilities, taxes, etc., explaining that anytime the City obtains property it has to go through a list to determine if . the encumbrances are acceptable, in certain instances some are and some are not, Exhibit "R" is not known at this time, 11-23-98 this will be known by such time as the property is accepted. Section 3.2.5.4., Monument Signs at the northeast and southeast corners of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to what the signs will say. Mr. Bradshaw reported that two designs have been submitted to the City, it is not certain if or what has been chosen. The Manager suggested this would be an item for the College Park East representatives to determine what they would like the signs to say, one concept was "College Park East, Seal Beach" as designed by the RRM architects. The City Attorney made a language correction to Section 3.2.5.4 to read "...prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits..... Section 3.2.5.5., Median Landscaping, Councilmember Campbell directed attention to the referenced Exhibit "N" and where the median is to be located, her concern is that the entrances to Rossmoor Center are blocked off to the northbound traffic, and possibly the next two entrances should be combined as one if a traffic light is to be installed then people could go from one center into the other. Mayor Brown said one of his concerns is that he does not want people exiting the Rossmoor Center making left hand turns, this configuration will stop that. Councilmember Campbell concurred that she too does not want those left turns.' Councilman Boyd noted that this will allow northbound traffic to enter Rossmoor Center at St. Cloud, just south of the landscaped area before Rossmoor Center Way and at Rossmoor Center Way. Mr. Bradshaw said when the traffic engineer submitted the plans it was Bixby's interpretation that the signal that would be included at the Towne Center would actually be a signalized, controlled access for Rossmoor as well, neither Rossmoor Center Way or St. Cloud go directly into the Center, the thought was, although not depicted particularly well on the plan, that there is one free left hand turn lane coming into the Towne Center just below the Rossmoor Way area, no left out but a left in, it is thought that the intent would be that as one is going north existing left hand turn movement that could be made into Marie Calendars, there does not seem to be a reason why that could not continue, there would be no left out, but what needs to be done with the two commercial areas is to have control at signals which provides for a freer movement of traffic rather than persons darting across the Boulevard when they see a moment that they can make that movement, and it is felt that the signal going into Rossmoor as well as into the Towne Center, both north and south traffic, will be improved greatly into both centers. Councilman Boyd said one of his goals is that if that area is going to be landscaped it is hoped that Rossmoor Center will move forward and there can be a cohesive area that flows from the Towne Center onto the Boulevard with pedestrian and landscaping improvements into a newly developed Rossmoor Center, the intent is not to limit all access into the Center. Mr. Bradshaw said that does not seem to be the case, they would only lose if one is moving north on the Boulevard, the area that will be signalized will not limit it will enhance, the way it is presently shown they lose the left hand movement into Marie Calendars, but as long as there is no left out there would not be any reason to continue to maintain that one, it is a limited access just like the one that would be moving from the north to the south just below Rossmoor way. He said with that he did not believe Rossmoor loses any controlled access in fact it will likely improve the access as a result. In response to comments of Councilmember Campbell, Mr. Bradshaw pointed out "that to access Lucky's, and if one did not choose to use the left turn pocket at Marie Calendars, access would be via St. I I I I I I 11-23-98 Cloud or.the new fully signalized entry, and provided a detailed explanation of the turning movements at each of the driveway areas into each Center. Mr. Bradshaw noted that the City's traffic engineer covered this issue quite well, suggesting that the only thing that could be looked at, if it were feasible, would be the left hand movement into the Marie Calendars, as it is not believed it would have an impact of the movement at the Center and would be beneficial for Rossmoor. with reference to Section 3.2.5.7, Lampson Avenue Enhancements, "...twelve (12) feet wide bike path/ sidewalk...", Councilmember Campbell noted that to be on the south side, inquired if anything has been done regarding the north side as there is a narrow lane presently, to that the Mayor stated it needs to be north or south, both can not be done. Councilman Boyd noted that that will-not be deleted, this is a twelve foot wide bike path, off-street on the south side of the street. with regard to 3.2.5.7, the City Attorney offered that in the operating memorandum there will be a refinement on the timing issue whereby "prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy of any development in Area B," therefore all of these changes on Lampson will be done prior to a certificate of occupancy of the Marriott. For the purpose of clarification, Mr. Bradshaw reminded of the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass work continues in front of Lampson Avenue and about 150 to 200 feet to the north to where there is then three through lanes, that will actually be the City doing that work through its contractor, the work to be done, understand, at Lampson Avenue, and not having seen the engineering drawings for the work that will be done, there will be some coordination on that, but it is true that Lampson Avenue will now be squared up to Seal Beach Boulevard so there will be a controlled right hand turn rather than the free right hand turn lane that currently exists, but there may be some coordination that Bixby will have no control over that would be hoped would not prohibit operating anything if Bixby has fulfilled its obligations. The City Attorney said he believed that such language could be developed that would be acceptable to the Council, it will be "certificate of occupancy for Area B, except where it needs to be coordinated with the work done in conjunction with Seal Beach Boulevard." Councilman Boyd made reference to 3.2.5.7, subsection 9, with regard to the installation of decorative pedestrian paving at the Boulevard and Lampson Avenue, and requested that the same be done at the entrance across from Rossmoor Center, to that Mr. Bradshaw acknowledged that they had agreed to do that at those two key intersections, they will do the hard pavement improvements, the enhancements, and the City can approve the design, it may be desirable to keep that language for some coordination, using something that is a higher treatment than asphalt. He noted the locations as Seal Beach Boulevard at Lampson north and south, consideration given also to possibly Rossmoor Center Way going east to west, to the question as to whether it would be more preferable at Rossmoor Way rather than the main entrance, Mr. Bradshaw said that could be given consideration and looked at later, and as to the suggestion of both, Mr. Bradshaw said there would be another chance when Rossmoor does their Center. The City Attorney advised that subsection 9 will be placed in the operating memorandum as well as the additional language. Councilmember Campbell went back to Section 3.2.5.7, subsection 2, with regard to restiping of that portion of Lampson Avenue to widen the bike lane in front of the club house at the Old Ranch Country Club, and asked if that bike lane on the north side is 11-23-98 intended to be widened, to which Mr. Bradshaw said it would be a striping change to the degree it could be accommodated, it will be up to the City Engineer on how much, there is no street widening of Lampson therefore it would have to do with the access that is going to be removed into the Old Ranch Country Club, since that is being relocated there may be an additional allocation space on the north side of Lampson for the bike lane, suggesting that the City Engineer should actually look at taking one of the sides of the bikelane out, if the City is getting an off-street bike path it should be encouraged to be used if safety is the real issue for having it off-street. Councilmember Campbell commended subsections 3 through 8 under Section 3.2.5.7. with reference to Section 3.2.5.8, Water Retention Basin, noted her previous concern with regard to CEQA findings, Section 3.2.5.9, Storm Drain, asked about culverts at other areas such as Guava, Elder, and Candleberry, this request will likely not be realized, Section 3.2.5.10, Water Well Site, Councilmember Campbell asked whose well and for what, to that the Manager offered that the City Engineer felt that a future site for another water well may be a benefit, to which Council commended. To Section 3.2.5.12, Reservations or Dedications for Other Public Improvements, Councilmember noted Exhibit "0" is the cellular tower and noted her questions had been previously answered, Section 3.2.5.13, Quitclaim any Interest in Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center, inquired of Mr. Bradshaw is his company would be willing to give the Department of Defense a two year option to buy the crash zone at the undeveloped price plus reasonable expenses incurred by Bixby, to that Mr. Bradshaw responded in the negative, stating that if they had wanted to buy that property they would have likely done it long ago. Councilman Boyd asked to whose benefit is the quit claim deed contained in this document if it is not enforceable and binding in a federal court. To the Miscellaneous Section 3.2.5.l4, the City Attorney referred to the Junior Golf Program and the Speed Enforcement Trailer, the $5,000 contribution and the access privileges to the golf course, explaining that both will be contained in the operating memorandum, not in this Agreement. Mr. Bradshaw said he wished the Junior Golf program had been his idea, it was not but since it has been put on the table it does make a lot of sense to have a cooperative effort with the Parks and Recreation Department to offer this Program. He said they have already been looking at a menu of what could be done, reduced balls to the boys and girls that would be using the driving range, providing them with the opportunity to play on the golf course, that is already being done with a number of high schools in the area, and as long as there are off-hours it is felt some key time can be found during the week to provide the opportunity for the kids to get on a golf course, it would be a good idea monthly to offer a clinic where one of the teaching pros actually takes the young people, that is already being done at the Country Club for kids, this would be a good opportunity to introduce them to the game of golf, get the right instruction, and even though limited, an opportunity to get on the golf course. Mr. Bradshaw mentioned seeding the Program with $5,000, not that the money will be needed but maybe for shirts or whatever, and stated he felt such Program would be a benefit to the City, and given the understanding that Hellman does not have a proposed driving range, possibly these two facilities could be utilized by the City cooperatively. Councilman Boyd thanked Mr. Bradshaw for this gesture even through it had been his suggestion, junior golf has not yet presented itself to Seal Beach, thanks too for the Speed I I I 11-23-98 I Enforcement Trailer, that something the City has wanted for a long time, that was included as somewhat of a mitigation measure given the concern of Councilmember Campbell with speed, this will aid enforcement. Mr. Bradshaw offered that Bixby has been active with the Police Department for years, very little publicity, in fact one of the major radio control systems was given by Bixby Ranch Company about ten years ago, it is felt an important policy to enforce which is that the Department can function, this facility will help them to control speed and make people aware of how fast they are moving which in turn the positive effect is that it makes people slow down. Councilman Boyd mentioned that a contribution for a police car was part of a previously proposed plan, this trailer is equivalent to the cost of a police cruiser, has a longer life span, can be used as a sobriety checkpoint, etc. Councilmember Campbell referred to Section 4.2.4 with regard to indemnification, and asked if individual councilmembers are immune from capricious and arbitrary decisions with this. The response of the City Attorney was no, explaining that the Council has absolute immunity for legislative actions, for quasi-judicial actions it is qualified immunity. Prior to further explanation with regard to immunity, he noted that the word "lessees" should be added in two places to read "...agents, servants, lessee..." The City Attorney quoted the basic standard for immunity, that individual councilmembers are immune from liability unless motivated by actual fraud, corruption, or actual malice, and if sued in an individual capacity the City must afford defense under the same standard unless an action arose from actual fraud, corruption, or actual malice. with respect to the Development Agreement the Default provisions are identical those in the Hellman Agreement, the Annual Review is standard and virtually identical, the Institution of Legal Action and Remedies are virtually identical, Notices is identical, Termination Rights is somewhat different from Hellman, the remaining Sections are also identical. He noted that the key elements of this Development Agreement are the dedications, all of which have been discussed. I Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Ordinance Number 1440 adopting the Development Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and the Bixby Ranch Company. Councilmember Campbell said her only concern was a request for additional time for others to look at the Agreement. Councilman Yost inquired of the City Attorney if he was comfortable with this Agreement, the response was yes, and noted that there has been a tremendous amount of legal review of this Agreement, and given that this Agreement has no changes of substance other than clerical that has been read into the record, this is the same document that was before the Council at the last meeting. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried Hearing no objection, further reading was waived. The City Attorney stated for the record that there is no need to read Ordinance Number 1440 and the Exhibits thereto further. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1436 - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - TENNIS CLUB SITE - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT Ordinance Number 1436 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB SITE) AND ADOPTING THE BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT 11-23-98 PLAN (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." Boyd moved, second by Brown, to waive the reading in full of Ordinance Number 1436. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt Ordinance Number 1436 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1437 - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - DEVELOPMENT AREAS "A" AND "B" - TOWNE CENTER/SENIOR CARE FACILITY/HOTEL/ RESTAURANTS - OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY Ordinance Number 1437 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREAS "A" AND "B") AND ADOPTING THE OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." Boyd moved, second by Yost, to waive the reading in full of Ordinance Number 1437. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Ordinance Number 1437 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell I Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1438 - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - DEVELOPMENT AREA "c" - BIXBY OLD RANCH GOLF COURSE - OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY Ordinance Number 1438 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREA "C") AND ADOPTING THE OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER) . " Boyd moved, second by Yost, to waive the reading in full of Ordinance Number 1438. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost . None Motion carried Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Ordinance Number 1438 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried m ORDINANCE NUMBER 1439 - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - DEVELOPMENT AREA "D" - RESIDENTIAL/PARK AREAS - OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY Ordinance Number 1439 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREA "D") AND ADOPTING THE OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." 11-23-98 Boyd moved, second by Doane, to waive the reading in full of Ordinance Number 1439. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost . None Motion carried I Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Ordinance Number 1439 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Doane, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4667 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-165 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4667 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-165 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." I Councilmember Campbell made reference to Section 5(b), "...landscaped easement areas varying in width from 48 to 60..." to which the word "feet" was added, further in subparagraph (b) read "...the purpose of these landscaped easement areas is to provide visual screening of the proposed developments and to allow for off-road bicycle paths, in addition to pedestrian walkways..." to which she stated it is also "...to allow for improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard and the freeway on- and off-ramps...", the City Attorney concurred that that language could be added, to a subsection reading "...the site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision" Councilmember Campbell noted that this site is under the flight path and given that the Senior Care facility is a special function said it is being put in a hazardous area, to which she directed her concern. The City Attorney pointed out that the Parcel Map merely subdivides the land. Boyd moved, second by Brown, to waive the reading in full of Resolution Number 4667. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt Resolution Number 4667 as amended. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4668 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15767 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Resolution Number 4668 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15767 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN." Boyd moved, second by Brown, to waive the reading in full of Resolution Number 4668. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried Boyd moved, second by Brown, to adopt Resolution Number 4668 as presented. 11-23-98 AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ALLOCATION OF FUNDS - STATE COPS PROGRAM - 1998/99 PURCHASES Mayor Brown declared the public hearing open to consider the acceptance and approval of an allocation of funds provided under State Assembly Bill 3229. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing was advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received relating to this item. Chief Sellers presented the staff report, noted that the funds are to be designated for 800 MHz police radios, body armor for officers, commence replacing inventory of aging service weapons, and overtime for Community Policing efforts, including bicycle patrol, community crime prevention, and education, and noted with this his belief is that the 800MHz police radio debt service can be reduced, there can be improvement of the current level of safety equipment supplied to front line operations, and improved quality of community patrol levels. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Brown declared the public hearing closed. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve and accept the 1998/99 Supplemental Law Enforcement (State COP's) funding of $60,334, that the established Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund be authorized to accept such funds, and authorized the Chief of Police to make purchases under this funding for fiscal year 1998/99. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I CITY MANAGER REPORTS There was no report from the City Manager. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications open. Ms. Eulalee Siler, College Park East, asked if the operating memorandum will have a provision that the $750,000 will be spent on the community center or tennis club site. The City Attorney noted that that provision is already in the Development Agreement approved by the Council at this meeting that the $1 million will be designated for College Park East, including but not limited to the tennis court, if it is desired to specify $750,000 for the tennis court site that can be done. Ms. Siler stated that, as in the mixed use plan, it is desired that the $750,000 be spent only on the tennis club site and not be funneled into other areas of College Park East that are normally covered by the City with other monies. Councilman Yost said he had no problem with that. Councilman Boyd stated he did have a problem with it for the reason that if there was an opportunity, not foreseeable at this time, to rehabilitate that site at no cost to the City it would not be desirable to have $750,000 that could not be spent elsewhere in College Park East. Ms. Siler suggested that that bridge be crossed at that time, there has never been enough money to do anything for College Park and it is doubtful if it will happen now. Councilman Yost suggested that it be designated for the tennis site and if it can not be funded in another way then it will be dealt with, it would be better to be earmarked as it is an emotional issue for that area as was voiced during his phone survey. Councilman Boyd said he disagreed and would not support that, expressed his preference that the $1 million be designated for College Park East as Councilmember Campbell and the Council see fit and with input from that community, but if there is an I 11-23-98 I opportunity to rehabilitate the tennis site at no cost for the benefit of College Park, that million dollars is tied up. Councilmember Campbell noted that the Agreement can be amended and the money can be placed in a separate account, and Councilman Yost stated his preference that the money be designated to the site first and then amend those provisions later if necessary. Ms. Siler said the point is not placing the money in a separate account, rather, that it be earmarked specifically for the tennis club site. The City Attorney advised this is totally within the discretion of the Council, this is not something that requires entering into agreement with Bixby, the Council can designate the money by means of a resolution or it could be designated in the operating memorandum if that is the desire. If designated by resolution, Councilman Yost asked if it could be changed at a later time if necessary, as Councilman Boyd suggested as a possibility. The City Attorney offered that the Council has that discretion no matter how it is done. Councilman Yost suggested that staff be directed to do so. Councilmember Campbell noted that past discussions earmarked this money to be used not only for converting the tennis site but believed it was also meant to be used for maintaining it over the years, her preference would be that the money not be used for maintainance but capital outlay, citing her belief that College Park East has as much right to have their parks maintained by the City as are others in the community. She said the key is to receive the money, place it in a separate account, gather a group of people together to look at what is desired for the site and what it will cost. Her thought is that the other $250,000 be used as a portion of the cost to correct the curve, that will require an engineering study, and monies are available to allow application for matching funds. She clarified that her preference would be to place the entire $1 million in a separate account for College Park East, with the intent that the $750,000 is to be used for the tennis club site. Councilman Boyd cautioned that in the event the Council were to change, who is to say that those monies will be spent on the tennis facility, another Council may look to another use, his preference would be a College Park East designated account. Councilmember Campbell said she believed the concern of some residents is that it may be used for other purposes. Mr. Bradshaw said the intent has always been, at least in the mind of Bixby, that the $750,000 would be for the refurbishment of the tennis club site into a public facility for the City and College Park East, the City of course has that discretion, yet when that commitment was made it was earmarked to go towards the tennis site, the use of the $250,000 is a moot question, even with the previous plan the idea was that this would provide a facility that could be used in the north part of the City to provide benefits similar to those of the downtown area and the Hill. Mr. Bradshaw emphasized again that the tennis site is where Bixby felt their commitment of $750,000 would be used. I I Mayor Brown requested that staff prepare a resolution for Council consideration to designate the $750,000 specifically for use for the tennis club facility, converting it into a useful clubhouse, the $250,000 be designated for College Park East, the use to be determined for some future need. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Doane noted that Leisure World resident Dorothy Geisler, an environmentalist, has been privey to something the City of Long Beach is doing, converting their street sweeping to compost, and gave a couple of sample bags to 11-23-98 / 11/30/98 members of the staff. Councilman Boyd directed his comment to his Council colleagues, noted that this has been a tumultuous time, certainly not easy for staff, there are some that are not happy with the Bixby outcome, yet this proves that the Council can rise to difficult occasions, and extended a thank you to the members of the Council. Councilmember Campbell reported that Comcast Cable is no longer itemizing their bills, would like to have them resume doing so, especially since they have raised their rates. She also requested that the plants along the Almond Avenue wall be watered. I ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brown requested that this meeting be adjourned until November 30th at 7:00 p.m. and that the agenda for same reflect his stepping down as Mayor and reorganization of the City Council. The City Attorney confirmed that process to be correct, to resign as a member of the City Council is a separate process. By order of the Chair, with the consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned until November 30th at 7:00 p.m., and by unanimous consent this meeting was adjourned at 1:21 a.m. /' Y Clerk and f the City of APproved'67~~~ Atte," (~?lJ(R! I Seal Beach, California November 28, 1998 The regular adjourned City Council meeting of November 30th, 1998 was canceled due to lack of quorum, the next meeting being December 14th, 1998. clerk I