Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1983-12-07 8 Minutes of the Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting of December 7, 1983 The Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday. December 7, 1983, in the Council Chambers of the City Administra- tion Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Goldenberg and the pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Perrin. PRESENT: EXCUSED: STAFF: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington Gary E. Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Allen Parker. City Manager Michael Jenkins, City Attorney The minutes of November 16. 1983 were approved as corrected. with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perrin, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington None Murphy PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Bixby Ranch Company Specific Plan, Old Ranch Business Park e Mr. Johnson made special request for applicant to be able to make a presentation prior to opening the public hearing immediately following the staff report. There were no objections. He again reviewed the background since the project's inception, i.e., in 1980 approval was received from the City of Seal Beach for subdivision and development of the project. Three commercial office buildings drawn together, two free-standing restaurants, parking and landscaping and a connector street from Seal Beach Blvd. to 7th Street is proposed. The buildings are three, four and five stories in height and contain approximately 270,000 sq. ft. The two restaurants are 6,000 and 9,000 sq. ft., with approximately 1100 parking spaces. The Environmental Impact document has been approved by the City's EQCB at the public hearing on October 20, 1983. The board did approve the Environmental Impact Report and recommended approval to the Planning Commission and City Council with two areas of concern: 1. Sound barrier 2. Flight patterns at AFRC, Los Alamitos Subsequent to the EQCB meeting, Ultra Systems, firm preparing the Environmental document, prepared a document entitled "Responses to Comments Received During the EQCB Public Hearing on October 20, 1983, City of Seal Beach". Also included for review are the minutes of the EQCB meeting of October 20, 1983; position paper from AFRC regarding the Old Ranch Business Park project and the Environmental Impact Report, letter from the Rossmoor Homeowners Associati6n regardihg the project, letter received December 7, 1983 from Bixby Ranch Company in response to the Rossmoor Home- owners Association's concerns, and letter from the Airport Land Use Commission regarding findings consistent with ALUP. - The Specific Plan before the Commission tonight is reflected in the revised Environmental Impact Report. Their action is noted in the members packet. project will be back before the Commission (public hearing) at a later date The because Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 __ Page 2 a subdivision map will be required on the site. Based upon the information received, staff recommendation would be to approve the Specific Plan with recommendation to City Council for adoption. Applicant Comments Jim Taylor, Planning Consultant, Bixby Ranch Company, Old Ranch Business Park. He would like to address two major issues for the Commission: 1. Description of the project so that the Commission and members of the audience can have a clear understanding of precisely what action they are proposing. 2. Specific issues identified to Bixby Ranch and their solution. The Bixby project is currently in the third step of the title process in the City of Sea 1 Beach. The first step was to take their Environmental Impact Report (prepared by the City) to the EQCB for review. Secondly, appear before the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission consistent with their Airport Environs Land Use Plan. and thirdly; appear before the Commission this evening for approval to the City Council. ~' Robert Braunchwager, Principal Project Architect. Albert C. Martin & Associates. ~ Their utmost objective is to develop a first class office park with supporting surface parking and landscaping. In addition to the two restaurants, there will be a Cal Trans access ramp connecting Seal Beach Blvd. with the 7th Street overpass. Contained within the site will be a three building complex; three. four and five stories and two free-standing restaurants. surface parking for 1.100 cars. The buildings provide maximum exposure to the freeway, Seal Beach Blvd.. and minimized exposure to the residential neighborhood to the north. A two-story greenhouse connects the three buildings and also continues to act as a noise buffer to the freeway. The buildings are steel framed, walls are comprised of 50% glass (non-reflective) and the remaining 50% of the building metal cast, most likely aluminum.- Landscaping will be extensive, runs south of the Cal Trans access road. Jim Taylor, again elaborated on the letter received from the Rossmoor Homeowners Association dated November 29, 1983 regarding their physical concerns. Mr. Ron Bradshaw will respond to recommendations contained in this letter. The second issue concerns the proposed land use in regard to the operations of the: adjacent AFRC, Los A 1 amitos. Ron Bradshaw, Vice President, Bixby Ranch Project and developer for the 18-acre parcel of land in question. They have had an ongoing discussion written as well as face-to-face meetings with the Rossmoor Homeowners Association in an attempt to get the greatest volume from that homeowners group in sharing their concerns and obtain- ing satisfactory results. It The Environmental Impact Report includes an access road to the 7th Street overpass. The homeowners feel a great deal of concern regarding the additional noise, traffic. including invasion of privacy that would occur due to the project. According to the Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 . Page 3 Environmental Impact Report, from an engineering perspective, additional mitigating requirements for sound were not required. The sound and securi,ty barrier would run the full length of the property bordering on the County which is the Rossmoor residential area. They are willing to put up a 10 ft. high masonary wall. Cal Trans intends to construct a minimum 10 ft. wall, maybe 12 ft. high. Residents are also concerned about the grading operation, i.e. dust, rodents from the flood control channel going into the homes. The County will assist Bixby in control measures., The City's Engineering and Building departments offer guidelines also in this regard. The connector wall could not go up before the grading because of the drainage ditch. Utility easements run the length of the property. The wall would be erected approxi- mately three-to-six weeks after grading. In regard to the opaque glass requested, this could present a problem. The buildings have been placed approxiamtely 200 ft. away from the residential area. There will be an extensive landscaping program. Trees in excess of 25 ft. in height will be incorporated into the landscaping. Jim Taylor, will now address the issue of the AFRC.Their concerns have been addressed at the EQCB meeting and Airport Land Use Commission~ Two positions have been set forth by the military: . 1. The Bixby project is not compatible with their operations at the Los Alamitos AFRC. 2. Project site is within an established potential accident zone one. Bixby has concluded from review of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City the following: 1. No formal study or process has been prepared by the military to substantiate their position. 2. Criteria used by the Dept. of Defense to establish the AP zones does not justify such a threat to Los Alamitos. 3. The Airport Land Use Commission (body empowered by state through the CountyofOrange) to review operations and land uses in and around airfields, both military and civilly, reviewed his comments presented earlier by the military at their meeting on November 17, 1983. No new substantial information exists or will exist in a reasonable period of time to change the Airport Land Use Commission's decision on land uses around the base originally made in 1975. . The Airport Land Use Commission established land use trends in 1975. Conclusion being that only an accident potential zone A was justified. The limits of this zone barely extend beyond the boundaries of the air station. The Commission decided not to designate accident potential zones aroundNAS, Los Alamitos, none appear on the map. This action was reaffirmed on November 17, 1983 after hearing the testimony of the military, Los Alamitos. The FAA has reviewed the project and indicated that a determination of no hazard will be issued to Bixby. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 4 The AICUZcriteria contains a base level of operation that is required before a risk factor is considered significant enough to warrant the creation of an AP zone. There would have to be 5,000 takeoffs or landings. Information contained in the EIR prepared by the military show fixed wing operations at Los Alamitos as 1,000 takeoffs or landings. This was further emphasized in the Airport Land Use Commission's staff report to their Commission that the only two issues of concern based upon their evaluation of the operations at the airbase and their previously approved land use plan were: 1. Noise impact 2. Height limit Any further questions should be directed to the consultants. As far as the Planning process, they have followed the proper format listed below: 1. Proper application for Specific Plan to City of Seal Beach filed. 2. Drafted plans in conformance to City of Seal Beach regulations. 3. EIR has been prepared by the City and submitted for review. 4. Staff have executed plans upon existing guidelines and general plans and recommending approval of project. 5. Public hearings must be held. The Planning process fails if the criteria to be measured against is changed in midstream without substantiating information. We believe the military has attempted to do this in the past. Since 1973, the military of the U.S. Army has been in command of Los Alamitos. To our knowledge no AICUZstudy has been undertaken by the U.S. Army since that change in command occurred. The military states that there is a study underway to substantiate this new position. If a study is indeed underway, there is a process that has to be followed. 1. Base command must prepare an operational statement as to its operations. 2. Department of Defense must ratify this level of operation. The base commander cannot soley rule on his beliefs. 3. An Environmental Impact statement must be prepared as part of an,M~tU-z study and ci rcul ated to all interested agencies or effected jurisdictions. 4. There must be time to allow for responses from the interested parties or agencies. 5. The EIS must address measures to mitigate any identified adverse impacts. 6. Public hearings must be established by the Dept. of Defense to adopt the EIS and AICUZ document. Based upon the information received from the EIR Consultants relative to the compatibility of the Bixby project and the operation at Los Alamitos, there is no conflict. Public Hearing Opened Gus Brickman, President of the Rossmoor Homeowners Association. Read his letter he submitted to the Planning Commission regarding their concerns and recommendations. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 5 Also stated that he did not have sufficient time to review the Bixby Ranch letter he received today. He believes the property in question should be used as a park. They do not want any high rise next to their residential area. The major points of concern: air traffic, additional street traffic, intrusion caused by the new connector road and invasion of privacy. They request that the following be adopted by the City of Seal Beach as a condition of their approval of the Old Ranch Business Park. 1. Perimeter barrier compatible with the standards used by the California Department of Transportation for its sound wall program, to be constructed along the full length of the northern site boundary. Should be a minimum of 12 ft. high. Construction of the wall at road level completed prior to the earth moving. 2. Opaque windows for the buildings facing Rossmoor. They recommend that no further study be made and will stand by the Planning Commission's ruling. Commissioner Covington requested clarification of the word .'opaque" for use in the windows. Glass can be either transparent, translucent or opaque. What was the intent of the Rossmoor Homeowners. Mr. Brickman agreed it should be translucent as to allow light. Bixby.s response was any other glass besides transparent 'would not be acceptable. Chairman Goldenberg inquired the ttme7frame involved,with the erection of the barrier wall. It was established that due to the utility easements, the grading would precede the construction of the barrier wall. Ron Bradshaw, Bixby Ranch Project. The developer would be most cooperative to the building of the wall and complete the grading process in a timely manner. They plan to break ground in April 1984. It would befour-t6~five0eeks for grading. Major impact (heavy equipment) for less than three weeks, with large excavating to follow for drainage and utility underground. They plan to establish a schedule to optimize the time. Commissioner Covington inquired about the height of the wall being 10 or 12 ft. Has Bixby taken into consideration mathematically how a 10 or 12 ft. high safety or barrier wall along the perimeter affects the intrusion line-of-site between a particular height of one of the buildings and a normal view point in one of the back- yards. It was noted that the glass would be a double glazed, reversed mirrored glass, reflective on the inside rather than on the building exterior. Landscaping to be a hedgerow effect, trees will be in excess of 25 ft. The wall would be for additional sound buffering primarily from the freeway. Bixby has stipulated in their letter that they would be willing to erect a 12 ft. wall if studies recommended it. The wall to be constructed by Cal Trans will be a minimum height of 10 ft. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 . Page 6 Commissioner Covington commended Mr. Bradshaw for his introduction and offer for a 10 or 12 ft. wall. Opposition to Specific Plan Robert Cook, 114 Central Avenue, Seal Beach. Ask the following: 1. Why is the project being presented as a Specific Plan? 2. Is the proposed project compatible with the existing zoning? 3. What is the actual zone for the property? 4. If the project was not being presented as a Specific Plan, what variances would be needed? Mr. Johnson stated that the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan is stated in the Specific Plan, Section 2, entitled "Purpose and Intent". The present land use and design of the 18-acre site is specified in the Specific Plan. A number of variances would be required. Chairman Goldenberg explained that a number of Specific Plans had been set aside which had already been started. Mr. Cook specifically wanted to determine the type of variances required, i.e., particularly the height. Thirty-five feet is presently the area limit. The project is proposing 104 ft. Patti Campbell, 4433 Ironwood Avenue, Seal Beach. Definitely opposes the project because of the increased congestion, i.e., traffic, noise, etc. Hoyt Klinck, Yellowtail, Rossmoor. Referred to the letter he received from the Rossmoor Homeowners Association requesting his opinion regarding the proposed five story building to be constructed. He would like to go on record as absolutely in opposition to the project 100%. He favors a park. William J. Davies, Major, Airfield Operations Officer at Los Alamitos. Their concerns have not changed. An Axcuz study is in the development stage. They will be submitting the airport master plan in February 1984, to be distributed to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission; surrounding communities: Seal Beach, Cypress, Los Alamitos, etc~ Their main issue is the project in relation to the activities of the AFRC, Los Alamitos. It is in an accident potential zone. They are trying to minimize the number of people exposed to aircraft hazards. The National Guard has two missions: . 1. Defend the country in time of national emergency. 2. Support the State of California in time of disaster. In 1979 the State Office of Emergency Services designated Los Alamitos AFRC as a Disaster Support Area (DSA). AFRC, Los Alamitos has an excess of over 100,000 flight operations per year, mostly helicopters. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 7 Major Davies believes that there will be an earthquake in Southern California sometime in the future. In an event of such a major disaster, the Bixby project would defthitely be in conflict by being in a potentialatcident hazard zone. Commissioner Covington asked Maj.,Davi~~ if'he,.had-rec~ived~6nly two days notification of the Airport Land Use Commissions meeting-:;n November 1983. His response was yes. Major Davies informed~the Commission that he had submitted a letter to the Airport Land Use Commission on December 7, 1983, requesting they reconsider the results of theirun~nimous'd~cision to accept the Bixby Ranch project. Since the AFRC, Los Alamitos, did not have adequate time to address thisissue,the: item will be on the agenda for the Airport Land Use Commission's meeting on December 15, 1983. A copy of the letter will be distributed to all Planning Commission members. Commissioner Jessner asked the average number of fixed wing take-offs per month or year. Major Davies believes in the ballpark of 1,000, but this is not completely accurate. The major concern of the Commission is safety. There is an approximate distance of 4,300 ft. between runway and homes. All of the Bixby project property is an accident potential zone 1. Commissioner Murphy referred to the Environmental Impact Report of October 20, 1983, in which they agreed with the Specific Plan. Frank E. We~t, ,Jr., Capt~in, Airfield Safety Officer, AFRC Los Alamitos. Stated that there are approximately 1,000 operations per year for fixed wing flights, but there have been 1,300 for the first eight months. Thertr Airport Master Plan will incorporate clear zones and accident potential zones as they are known now. Major Davies would like to go on record in opposition to the project as being incompatible to their accident potential zones. Commissioner Murphy asked when do most flights occur, on the, weekends. Major Davies said they do have missions during the week. Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, Seal Beach. Provided information regarding the Airport Land Use Commission. They were charged with mapping each airport within the City to develop a land use plan for compatible uses around that airport. With respect to Los Alamitos National Air Station, at that time, the Navy had that particular installation. The Navy flew fixed wing aircraft out of the installation and then stopped. Prior to resuming any flights out of the facility there was a requirement for an Environmental Impact statement, Federal, as opposed to an EIS. It was prepared by the U.S. government in approximately 1971-72. It had a ceiling cap of 144,000 operations per year..<most-ly"helicopte;s. The only changes in the state law relative to the statutory provisions for ALuc- duties have dealt with accident potential zones, -and have been currenfly modified by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commissi6n., In regards to the Bixby project they have been modified as far as mitigating measures as to require that one story Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 8 be taken off the tallest building to comply with FAR 77 glide pattern requirements, and place a red light on top of the building. One of the restaurants may be within a noise zone. Therefore, the restaurant would have to be noise attenuated to meet their requirements. Commissioner Covington asked Mr. Antos if he was aware of the Airport Land Use Commission1s handbook covering their new powers and responsibilities. To meet the August 31, 1983 deadline, had the City of Seal Beach presented their portion of the General Plan that related to the areas of Seal Beach around the airport to the Airport Land Use Commission? Yes, 'they: had with two comments: 1. The City did not have specific regulations in our height requirements and zoning dealing with airports. The City would refer to the wording currently used by Irvine and the Cou~ty of Orange that-have met the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission as a standard. This was submitted a month ago by the City and if the ALUC accepts this, then it will be directed to the Planning Commission and City Council for amendment to the general height provisions in our zoning ordinance. 2. Secondly, noise in industrial zones. The City of Seal Beach has a noise ordinance dealing with residential/ commercial but not industrial sorts of noise as far as the receptor inside the building. The ALUC has model language which~ts propb~ed:tb be incorporated into the existing City noise ordinance. Commissioner Covington inquired if the ALUC did determine an inconsistency, then the local agency should be contacted to have a public hearing to reconsider its plan. The City has not had its public hearing, but put together some draft language and serit it to the ALUC for review. If ~pproved, the City would then hold a public hearing. There is no requirement for a public hearing to change a plan. The City is only required to deal with the height (zoning ordinance) and noise (Municipal Code) ordinances to bring our plans and ordinances into compliance. Has a formal hearing with ALUC been held to deal with the resubmitting of those elements found to be inconsistent. Mr. Johnson said the Commission has been behind schedule and several cities with minor inconsistencies have not yet been brought into confbrmance. How could the Commission find any project within the City to be consistent with the plan for that City if it has not accepted that plan and found it to be consistent? Mr. Antos stated that the ALUC has accepted the plan with two implementing ordinances: height and noise. Robert Cook, 114 Central, Seal Beach. Apologized if he seemed offensive before, but the thought of a 95 ft. structure was unsettling. He is totally against using a specific plan to facilitate a development which is being proposed in gross dis- regard of those codes. Geraldine West, 1201 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. Stated her opposition to the 95 ft. height of the project. Inquired in regard to the status of the committee working on guidelines for specific plans. Approval should not be made without these guidelines. They were started approximately seven months ago. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 . Page 9 Commissioner Jessner asked if staff had been working on these guidelines for future specific plans? Mr. Johnson, there has been a draft prepared. When the principal planner begins next week, hopefully he can bring this before the Commission within a reasonable period of time. Chairman Goldenburg inferred that whatever decision is made in regard to this will be fairly compatible to the guidelines received. of Rossmoor Hoyt Klinck, One of the residentsAbrought up the fact that the Seal ,Be~ch Building Code specifies certain heights for certain zoning areas and any devlatlon to that, the builder must prove a hardship. Commissioner Covington stated that this is a requirement, but not in this particular Specific Plan. If the overall ,value to the City and the various levels of consider- ation are such that the total impact of the plan is sufficient within that plan, there can be exceptions granted to what otherwise would require a specific variance if it were not in a Specific Plan. Jim Taylor, would like to respond to the use of the Specific Plan as a means to achieve the proposal that we have. The Specific Plan provides the City with the greatest control and the great~st amount of exhibits on which to base a deci~ion on a project. The alternative would be to request a general plan change and a zone change to accommodate the height. If this was the case, they would not have to provide physical plans to show what it is that you would be approving to that general plan. The Specific Plan is a tool incorporated into the State Plan Act to provide agencies like yourself the ability to request specific information so that you have greater information on which to base a decision. Relative to the comment of variance requirements. The reason that we are submitting to you a Specific Plan that has a building of the height we are proposing is that Seal Beach is an isolated island. We are,'competing for office facilities and space throughout Orange County. Additional height is necessary to compete with others who are developing offices in Orange County. To say that this would set a precedent and throw out all your future guidelines is to say the Planning Commission might just as well not consider zoning. This is just not true. Different zones can be established based upon the physical conditions that exist in those zones that can create certain conditions. We believe that the economic and physical conditions that exist on this property would justify the proposed buildings that we have. In regards to the military, I have read the EIR and do not reach the same conclusions. I would raise the question about accident potential on this site and the ability of the military to apply regulations and establish their own AP zones. We have heard what their mission is, but have we read specifically what the mission is as it is stated in their own documentation. ~ It is stated in their report that the air base is capable but not responsible for, support to the,various tactica~ and lo~istica] flights, law enforcement and, fire department~ We need to use common sense in developing la~d use decisions under disaster, scenarios. ,The numbers provided by toe, mi lita,ry.,were ,provided to your Environmental consultant, and it u~sets me that every time l~m ~sked~-are the, Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 . Page 10 figures you heard from me tonight accurate, they are the figures in the EIR. The military itself stated that its:seven-month projection was 1,334 operations. Let me clarify my statement at the onset of our presentation. I indicated to you that the AICUZguidelines has the level of 5,000 take-offs or 5,000 landings before you justify an accident potential zone. My final comment is in relationship to what you've heard quite often. Wedidcnot have sufficient time to respond to an issue. I am going to give the military the benefit of the doubt that they were not informed of hearings at the ALUC in June or November 1983. I do not believe that. ,The real question is what is the difference because the information submitted did not change and did not change the minds of the ALUC. They said that we had provided them with data that needs to go through the process I described earlier tonight that would take over a year to substantiate. The statement of the ALUC, I attended the meeting, there was not substantial information to change their decision on the 1975 determination on the General Plan. They felt it was not fair for us to wait until that information was submitted. AFRC, Los Alamitos, does not have the numbers to warrant an AICUZ study. Commissioner Jessner stated that throughout our City we have commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. We have adopted a couple specific plans, one specifically, on the nine-acre site near the beach, another near PCH. Have we 4It limited the height in these particular areas to 35 ft? Allen J. Parker, City Manager, City of restriction on the Department of Water specific plan that has been adopted on requirement on that, it is negotiable. the residential area around it. Seal Beach. There is a 35 ft. height and Power property. There is a second the State land piece. There is no height The height requirement is different on Commissioner Jessner has observed the traffic situation around the Bixby property, feels there is reason for concern. What would be the benefits to the City from this project~ I see additional traffic problems as well as visual,to:those who live around it. Jim Taylor, In regard to height, we feel that the 200 ft. separation 'from the nearest residential area is sufficient distance. There is also the addition of landscaping to buffer the views. We feel the combination of those does not constitute such a view intrusion that it is not an acceptable situation. In relation to traffic, any project would generate traffic. A 35 ft. height limit would not guarantee less traffic. The benefits are attractiveness, revenue to the City, etc. Commissioner Covington could not find in the EIR the stated number of different people seeking access to the project. How many different people, employees of the buildings, restaurants, customers of the restaurants, customers to and from the buildings. How many different entrees or exits are expected from this project~' . Justin Farmer, prepared traffic reports for the EIR. The following is an estimate of trips generated by the development: Morning Peaks - 515 vehicles entering project 100 exiting Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 11 . Evening - 115 vehicle~ entering 390 leaving The total of 4,160 entering and exiting is a fair estimate. Commissioner Murphy, what about bus transportation. Mr. Farmer has been in discussion with the OCTO and RTD. If there is a demand, they will be happy to furnish service. Jack Chevalierd, Aviation Systems & Associates, Redondo Beach, CA. Participated in the preparation of the EIR; has had extensive background in the Army Air Force. He has met with the command staff at Los Alamitos and obtained certain data from them pertaining to the fixed wing and rotary wing flight, patterns. The type of traffic that fixed wing aircraft generates does not justify an accident potential zone. They have 90% helicopter operations and 2% fixed wing. There are no reported fixed wing accidents during the past 15 years. According to AICUZguidelines, there must be at least 5,000 an~ualarrival operations to justify an accident potential zone. The Army has never issued any guidelines for AICUZprojects. I cannot find Army criteria,in ~ny manual requiring they have clear zones or accident potential zones. Commissioner Covington, asked Mr. Chevalierd when he was engaged by Ultra Systems to provide this portion of the EIR. On November 8 or 9, we received the material, questions and findings, and statements provided by the Air Station to this City and Bixby. It was at least a couple of weeks before that. Was your company responsible for the original element in the EIR dealing with air traffic. Did you feel that Page 36 of the original EIR was a sufficient and valuable document. Apparently there was no contact made with the Air Station command. The only reference made was to the FAA. Our company was not involved with the origin~l EIR. Do you feel that there is any safe period of time between accidents to allow us to statistically ignore the possibility thereof. As I said previously, there has not been any fixed wing accidents during the past 15 years. Did you have an', opportunity to discover what the AP zones 1 and 2 that the Navy uses are :sothat you can overlay them on the ones that the Army is presently using. I have the document showing the Airport Master PLan indicating AP zones 1 and 2. Frank West, Captain, AFRC, Los Alamitos, In comparison to the Army and Navy AP zones, they are the same. Between 1973-77 they operated as a Naval Air Station. The AP zones criteria has been the same for the various services for the past 15 years. Patti, Campbell, I do not agree with the statement of no accidents during the past 15 years. I personnaly witnessed one in the summer of 1970. An A4 blew a tire and skidded all the way to Lampson Avenue, 20 ft. short of the southern perimeter of the base. . Public Hearing Closed Allen J. Parker, would like to ask the City Attorney about the City's liability, specifically to the AP zone. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 12 Let's assume this body and the City Council both decide the project should not be built because of the possibility of an accident as presented by the military. In my reading of what type of land uses are allowed in an AP zone, the types of uses allowed do not even come up to what our normal C2 zones are. They are varied as far as the capacity to produce an economic return to property owners and '( extreme~y minimal to developers. 1. In the absence of the ALUC designation of an official AP zone, if the Commission denies the project based on the military, do we stand the chance of an inverse condemnation liability from the developer? Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. The property owner is entitled to some economic value in his property. A complete reduction or elilnination of that economic value would result in an inverse condemnation .11aoility., Thr:ough.'zoning reg~lations_ the City will have made it impossible to use the property for'any valuable purpose whatsoever and that would give some rise to liability by inference of the military!:s argument or position. This type of use or similar type of uses should not be permitted on this particular site. The acceptable alternatives are rather limited. The recommendation is for a zone change to allow only certain type uses that would be compatible within the proximity of the Air Field. The zone change would have to be compatible with surroundingresid~ntialareas tosatisfyotherc6nsid~rations :~uch as traffic and the military. This would be a very limited type of use. Allen J. Parker, 2. Let's assume that at the November meeting the ALUC bought the military's statement and designated the area as an AP zone. Obviously the City would be restricted as to development. Would the City have the same liability? Michael Jenkins, Yes. The City is the agency with the justification to make the ALUC determination. The ALUC does not necessarily control the discretionary decision making of the City. All en J. Parker 3. If the Planning Commission and the City Council disregarded the military for this development or any other development within this C2 zone and an accident occurred, what would be the City's liability? Michael Jenkins This is a discretionary type of decision as to which, generally speaking, the, City has immunity. The only way in my judgement that this immunity could be overridden would be if the City did not act in good faith when making a decision. Allen J. Parker In the absence of an'ALUC, if the Commission and City Council based their decision Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 13 soley on information provided by the military, we will have a singular liability in regards to inverse condemnation as opposed to if the ALUC had designated the AP zone and the City went along with it. I would merely ask the Commission to base their decision on the liability standpoint only to predicate whatever decision they are going to make in regards to height restrictions, etc. Frank Laszlo, City Council, District Four, College Park East. Addressed the Commission on the following information: Mr. Laszlo submitted a letter December 5th to the ALUC asking them to reopen the Bixby hearing at their December 15, 1983 meeting based on the following: 1. New data available that the ALUC had not heard. 2. AFRC had only two days notice before they appeared before the ALUC regarding Bixby. 3. AP zones and ACUZ was not included in the revised Master Plan, and they had not contacted the AFRC on the plan when distributed in early June. 4. Based on the magnitude and size of their organiza- tion, they did not have sufficient time to present their facts. I have had a discussion with the Executive Director and he confirmed that the Master Plan had been revised. He did not have any contact with the AFRC. The vote went the way it was because they did base it on the original information they had received. I am concerned with the safety of the people of Seal Beach. I believe the AFRC to be a disaster support center; the sole remaining facility in the Los Angeles basin for such a project. Planning Commission Recessed 11:27 p.m. for 10 minute Recess Chairman Goldenberg referred to a letter sent to Mr. Gary Johnson, City Engineer by the Airport Land Use Commission dated November 21, 1983. This letter stated that the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County found the Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plan consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) subject to certain noted contions. Chairman Goldenberg read for the record the following last paragraph in this letter: "In addition, it was moved to express to the City the concerns of the Commission with maters of Public Safety in the vicinity of the A.F.R.C. and to urge the City and the developer to consider proper mitigating measures to enchance such public safety". Chairman Goldenberg stated that public safety should be a prime concern of the Planning Commission and requested Mr. Gary Johnson to ask the Airport Land Use Commission to clarify this paragraph and to indicate what "proper mitigating measures'l the Commission was considering or could recommend. Commissioner Jessner inquired about the C2 density requirement for the project. Mr. Johnson to report back. Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 '~ . Page 14 With additional time required for further investigation, Commissioner Perrin moved to continue the Bixby Ranch project to January 4,' 1984, CommissioA~r Murphy seconded the motion, which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington None None PC Recessed 11:55 p.m. for 2 Minutes PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED B. Donald and Myrna Jacobson, V-7-83 Variance for Rear Yard Encroachment Mr. Johnson gave a brief review on the requested variance for a rear yard encroachment. At the present time the building has been moved and is encroaching 1 '4" in the required rear yard setback. This would reduce the rear yard to 118". Staff comment regarding the variance application, it appears to be a hardship imposed by the applicant and does not meet the test for a variance for the following reasons: . 1. The building plans were prepared and the building was built without consulting record maps, records and surveys or surveying the lot. 2. The plans for relocating the house on the lot were prepared without civil engineering, geometric calculations to determine if, in fact, the house could fit on the lot and meet all setback requirements. The staff recommendation is to deny the variance with failure to meet the "Showings for Variances" Sec. 28-2502 SBMC. Commissioner Perrin asked if the City issued the permit to move the house on the lot. The applicant felt that in lieu of removing a portion of the building to comply with the required side yard, they would try to move the building on the lot and comply with the required setbacks, but this failed. The building is too large for the lot. Public Hearing Opened Allen Rothery, Representative for Mr. & Mrs. Jacobson, attempted to prove a hard- ship with the following: The problem that started this predicament was a disastrous but totally unintentional error on behalf of the architects and engineers that designed the house. The original plans showed a rectangular lot and rectangular house. After the house was up it was discovered that it was in the wrong location. The lot that Jacobson's house was on was not the pie shaped lot they thought it was but the B115 lot next door was indeed the larger lot. After placing the house in its new position, while Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 Page 15 having a perfectly rectang~lar house, the lot was basically a parallelogram. The lot is not square. The optionis.todemolish the front portion of the house in order to cause it to fit on the lot. This would cost approximately $100,000. Therefore, they are seeking a variance. The only encroachment for a setback is in the rear yard and that is facing the house on C Row. The house was referenced to the wrong side yard and is presently off the foundation. Commissioner Jessner asked if the engineer was asked to make a drawing or study to see if the moving of the house would eliminate the setback. The drawing submitted showed it would fit properly. Steve Roh, speaking in behalf of the Surfside Board of Directors. He would like to reiterate that the City adamantly enforce no variances to Surfside. The Board of Directors is strictly against them. Larry Peterson, speaking for Mr. Anderson, property owner of A6, Bl15 and C41. In approximately June 1982, a survey was made of the property Bl15. The problem at that time was very clarly spelled out. This is not a hardship case and is consistent with the surveyor's map dated March 1971. Public Hearing Closed . Commissioner Perrin moved to deny the variance, Commissioner Jessner seconded the motion, which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington None None RESOLUTIONS #1305 Commissioner Covington read the Resolution honoring Charles Antos for several years of dedicated service to the Planning Department. Chairman Goldenberg moved to approve Resolution #1305, Commissioner Perrin seconded the motion, which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington None none COMMISSION REQUESTS A. Report from Staff Regarding Side Yard Encroachment at 133 12th Street Mr. Johnson reviewed the Staff report giving a brief background when the original application was received by the Building and Safety Department, J~ne1983.. The permit was issued after a plan check had been completed. Once the home was placed on the lot, an adjacent resident complained that the building was greater than 191 shown on the approved plans and the building was not properly positioned on the lot. A survey was performed and showed that the building slightly exceeded the 19' width and the encroachment into the required side yard is slightly over 2t" at the north- west corner of the house and the southeast corner of the house. After review by Minutes of the PC Meeting 12/7/83 /~ Page 16 the Chief Building Inspector a determination was made that due to the minor nature of the encroachment the permittee could proceed. Allen J. Parker In reference to the measurement of side yard encroachments, since World War II the standard has been to measure from the foundation. Commissioner Jessner, inquired if the foundation is setting on blocks or a conventional footing? The contractor for Mrs. Lush stated that the blocks are ,not part ~f the'- foundat ion system. ~They were purely decorative with pier ~upports withgir~ers_underneath. Commissioner Covington referred to Bob Werner1s letter and interpreted the mobile home as not being on a proper foundation. Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, Seal Beach, speaking in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Lush. He recently surveyed numerous homes from 10th Street to Ocean Avenue for side yard encroachments. The greatest distance was 6'1" and the least 5'6". Thomas C. White, 127 12th Street, Seal Beach. As a resident of the area for many years, I feel that this structure is inconsistent with what1s on the block. ;. A 11 en J. Parker There is a State law which preempts discontinuing this new single family dwelling. Commissioner Goldenberg made recommendation that the City staff, at their discretion, issue the certificate of occupancy permit and-Commissioner Covington asked, that~ the fence be buildt as soon as possible to satisfy the next door-neighbor. Corn. Jessner seconded the motion~ which passed with the followi~g vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Murphy, Goldenberg, Jessner Covington, Perrin ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None REPORT FROM SECRETARY A. Update on CBD Revitalization Task Forces To be continued. Meeting adjourned 1:38 a.m. ~ ording Secretary