Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1984-01-18 SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 4IIlhe Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak direct~y into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Comndssion. If you wish to address the Comndssion on matters other than public hearings, the agenda provides for that time ~hen the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stating your name and address first. ~HHH~ Next Reso 1 uti on #1307 JANUARY 18, 1984 . .1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7 & 21, 1983 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Bixby Ranch Company Specific Plan Old Ranch Business Park 5. VARIANCE DENIAL, B-114 SURFSIDE, RESOLUTION #1306 6. COMMISSION REQUESTS 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 9. REPORT FROM SECRETARY 10. ADJOURNMENT . . .- . MINUTES OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1984 The Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, January 18, 1984 in the Council chambers of the City Administration Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Goldenberg and the pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Murphy. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Goldenberg Commissioners Covin8ton, Jessner, Murphy, Perrin Absent: None Also present: Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works Greg Stepanicich, City Attorney John Baucke, Pri nci pa 1 Pl anner COMMISSION _MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 1983 Page 1, line 21 corrected to read, "NOES: None. Page 1, line 22, corrected to read, "ABSTAIN: Murphy." Page 3, line 37, corrected to read "state through the County of Orange." Page 3, first line of last paragraph, "threats" deleted and "trends" inserted in its place. On Page 4 and throughout remalnlng minutes, all reference to "ACUZ" should be changed to "AICUtl which refers to "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones" study. Page 6, line 30, Hoyt Klinck lives in "Rossmoor", not "Seal Beach." Page 9, line 11, insert "of Rossmoor" after "residents". Page 14, 4th paragraph from bottom of page, line 4, change "his" to "this". Page 16, line 9, Commissioner .Jessner inquired "if the blocks around the perimeter of the bui lding were part of the foundation or not. II In the next paragraph, the contractor for Mrs. Lush stated that the blocks are "notll part of the foundation system. There were purely decorative with pier supports with girders underneath. Change paragraph to read llCommissioner Goldenberg made recommendation that City staff, at their discretion, issue the Certificate of Occupancy permit and Commissioner Covington asked that the fence be built as soon as possible to satisfy the next door neighbor. Commissioner Jessner seconded the motion, which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Murphy, Goldenberg, Jessner None Covington!Perrin . . . Planning Commission Minutes of 1/18/84 Page 2 Covington made the motion, second by Perrin, to approve the minutes as corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Go 1 denberg,.Murphy , Perrin None Jessner Motion carried COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 1983 On page 1, second paragraph from the bottom of the page, spell "section" correctly. Page 5, sixth paragraph from bottom of the page, line 3, insert "he" after 'land" and before "wi 11'1. Jessner moved, second by Covington to approve the minutes as corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIr~: Covington, Goldenberg, Jessner, Murphy, Perrin None None Motion Carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 1307 - BIXBY RANCH COMPANY SPECIFIC PLAN FOR OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK Gary Johnson updated the Commission on what has taken place since the last Planning Commission meeting. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered for a second time on December 15, 1983 the Old Ranch Business Project and found again that the project is consistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Therefore, this project will not go back to the ALUC, but will continue to be processed in the City of Se~l Beach. Presented to Commissioners was the December 28, 1983 letter from the Airport Land Use Commission clarifying their findings regarding Bixby project, with regard to mitigation measures. It was suggested that the Planning Commission consider mitigation measures such as "density of use restrictions or physical design techniques such as wall thickness". Mr. Johnson's recollection from attending the ALUC meeting was that no specifics were mentioned regarding those mitigation measures, except for a general concern for those items mentioned. At the December 7th Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Jessner inquired about the nature of a project on the 18 acre site if the site were zoned C2 and built under current zoning. Sixty percent lot coverege would be allowed and maximum building height would be 35 feet. The estimated floor area would be 250,000 sq. ft., assuming two-story buildings and surface parking. In 1980, the project approved for this site consisted of a 13 lot subdivision in conformance with underlying zoning of 9 acres of commercial and 9 acres light industrial. The primary issues/concerns of the December 7th Planning Commission were summarized to include: '1) compatibility of proposed project with air operations at Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC), 2) noise impacts from proposed project upon Rossmoor residents, and 3) height of proposed buildings. Planning Commission Meeting of 1/18/84 Page 3 . Mr. Johnson indicated that tonight the Planning Commission should review the Draft EIR, the Specific Plan and Site Plan. After the review, the Commission should make recommendations to the City Council on the Specific Plan and, if they desire, on the DraftEIR. Johnson stated, in reply to Covington's question, that the current project lot coverage would be about two acres out of the 13 acres that would be developed. Goldenberg commented on ALUC meeting and their letter of 12/28/83 to Gary Johnson. He felt from the report of the meeting, the ALUC seemed to concentrate only on proper mitigating measures, but the letter indicated there were deliberations in regard to questions of safety and that the intent was on having the City Planning Commission consider the public safety. This pl~ces the ALUC on record that they recognize this public safety factor and are alerting the City. Public hearing opened. Goldenberg indicated that representatives from Bixby Ranch Company, Armed Forces Reserve Center, and Rossmoor Homeowners Association were here and the audience could ask questions of them. . Jim Taylor, planning consultant for Bixby Company, presented Bixby's position on the proposed projct. The Rossmoor Homeowners Association expressed concern regarding the treatment that would occur along the boundary that separates Old Ranch Business Center from their community. Bixby Company proposes to construct a masonary wall a minimum of 10 feet in height along the entirety of the property line separating the office property from Rossmoor. Bixby shall increase the height of the wall"to a maximum of 12 feet if the sound wall to be constructed by Caltrans is at least 12 feet in height at the westerly terminus of the property. Taylor further stated that the construction of this wall will begin at the earliest feasible time upon completion of rough site grading, in order to minimize the impact of construction on the Rossmoor community, with a schedule to be developed in cooperation with the City when the grading permits are issued so that all parties would clearly understand when the construction of this wall will take place. The boundary wall would then be dedicated to the City along with the 7th Street connector road upon completion. In order to screen views to and from the project, Bixby also proposes that landscape materials be utilized along the entire project perimeter, which at maturity would reach a vertical height of 25-30 feet. . Taylor felt the location of this particular site and its location to the surrounding uses, specifically the 405 freeway, flood control channel and major arterial highway, would provide consideration to a project greater in height than to projects located elsewhere in the City. The proposed project height which includes a three, a four and a five story building would be a maximum of 82t feet above grade. This variation in building height creates an arcade, and also provides a developer with greater flexibility to market this particular project. If, however, Planning Commission Minutes of 1/18/84 Page 4 . the City determines that the community would be better served by the lower profile project, Bixby has concluded that this can satisfactorily be achieved by converting the project to three four-story buildings. This would reduce the maximum height by 13 feet while still maintaining the overall leasable area that would be needed to amortize the cost of development and infrastructure. Under this revised line, the maximum height of the project would not exceed 69t feet above grade. Taylor further stated that given the determination of the Airport Land Use Commission now on two different occasions and with full knowledge of the information from AFRC that our project is in conformance and it therefore requires no amendments. . Ray Le Compte, 3272 Rowena Drive, Rossmoor, asked how Bixby envisioned the frequency of landscape plantings; how close together will they be planted. Jim Taylor replied that the exact species has yet to be determined. That will be reached by bringing a proposal to staff for their concurrence. Ray Le Compte also wondered that given the present height limit of 35 feet, howmanx buildings would be necessary for that height? Jim Taylor replied that with regard to intensity of use if we are restricted to 35 ft. height limit, Bixby would basically be looking at an entirely different project; which they have to consider whether it was really viable. This would be an entirely different level of quality for buildings, entirely different image, entirely different tenants. This would result in a much nlore i ntens i ve use of the property. Under a 35 ft. hei ght limitation, assuming a similar intensity of use which is 275,000 sq. ft., providing parking structures, site coverage would be closer to 60% lot coverage. That is if we maintain a similar site intensity. Even if we went back to 1980 plan, which was 185,000 sq. ft., we were looking at 50% lot coverage. Jim Taylor~replied to Covington's question, that the previous 1980 project was a mixed use project of both commercial and industrial and the parking requirements would require less. I am talking about similar intensity of site use. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, Seal Beach, wanted alq of the variances required by this project that were not under a specific plan. and would like those items detailed. Staff replied the height is the primary deviation under current zoning. Mr. Cook then inquired why has Bixby proposed a development which grossly exceeds our code while at the same time Bixby is adding to a development in Long Beach which could meet our code, and what economic studies ha's-Bixbydone to support the proposal and are the findings, if any, available for public review? . Ron Bradshaw, Bixby Ranch Company, stated the height determination was the result of a marketing study for the Bixby Ranch Company. We chose to go for a corporate market for this project and that is how Bixby came to the conclusion originally to go for a six story building. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/18/84 Page 5 . With regard to the building in Long Beach, it is more of a garden office project, not a corporate image project. Economic studies and findings were developed specifically for Bixby Ranch. They were not required to be submitted publicly. We could give you particular information. Commissioner Goldenberg asked would Bixby Ranch be willing to satisfy Mr. Cook with that information. Jim Taylor replied that that information is proprietary in nature. It basically spells out an economic business plan for one developer. Once it is spelled out it becomes public knowledge, that is also then a possibility of becoming a business plan for a competitive business. Cost revenue analyses were not prepared for this project: Robert Cook then inquired what the economic justification is that says 69! feet is the optimum. City Attorney stated that what the Commission is dealing with this evening is one particularpropos~] versus a plan that contains certai~ height limitations. At the present time there is existing zoning that applies to this property and the developer could proceed under the existing zoning. .BrianSweeny, 140 7th Street, spoke in favor of the project due to its location adjacent to a freeway and arterial highway. . Tom Ritacco, 2943 Yellowtail Drive, Rossmoor, read statement by Rossmoor Homeowners Association President, Gustove Brickman (attached). Jessner asked if Mr. Ritacco were more comfortable with the 69t height and also with the addition of a dense landscapi~g of trees to screen vision of office building. Mr. Ritacco replied that he could not speak for other homeowners, but that would be a step in the right direction. Staff stated that one of the components of the precise plan would be the landscaping. It would not need a public hearing, but knowing the type of landscaping based on all the hearinGs and testimony, staff would try to insure that the types of trees would have the ability to screen. Mr. Jessner also mentioned that fast growinz trees should be selected. Mr. Johnson indicated that when the landscaping plan was submitted, comments from the Rossmoor Homeowners Association would be solicited. Mr. Covington asked if the prepared statement from Gustove Brickman referred to 69t foot limit or the 82t foot height. Mr. Ritacco indicated that the statement did refer to the 82t ft. limit. Mr. Ritacco further stated that the design of the first proposed project in 1980 with a 35 ft. height, was more in favor with the community. Mr. Covington asked that the Rossmoor board respond to the new 69t foot height limit. . Lt. Col. Bob Brandt, Armed Forces Reserve Center Airfield Commander, Los Alamitos, expressed concern that this project as outlined presently is still not compatible with the air operations at AFRC. The project does not meet the guidelines of either the Dept. of Defense or Caltran1s . PlanninG Commission Minutes of 1/18/84 Page 6 . guidelines with respect to safety. Orange County ALUC did express their concerns over the safety issues that were brought out by the AFRC. The Airport Land Use Commission has not had the opportunity to adopt the accident potential and clear zones, and that is why they felt that they could not make a decision aGainst this project. Covington asked when the O.C. ALUC will act on adoption of clear zones and accident potential zones.. Col. Brandt replied that because the ALUC is being rewritten and because of new laws which came into effect in July, and based on fact that ALUC had to review each of the cities master plans, they would not be able to consider adoption of our Air" Force Accident Potential Zones and Clear Zones until sometime after January of this year. Covineton asked regarding the Caltrans handbook, when developing an ALUC for a specific airfield, whether they should consider when available, the AICUZ plans that are in effect for that airfield. Also, the position paper provided members of the Commission, said that IIFor Navy facilities this zone is normally provided under flight paths which experience 5,000 or more annual operations; however, this figure is only a general guideline." Col. Brandt replied that in Caltrans guidelines, the only reference they site is the Navy reference. The Navy reference uses this 5,000 aircraft operations, not helicopter, not fixed wing aircraft. The Dept. of Army does not go by it. Covington asked if this particular airfield have any minimum annual flight number authorized by the DOD below which you could ,not apply the accident and clear zones. Col. Brandt replied that the Army criteria is based upon the category of runway and the potential uses. Consequently, the AFRC is obligated to support all Dept. of Defense military aircraft. The ALUC are not obliGated to take accident potential zones for AICUZ studies. They can take from airport r.laster plans. As far as the Army is concerned all anny a i rfi e 1 ds have accident potential zones. . Jessner asked within the APZ, have any additional studies been made on existing homes, buildings and how many within the zone. Col. Brandt stated that with existing structures there is nothine he can do about it. All he can do is try to impact future development. Col. Brandt replied to further questions, that the only areas that are really impacted are along Yellowtail Drive and the northeast corner of Leisure World where the turn takes place over the Weapons Station. The shopping center actually falls to the north of the designated area. . Jim Taylor, representing Bixby Ranch Company, would like to know what is compatible in APZ zones. He further pointed out that Col. Brandt downplayed the number of existing streets in Rossmoor and Leisure World that are impacted by APZ 1 and APZ 2, as indicated on the provided nlap. Col. Brandt replied that the map shown is for aircraft that is going straight up, not for a turnout over the Naval Weapons Station. As far as AFRC is concerned, the existing structures are accepted. Re[;arding conder,mation procedures of the Amy or purchasing the land, that is out of the jurisdiction of the airfield cOlmilander. In reply to question by ~/lr. Taylor regarding whether the Army has informed Rossmoor and Leisure World homeowners of the impact on deed restrictions which must show accident potential zones, Col. Brandt could not address that issue. With regard to acceptable uses, Chairman Covington read from the handbook which stipulates uses for APZ 1 and APZ 2. Planning Commission Meeting of 1/18/84 Page 7 . Mike Goldenberg asked if the office buildings proposed here are in the APZ 1. Col. Brandt says all the proposed project is in the accident potential zones. Ray Le Compte, 3272 Rowena Drive, Rossmoor, asked if this proposed project is directly in line with the westerly heading with the lone and wide runway. Col. Brandt stated it is just a little bit to the right of the centerline. Mr. Le Compte asked to be enlightened with regard to FAR 77. Col. Brandt stated FAR 77 is regardin8 height restriction for navigable air space designed to protect people flying the aircraft to be sure that there are no tall structures, or electronic interference or other types of interference. Mr. Le Compte expressed his concern as a pilot of the difficulties that would be encountered when one or more engines go out upon lift off. He was not in favor of the project for the reason that air safety was of vital importance in this particular issue. Col. Brandt states this project conforms to FAR 77 and his concern was for the type of runway and potential land use only. Mr. Cook expressed concern that additional building could occur on this site, after it was approved. City attorney replied that the specific plan provides that the use of the site is limited to three buildings as shown in the Exhibit A. No additional buildings could be added to the specific plan. Any changes would have to go through the Planning Commission and the City Council. . Hoyt"Klink, 3202 Yellowtail Drive, Rossmoor, opposed the project as a homeowner in Rossmoor. He felt the project is an invasion of his property and privacy, with an added security risk. He felt aesthetically it does not fit in with the Rossmoor area. He did not oppose development on the property, but that his main concern is height. Phillip Fife, 4301 Ironwood, Seal Beach, wondered if the City could be held liable for any accidents which might occur, after having been alerted to the accident potential zones. City attorney said the State regulations state that if for example the City plan ignores County plan, and is overridden by 4/5 vote, only in that case will the airport operator have no liability. It should be pointed out that the ALUC has determined that this plan is consistent. Patti Campbell, 4433 Ironwood, Seal Beach spoke in opposition to the project. She prililari ly opposes the project because of the height and the air station. The bridge over'tbe 405 Fr,eeway is th'e-conly connection between College Park East and downtown Seal Beach and the density of traffic of this project is something that really needs to be considered. Phillip Fife, opposed the project as a safety factor and the liability that the City might incur if an aircraft levels a building. The City should at least get an indemnification agreement between developer and City to forever hold the City harmless. . . . . Planning Commission Meeting of 1/18/84 Page 8 Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, Seal Beach. stated he is opposed to the project, not just because it does not meet code or safety problems. He was concerned that this is the second specific plan the Commission has had before them and on both occasions there were gross distortions. Ray Le Compte, Yellowtail Drive, Rossmoor, asked what the height of a story is and how many stories would be involved in a 35 foot building. Robert Braunschweiger, architect for Bixby project, stated that the total height of the building would not exceed 69t feet. Mr. Le:Compte:also urged the Commission to oppose this project because he felt that as an aircraft pilot~ that in the worst scenarios with the loss of two engines, that pilots would not be able to clear the proposed building. Brian Sweeney, felt that the height of the eucalyptus trees, which are in direct line of the runway, have never caused an accident. The height of those trees, he felt, exceeded 69t feet. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Covington had extensive questions to present to Don Demars, the preparer of the Draft EIR. They included the omission of a safety barrier wall, the fact that the original traffic study was the opposite to that study compiled by Caltrans and subsequently accepted by UltrJ~9nics, the fact that the Orange County Sheriff's department was not contacted with regard to their input into the EIR when they cover the Rossmoor unihcoYlPoratea area. Covi ngton also felt the exclusion of seismic studies was inappropriati since the project lies near the Newport-Inglewood fault. He also indicated that'the analysis of telephone service should have been included in the EIR since a few thousand additional telephones would impact the present low level of telephone service in that area. He also pointed out the fact the Old Ranch Golf Course was originally listed as a public recreation area, when in fact, it is ~ ~riVate: club. Mr. Covington asked questions of Jack Chevalier, preparer for the air- . field operations study of the Draft EIR, with particular regard to the stated 5,000 annual operations per airfield threshold. He stated this Airfield activity element was missing from the original EIR reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board and it has never been reviewed by EQCB. He expressed surprise that there were no copies of the letters indicated as sent to all affected public agencies nor any copies of the replies. Commissioner Covington then made the statement that he felt the EIR was incomplete, and had been amended, corrected and patched beyond repair and was inadequate for this $25 million project. All major elements in an EIR should be completed initially as they often interact with one another. He made the motion to deny the acceptance of this EIR, and so recommend the denial to the City Council on the basis that it is an inadequate document. He requested that a new EIR be prepared that will use as its input all the new facts and information developed over the last several months from all the hearings before the various public _ agencies. Tood Perrin seconded the motion, which passed with the following vote: AYES: Covington, Goldenberg, Murphy, Perrin, Jessner NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried . -. -e Planning Commission Meeting of 1/18/84 Page 9 Staff indicated that the only change that is apparent in the specific plan would be on page 4 of building height which should be "four stories". The specific plan would still make provision for the same number of buildings, etc. Commissioner Jessner asked about possibility of adding a hold harmless clause to the document. City attorney mentioned that in this particular case, the Planning Commission has to decide on its own whether or not there is a safety hazard. If it felt the plan itself created a safety hazard, the Planning Commission could make that determination. Whether or not the City wished to enter into an agreement with the developer reqarding a hold harmless clause, that would be possible. Other corrections/changes were made to the specific plan which include: page 3, under Location, second sentence should read "Exhibit lA' of this plan. Restaurant uses shall be located generally as shown in". On that same page, under Permitted Use, second sentence should read "in the three (3) buildings together with private ancillary cafeteria uses.11 The fourth sentence of that same paragraph should read "Alcoholic beverages may be served and live entertainment may be". The attached schematic to the Specific Plan should be labeled "Exhibit B." CommissiOner Covington then stated that he was going to vote against the specific plan in the interests of public safety and welfare with regard to density of people, impact on possible increase in crime, concern for earthquake and fire, etc. and because of proposed height. Todd Perrin stated he was going to vote against the project. His basic objection was the height, and that a profitable venture could be made under the 35 ft. height limit. Resolution No. 1307 Covington motioned that the specific plan be denied, that the denial be based on public safety and welfare, due to height limit, and proposed people density. Perrin seconded motion, which carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Goldenberg, Murphy, Perrin None Jessner Motion carried Mike Goldenberg wished to insure that two letters from the Airport Land Use Commission accompany the denial to the City Council. Staff indicated they will bring back the resolution for next meeting which formalizes their actions taken tonight. After the Planning Commission denied the Specific Plan for Bixby and recommended denial of that plan to City Council, Jay Covington requested with the consensus of Commission, that staff research and develop a comprehensive airport environs land use plan for all the remaining undeveloped . .. . Planning Commission Meeting of 1/18/84 Page 10 property in the City of Seal Beach that either now or in the future will be impacted by the activities in that air station. Mr. Goldenberg asked that staff bring back some kind of time schedule regarding this environs plan to the next Commission meeting. Staff agreed. Meeting recessed at 11:30 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 11:37 p.m. Variance Denial, B1l4 Surfside, Resolution No. 1306 Commissioner Perrin moved to adopt the resolution and Murphy seconded the motion. Motion carried with following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Goldenberg, Jessner, Murphy, Perrin None None Motion Carried COMMISSION REQUESTS City attorney stated (regarding contractorls measurement deviations) that it would be incumbent upon Commission and City Council to set down policy to be established as to how these matters will be handled in the future. Mr. Goldenberg stated the City Engineer should issue a memo with regard to parameters of building officials. Staff replied that that can be done. Staff also indicated that the building official does have the authority to require a lot survey on new construction or remodel where they would be building against front yard, side yard or rear yards, where there is a potential for encroachment. It has not been done in Seal Beach and the Commission may want to sanction this policy to eliminate a lot of the encroachment with proper monumentation. It was the consensus of Commission that staff ask for a survey in Old Town and Surfside for any project that in staff's opinion warrants it. REPORT FROM SECRETARY Staff indicated status of Mercedes Benz dealership. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at midnight. S6Jf;?sf~t!P:~- Recording Secretary -- .' :-. . 'ltossmoor'liomeowners ~ssociation January 18, lq84 To: City of Seal Beach Planning Commission RE: Old Ranch Rusiness Park At the December 7, 1983 Commission, I was asked proposed Rixby project. neutral position. meeting of the Seal Beach Planning whether we in Rossmoor opposed the My reply was intended to indicate a However, after hearing the testimony of the Army Reserve Center on December 7, 1983 Rnd the rather ambigious decision o n D e c e m her 1 I), ] 9 8 3, the R 0 ssm 0 0 rHo m e 0 \~ n e r s Ass 0 cia t :[ 0 n Board of Directors has directed me to prepare this letter for your consideration. The residents of Rossmoor were never in favor of a high rise de v e lop men t on t he sit e, but rat he r we rei n f a v 0 r 0 f a low profile project that was originally proposed and ,vas Idthin the 35 feet height restrictions of the City. Members of our Hoard, months ago, recei.ved information that the project was practically sure tobe approved in its present configuration. We then chose to make the best arrangement we could on behalf of our residents. We were grossly in error and the information given us was untrue. B i x b y has a g r e e d t Of cOhn s t r u c t the wahl I ad m i in i m 1I m of 1 0 fee t :1 the entire length 0 t e property. T is ec sion has nothing to do with the height of the buildings and we will accept I you r r 1I I i n g w h e the r i t b e a I 0 0 r I 2 f (') 0 t w a 1 I Iv i t h a low rise project, the windows are no longer a concern. We ask you to keep the project, if approved, in a low profile configuration more in keeping with the neighhorini, very expense, well kept residential area. The property values next to the project will certainly suffer if a h.1gh rise project is approved. The original project was apparently considered cost effective or it would not have been considered at all. He see no hardship for the Bixby Ranch Company to change their plans at this early date. The project is also .in a high probahllity aIrcraft accident zone. It requires a low density population. One accident and the loss of one more life that could be avoirled is not \~orth the risk. I thank you for your concerns on behalf of both the residents of Rossmoor and the future occupants of the rlevelopment. ~man. 3232 HEDWIG ROAD. ROSSMOOR, CAUfORNIA 90720 . Telephone 430-3707 ..I I I I ,I I )