Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1974-05-15 . . . e . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 15. 1974 The Plannlng Commlsslon of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session on Wednesday. May 15. 1974. in the Councl1 Chamber of the City Admlnlstratlon Building. The meetlng was called to order by Chairman Knapp at 7:30 pomo and Vlce Chalrman Lanning led the Pledge to the Flago Present: Cook, Lannlng. Ripperdan, Schmltt, Knapp Absent: None The minutes of the meeting of M~ 1, 1974 were approved as corrected at the suggestion of Mr. Cook. 10 PubllC Hearlngs Ao Walter Babcock, V-7-74 (continued) Request for alteratlons to existlng restaurant wlth variance for less than requlred parking at 201 Main Sto Secretary revlewed the appllcatlon contlnued from the last meeting to provide for survey of parklng aval1able. Letter from Old Town Buslness Assoclatlon recelved ln favor of the applicatlon. Hearlng openo Dr. Babcocl reported that avallablllty of parking at peak tlmes of use appeared to be sufflcient, and that after lnvestlgatlon had not been able to provlde any addltlonal parklng. Mr. Cook asked about negotlatlon wlth the Clty. Dr. Babcock stated the City Manager would not be favorable to leasing portlons of Clty lot as lt could set precedence. When Mr. Cook pointed there were some portlons of the Clty lot under lease, the Secretary explalned about the expanslon of the flre statlon llmltlng parklng spaceo No other comments, the hearlng was closed. In the dlScusslon that followed, Mr. Cook was unconvlnced that the appllcant had pursued all avenues to provlde parklng for hlS facl1lty. He felt lt would be dlfflcult to requlre others to meet standards. Mro Cook moved to deny the applicatlon. Seconded by Schmltt. Mr. Knapp felt the business area favored the proposal and that no serlOUS parklng problem eXlsted. Mrso Lannlng concured. Mro Rlpperdan had some concern about ratlo of proposed parklng to the requlred number. ~1r. Cook felt the request varled too far from Code. Mr. Schmltt felt a precedent could be establlshed causlng problems later. Ayes: Noes: Cook, Rlpperdan Knapp, Lannlng, Schmitt Motlon fal1edo Mr. Knapp moved to approve the varlance. Seconded by Mrs. Lannlng. Ayes: Noes; Knapp, Lannlng, Rlpperdan Cook, Schmltt Motlon carrled. Resolutlon Uo. 830. B. TentatlVe Tract Hap 8534 Mr. Cook asked to make a statement prlor to openlng of hearlngo He questloned the lnabll1ty to resclnd a prevlous actlon and referred to an actlon resclnded on February 6. Asst. Clty Attorney Dorsey explalned the basls for this oplnlon on a flnal actlon. Mr. Cook felt the reasonlng not clear and requested no actlon untll a wrltten oplnlon could be prepared. Secretary and Clty Attorney gave further explanatlon that PubllC Utll1ty Commlsslon recognlzes the flrst actlon as valld, thlS lS not a rehearlng, but to recelve new testlmony only. . . . e e Secretary exp1alned that thlS hearlng called due to regu1atlon by Pub11C Utl11ty Code. He reviewed the past actlons and denla1 by Airport land Use Commlsslon. Written communicatlons recelved from B1Xby Ranch Co., Dr. Garbe11 of N.A.G. Consultants, and Naval Alr Statlon. Hearlng open. Mr. Schmltt advlsed that he had prevlous1y addressed the Commlsslon on thls actlon representlng the College Park Homeowners and abstalned from actlon. Jay Covlngton asked what was requlred for notlce of pub11C hearlng. Attorney stated that adequate notlce lS the legal requlrement; In thlS case, 300 feet. Mr. Covington stated it had been Clty P011CY to post In 11brarles, this had not been done and cltlzens outslde of 300 feet not properly notifled. Attorney Dorsey stated that legal requlrements had been met. DaVld Ml11er, representlng Blxby Ranch Co., brought attentlon to \/rltten documents from Dr. Garbe11 who was unable to be present and pOlnted out the study made and conc1uslons that the proposal would be well lnSlde requlred State law. Jack Cortelyou, 4201 Dogwood, spoke In favor of the proposal and felt lt would be a worthy add1tlon to the nelghborhood. John Glranda felt Dr. Garbe11 mlsquoted hlm and exp1alned how reports were developed on baslc data, est1mate of operatlons, desk study and variables. Mr. Blackman, Cand1eberry & Aster, stated one he11copter had passed over hlS house thls evenlng wlth plenty of nOlse. Jlm Duncan, 3681 Bluebell, presldent of the Homeowners Assoclatlon, concurred wlth evenlng1s he11copter nOlse and vlbratlon. He further stated that resldents favor a greenbelt of a passive nature and would be wl111ng to poll the residents. He suggested that the clty purchase the property lf the Navy does not. Jay Covlngton, 4557 Cand1eberry, suggested the P1annlng Commission should recognlze they are not approvlng, but overrlding, the Airport land Use Commisslon. He dlscussed the legal and technlca1 aspects. He repeated hlS protest ln the method of legal notlce. He p01nted out the owner only had speculative rlght because they had had opportunlty to develop in the past; in thlS case human rlghts transcend property rlghts. He also discussed possibl11ty of Navy acqulsltlon through purchase or trade. Gerald Mullen, 9101 Wl1shlre, attorney for Bixby, pointed out two Vlews and wi111ng to dlSCUSS if so deslred. Howard Rowan, 1531 Shir1m Cypress, read a letter from Cralg Hosmer to Mayor Blackman lnto the record (see attached) wrltten ln Opposltlon to the development. He also pointed out that Los Alamitos Air Station was not 11mfted to helicopter operation, but all studies were based upon that premfseo Mro Rowan desc~ibed the Blr station facf)ftles and types of operations-that could be performed from the runway lengthso He cited portlons of a state report and a news release dated 11/10/72 by the Orange County Grand Juryo These referred to placement of resldences in close proximity to eXlstlng alrportso Susan Haggard of Rossmoor rev1ewed the air crash 1n her res1dential area and feels this proposal being so much closer would be in a worse locationo Hopes to prevent undes1rable homeso John Perrin, Naval Air Stat10n, read a prepared statement dated May 15, 1974 of a status report on aircraft noise and safety factorso (See attached) Mro Perrin also cited a report by SCAG 1n 1973. Mro Knapp asked why the Navy hadnOt taken action many years ago to acquire property to protect thelr stations from encroachmento Mro Perrin explained they had leased areas at each end of the runway and hoped for a plan of compatible land useso Mro Rowan pointed out that developers keep extend1ng their plans of subdfv1sionso He cited new laws now effectlve, but many do not apply to the mflftaryo He also pointed out that ml1ftary bases exist for the benefit of the cftfzenso . . . e . A gentlemen from Rossmoor Homeowners Assoclation expressed concern for any new development that could cause a change 1n fllght patternso Dale Stonero 3560 Bluebell~ was also concerned about possible changes in flight patternso Mro Covlngton asked about the conflict of interest and why previously members of the commission had stepped downo Attorney advised of previous actions and the rule of necesslty being invokedo Mro Covington suggested if the conflict of interest 1S suspended, Commiss10ner Schmitt should be reseatedo Mro Knapp advised that Mro Schmitt had voluntarily stepped downo Mr. Schm1tt spoke to the issueo Mr. Miller spoke in rebuttal to oppositlon advising that the proposal was not in violat10n of the adopted Land Use Element and felt the Airport Land Use action was advlsory onlyo In attempting to resolve the noise and safety 1ssue~ Dro Garbell~ a expert in the noise fieldD was retained to perform a study and his conclusion stated the proposal 1S suitableo He also they had no bona fide offer from the Navyo Mro Miller also pointed out that Mro HosmerDs letter referred to high rise and clarified that it is only two story~ w1th no greater denslty than the adJacent residential area which would not further restrict airport operationo He stated the N.AoSo was in conflict with Long Beachg Fullerton and Los Angeles airports and must operate in limited manner which would preclude increased use at the air statlon. Dro GarbellDs report suggested methods to reduce noiseo Mro Mll1er read a statement from the Bixby Ranch Coo letter dated May 14, 1974D as follows: 1DThis property has been under a cloud of real or threatened act10n by or on behalf of the City of Seal Beach, the United States Navy, or the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission under the urgings of the United States Navy for a considerable period of timeo The City determined that it did not wish to purchase the parcel outright for a park; the citizens of College Park East determlned that they did not wish to form a park improvement district for the purpose of acquiring and developing the land as a park; and the United States Navy has made no reasonable offer to acquire the property or any interest therein for its purposeso Under all of the circumstances, we believe that fairness and Justice require that the CompanyDs application be acted upon at this time, and be approvedo A copy of this letter is being transmitted to the Mayor and members of the City Council and to the members of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission to provide such information as may be of assistance to the Counc11 and the Commission when the matters dlscuSSed in the letter come before themoU Mro Rowan spoke on the conflict of air space and that there was none at Los Alamitoso Mro Duncan stated that changing the flight pattern would not eliminate noise. but would Just change the affected area. Mro Miller advised the proposal will be heard py the Airport Land Use Commission on May 230 Hearing closed. Discussion followed Mro Cook moved to rescind the previous action approving Tentatlve Tract Noo 85340 Motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion of use of the property and Land Use Element. Mrso Lanning moved to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission would support a position recommending conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 8534. Seconded by Mro Knapp. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Knapp~ Lanningg Ripperdan Cook None Schmitt Motion carrled. Resolut10n Noo 8310 . . Secretary advlsed the matter would come before the City Council on May 280 4It 2. Oral Communications Mr Covlngton pointed out that after the park bond issue falled and R-3 zoning re~onf1rmed~ the air station was inact1veo Now that it is op~rative, the zoning should be restudiedo He further stated that the decls10n reached by the Comm1ssion was entirely il10g1calo 30 Written Communicat10ns All written communications received were in conJunction wlth other ltemso 4. New Business There was no new businesso 50 SecretaryDs Report Secretary reported that specific plan for PoEo rlght-of~way ready for revlew this week, and discussed time for public hearingo To be scheduled for meeting of June 50 Mro Cook commented that he felt the City Councl1 should have all informatlon before taklng action since Plannlng Commisslon lS an advisory bodyo He wanted to avold tentatlve mlnutes being furnlshed that did not include all pertinent remarks 0 . Mrso Lanning and Mro Neprud commented on their meeting at the Navy brleflng on May 4 and that lnformation presented at this meeting came as a surprise since the Navy had stated they would have no new relevent lnformatlono Discusslon of proposed shopplng center at Seal Beach and Westminstero No further businesss the meeting was adJourned at 10:00 p.mo ~~o~ d Record1ng Secretary 4It