Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-06-07 " .. . . . " CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of JUNE 7, 1995 7 30 P.M. * City Counell Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #95-12 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning CommIssion, this is the time to: (a) NotIfy the public of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning COmmtSSlon, staff, or public to request an Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning CommIssion regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the Planning Commission unless otherwIse authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Plannmg commission, staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate actIon. 1. Approve Minutes of May 17, 1995 2. Receive and File Letter to County of Orange re: General Plan Conformity - Proposed Sale of Property, dated May 17, 1995 2300 Beverly Manor Road, Seal Beach (Leisure World Branch Library) The c~ of Seal Beach comphc8 with the Amcncaos WIth Dlaab1lWc8 Act of 1990 If you need asSIBtance m altendmg thIS meetmg, plese telephone the ~ C\erlt's Office at 1east 48 houn m advance of the meetmg It . ~', . . . Pace 2 - Ct1;y of Seal Beach PIaJuuag ComousslOI1 Agenda · JUDe 7, 1995 VI. PUBLIC HEARINYS 3. Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b) Resolution #95- Resolution #95- Zone Change 95-1 Resolution #95- Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 Resolution #95- Applicant: Bixby Ranch Company Owner: Bixby Ranch Company Location: 3901 Lampson A venue - Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Request: The proposed project would allow a mixture of residential, recreational, and commercial/office uses on a 212 acre site. The proposed project will require the following actions by the City of Seal Beach: (1) certification of the FEIR; (2) a General Plan Land Use Amendment; (3) zone change approvals to maintain consistency with the requested General Plan Land Use amendments; and (4) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval. VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT Continue Open Public Hearing on Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b), Zone Change 95-1, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 to Wednesday June 14, 1995, 7:30 P.M., at North Seal Beach Community Center, 3333 St. Cloud, Seal Beach. The CIty of Seal Beach COIIIpbca wdh the Amencans WIth DuabWtles Act of 1990 If you need asSIstance m aUcndmg tIus meeting, please telephooe the CIty C1edt's Office at 1east 48 houn m advance of the meeting Plac 3 - CdJ of Seal Bcacb PIanomg Comm1BSIOIl Agenda · JUDC 7, 1995 . 1995 AGENDA FORECAST JUNE 14 North Seal Beach Community Center Continued Meeting for Continued Review of Bixby Project JUN 21 City Council Chambers . Continued Review of Bixby Project . CUP 95-3 @ 550 PCHlExtension of hours ... . Variance 95-3 @ B-21 Surfside re side yard setbacks for addition of 880 sf. 2-story addition. JUL 05 JUL 19 AUG 09 AUG 23 . SEP 06 SEP 20 OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEC 06 DEe 20 1996: IAN FEB MAR APR MAY Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman CUP 95-111013 PCHlPletro's 12 mos. hours. CUP 94-11600 Manna/Radlsson 12 mos. ABC CUP 92-11909 Ocean/El Burrito 12 mos. ABC . The CdJ of Seal Beach CCllllpItcs wtlh the Amcncans WIth DlS8blhbcs Act of 1990 If you ncccIl8Slstancc m attcodmg thts mcctmg, pleasc tc1cphOllC the CIty CIcdt's Office at Icsat 48 houn m advancc of the mcctmg . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of JUNE 7, 1995 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session, at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Wlth Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Campbell, Brown, Sharp, Law Also Present: Dq>artment of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one wished to speak at this orne. ALENDAR MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 1. Approve Minutes of May 17, 1995 2. Receive and File Letter to County of Orange re: General Plan Conformity - Proposed Sale of Property, dated May 17, 1995 2300 Beverly Manor Road, Seal Beach (Leisure World Branch Library) MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown Page 2 - ~ of Seal Beach PIamnng ComnuasIOD MInutes of lunc 7, 1995 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan 3901 Lampson Avenue - Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b) Zone Change 95-1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 Staff Rcax>rt Director Whittenberg summarized the twenty-three page staff report. [Staff report on file In the Planning Department]. CopIes of the staff report and summary table of Proposed Mitigation Measures were made avaIlable for the pubhc. Mr. Whittenberg explained the applicant and property owner, Bixby Ranch Company, proposed a project that would allow a mixture of residential, recreational, and commercial/office uses on a 212 acre SIte. The purpose of the Public Hearing tonight is to receive public testimony on the proposed project. ThIs is the first of three Public Hearings which the Planning CommissIOn has scheduled to receive public testimony on this project. The other Hearings are on June 14th at the North Seal Beach Community Center and the final Hearing on June 21st in the City Council Chambers. . The Planning Commissioners must recommend to the CIty Councll whether the FEIR IS adequate or inadequate under the prOVIsions of the Cahfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project will require the following actlons by the CIty of Seal Beach: (1) certlficatlon of the FEIR; (2) a General Plan Land Use Amendment; (3) zone change approvals to maintain conSIstency with the requested General Plan Land Use amendments; and (4) a Vestlng Tentatlve Tract Map approval. Drrector Whittenberg described the project, saying the major portion of the project is the proposed construction of 98 SIngle family homes on 22.75 acres. Lots would average between 5500 to 6000 square feet In SIze, WhIch is comparable to the College Park East/West and Manna Hill lots. Access to this area would be from Seal Beach Boulevard at the eXlstlng St. Cloud intersection. This intersection would become signalized In all four directlons. . Director Whittenberg explained the proposed multiple family residential area at the far North end of the property is comprised of 8.75 acres WIth access from Seal Beach Boulevard. No specific development proposals have been submitted for the physical design of this area at this time. This would be submitted at a later date and would require formal Public Hearmgs before the Planmng CommiSSIOn. The CIty'S Housing Element designates thIS area for consideratlon of low-moderate income hOUSIng. The applicant proposes 100 - 125 multiple family units In this area. The north area would require the rezoning of 6.8 acres of commercial property. This would be changed to 8.75 acres for the high density residential purposes and the remaining portion would be changed to Recreational-Golf Course zone and be incorporated into the golf course. Page 3 - City of Seal Beach PIIIInmg ComoussIOll MmUtca of June 7, 1995 . The eXisting bank building on Seal Beach Boulevard would be removed and Its land incorporated into the golf course. The existmg golf course would be increased in size from 117 acres to 164.5 acres. This would include the location of a tennis club facility on the golf course property. Currently the tennis club is across the street on Lampson Avenue, thIs facility would no longer be retained by the Bixby Co. The South side of Lampson Avenue would be rezoned from R-G to a commercial deslgnanon. That area would be 13.5 acres in size, 8.8 acres of which would be additional commercial zoning over what currently exists now. To give the commumty an idea of what might be anticipated on this Site, the EIR has assumed a 180 room hotel, 30,000 square feet of restaurant space, 35,000 square feet of office space and 30,000 square feet of retail space. There's a trade off as part of the change to commercial zoning --- the Bixby Ranch Co. has offered to dedicate to the City the existing private tenms club facility. This facility IS approximately 6.6 acres 10 size and has 16 lighted tennis courts. . Mr. Whittenberg said the FEIR has been reviewed by the City's Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) and the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The EQCB's resolution recommends the EIR be found to be inadequate. The staff report contains attachments regardmg the EQCB Public Hearings demonstrating why the Board felt the FEIR IS madequate. A copy of the EQCB's draft May 23, 1995 Minutes will be given to the Planning Commission once they have been prepared, although they will not be approved. The Archaeological Advisory Committee was charged With reviewing the archaeological section of the EIR and they found the archaeological section and attending mitigation measures to be adequate. Mr. Whittenberg said that all the matters before the Planning Commission on this project are legislative matters and the Commission does not have the authority to make a fmal determmation on the EIR, the General Plan Amendments, the Zone Change or the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. They are in the position of making recommendations to the City Council to approve, approve with modificanons or deny the project proposal. The City Council will hold its own Public Hearings on this project. The purpose of the Planmng Commission reviewing this project proposal is to focus the issues, elicit public comments and help the City Council through their process. The Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Councll via resolutions. While the EQCB recommended the Planmng Commission and City Council find the EIR to be inadequate, staff and the City Attorney's Office recommend the document be found adequate. Mr. Whittenberg next advised the Planning Commission on their final actions. . Mr. Steel said he and the City Attorney felt it would be helpful to give the Plannmg CommiSSIOn an overview of the legal implications of the decisions before the Commission. In Seal Beach, large projects requiring EIRs have been the exception, rather than the rule. Only one of the five Commissioners has considered a project requiring an EIR. He felt the following background information would be helpful to the decision-makers in understanding the legal and pracncal . . . Paac 4 - CdJ of Seal Beach PIIIuuog CclmmwIOll Mmute8 of JIIDC 7, 1995 interplay between the various decisions. There are four separate, but inter-related, decisions before the Planning CommiSSIOn. There will be four votes and four separate resolutions adopted. The Tentative Tract Map must be consistent with the applicable zoning. To make that happen, the zoning will have to be changed. The areas' zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. To make that happen, the General Plan must be amended. Before this can happen, the City has the responSibility to prepare a legally adequate EIR. The CommiSSIOn IS asked to review the EIR prepared for this project and to make a recommendation to the City Council as to its adequacy. The staff report contains all the information necessary as to what constitutes an adequate EIR, so that information will not be repeated in detall. However, highlighting the following detaIls is important. CEQA sets out a required number of elements for an EIR (See page 10 of the staff report). All of these required elements are 10 the EIR document. Those requirements are the "nuts and bolts" of the EIR. The heart of the adequacy requirement is set forth at the end of page 11 of the staff report. The Commission must determine If this EIR contains the information that decision-makers need to intelligently take account of the environmental consequences of this proJect. This is a subjecnve question for each Commissioner as a decision-maker. CEQA doesn't require an absolutely perfect document, but the document must be reasonably complete and fully disclose the environmental Impacts of a project. CEQA does not require that everybody agree With every element of the EIR but it does require the EIR be objective and identify areas where experts disagree. It must explain the reasons for choosing one set of conclusions over others. CEQA doesn't require the analysIs be exhaustive but it does requrre the EIR be a good faith effort at full disclosure. The Commission must look at the EIR and the public testimony and decide whether it thinks the document enables the CommiSSIOners, as decision-makers, to understand and take account of the environmental impacts of this project as it's mak10g its' decision. If the EIR provides that necessary informanon, it's adequate. If it doesn't, the EIR needs more work. Looking at the consequences of a decision on the adequacy of the EIR, what happens if the City Council determines the EIR is inadequate? A decision that an EIR is 10adequate is not the same thing as denying the project. The City has the legal responslblhty to prepare a legally adequate EIR before it can consider the merits of the application. If the Planning Commission recommends this EIR be found inadequate, or If the City Council ultimately determines the EIR is inadequate, the resolution on that decision must include a set of find10gs which Identify the specific inadequacies in the document. At that point, two th10gs could happen. First, the staff and consultant team could take those findings back to the drawing board and perform further work on the EIR. The findings serve as the instructions to the consultant and staff as to where the further work is necessary. Once the areas of concern are addressed, the EIR would ultimately come back before the Planning Commission for consideration. Secondly, the inadequacy decision and the findings made by the City Council could be challenged in court. A court would look at the EIR and the find10gs and make a judgement. The htiganon on that issue would be limited to those issues raised in the Public Hearings and which are raised 10 the comments on the Draft EIR. If any person has a position that any element of the EIR is inadequate, it has to be raised at a time when we can still do something about it or, It can't be litigated. The court might uphold the deciSIOn on inadequacy or the court might reverse the City's decision and find that the EIR is legally adequate. In that case, the court would send the . . . Page 5 - ~ of Seal Belch PIaDnmg COIIIIIU88I011 Mmutca of JIIJJO 7. 1995 EIR back to the City and order the CIty to take action on the ments of the project. Alternatively, the City Council could find the EIR is legally adequate and certifies the EIR. A decision that the EIR is legally adequate does not in any way mean that the project is or WIll be approved. The adequacy of the EIR and the merits of the project are two fully separate Issues. If the EIR is certified as adequate. one possible consequence is that someone who opposes that decision could challenge it in court and argue that it is inadequate. The court would look at it and make its decision. Or, if the decision was not challenged, the City Council would then proceed to consider the merits of the project, taking into account the envrronmental impacts that are identified in the EIR. This EIR, as it is currently wntten, identifies about forty (40) significant or potentially significant effects on the environment that would result from this project. Under CEQA, the City must respond to every one of those sigmficant effects before the project can be approved. One way to respond, is to require the applicant 1Ocorporate changes or alterations 10 the project whIch mitigate those environmental impacts to a less than SIgnificant level. This EIR proposes that level of mitigation measure for thirty-six (36) of the forty impacts. That leaves four (4) identified significant environmental Impacts from this project whIch cannot be fully ffiltlgated. Those four impacts are designated in the report as significant and unavoidable. Looking at the summary table in Chapter 2 of the FEIR, those four impacts are noted with the letters II SU" 10 the far right-hand column. The finding that some of the environmental impacts of this project cannot be adequately mitigated means that after the techmca1 experts have looked at all of the data and imposed every feaSIble mItigation measure, this project as proposed still would have some significant effects on the environment. And if the City Council certifies and EIR whIch identifies significant, unavoidable environmental impacts from this project and If the CIty Council intends to approve the project despite those significant impacts, CEQA places the burden on the City Council to expla10 that decision in advance. That explanation would be contained in a written document called The Statement of Overridzng Conslderatlons. That Statement must say essentially, we the CIty Council have looked at the benefits to the City from this project and we've looked at the identified environmental nsks. We've balanced the benefits aga10st the nsks and we find the benefits outweigh the environmental consequences. The project can only be approved if the City Councll makes those findings as to each sigmficant environmental impact. If the CIty Council is unable to adopt The Statement of Ovemdzng Considerations, the Councll cannot approve the project as proposed. COMMISSION OUESTIONS TO STAFF Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Steele for clarification on the steps following the CIty Council decision to approve/dIsapprove the EIR. Mr. Steele said if the EIR is certIfied as adequate, the City Council then proceeds to consider each element of the merits of the proposal 10 the order of the hierarchy. The Planning CommIssion is holding Public Hearings now whIch conSIder simultaneously all the elements of the project at the same time it's considenng the adequacy of the EIR. There won't be any further PublIc Heanngs on the project's merits before the Planning CommissIOn. If the Council certifies the EIR, they will hold SImultaneous hearing on the General Plan Amendment, the zone change and the map. If those proposals are approved and l'Ige6 - C1Iy of Seal Beach PIannmg ComIIuaI'ClIl MmutcB of JIII1ll7, 1995 . adopted, The Statement of Overriding Considerations, they will attach Conditions of Approval to the project which incorporate the EIR's identified mitigation measures. That's the legally binding decision which commits the City and the applicant to impose all the EIR's mitigation measures. Commissioner Sharp asked if the EIR were approved and there were subsequent major changes to the project, would it come back to the Planning Commission'? Mr. Steele said if the changes were major, yes, they would come back for review. Commissioner Brown said he wanted to review the "sigmficant and unavoidable" items in the EIR. Mr. Whittenberg said they are: 1. The loss of prime agncultural farm land. 2. Cumulative nOise levels due to AFRC operations actIvity as a disaster support area. 3. Single event noise levels due to operational charactenstics of the ARFC. 4. Air quality impacts due to operational emissions for the proposed project components and project-related traffic. . Chairman Dahlman said he understood these four areas are areas which, after the proposed mitigatIon, would still entail a significant impact. Mr. Whittenberg said in stafrs opmIOn that is correct. Commissioner Campbell said that at the EQCB meeting, EQCB member Hurley focused on flood control problems and those comments were the crux of his concerns as to why the EIR was madequate. She wondered why nothing has been mentioned about this'? Mr. Whittenberg said the EQCB's discussions included that Issue plus a number of other issues. The resolutIon the EQCB adopted did not address that issue. Commissioner Campbell asked if Mr. Whittenberg recalled what Mr. Hurley's concerns were'? Mr. Whittenberg said he was not prepared to paraphrase Mr. Hurley's concerns but mdicated the minutes of that meeting would accurately reflect what the concerns were. These minutes wlll be provided to the Commissioners m the near future. . Commissioner Brown asked that if the EIR determines somethmg to be less than Significant and yet the Planning Commission and/or members of the publIc feel it IS sigmficant and unaVOidable, how does that effect the adequacy/inadequacy of the document'? Mr. Steele said If the Planmng Commission feels, based on evidence coming before It, that one or more of the Impacts identified in the EIR is not properly classified that could bear on the CommiSSIOn's deciSion as to the adequacy of the document. The Planning Commission must gauge whether that level of concern is enough to make the entIre document madequate or whether It would be suffiCient to note the concern as it's passed along to the City Council. PIce 7 - Cdy of Seal Beach PIaDnmg CclmmIIaIOl1 Mmutes of June 7. 1995 . PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Dahlman opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m.. He asked if any correspondence had been received regarding this proposal? Mr. Whittenberg said two letters against the proposal were received from Xenophon Colazas of 12300 Montecito Rd., #34, Seal Beach and John Colazas, 3341 Druid Lane, Los Alamltos [Attached]. . . Ron Bradshaw · Bixby Ranch Company. Seal Beach Mr. Bradshaw said he represents Bixby Ranch Company for this applicanon. He mdlcated hiS team of consultants were present and would speak tonight. A member of Mr. Bradshaw's staff distributed a packet to the Planning Commission which contained a brochure on the Bixby Old Ranch Development Plan, a colored map of the proposed project, a ten-page document entitled "FEIR", a ten-page document enntled "Aircraft NOIse Issues" and a three-map document entitled "Traffic Issues". Mr. Bradshaw gave a bnef overview on how the Bixby Ranch Company finds Itself before the Planning Commission tomght after five and a half years of plannmg. Bixby has been workmg in two different areas, one with City staff, fully disclosing the developer's mtenoons for development of the site. In addition, in 1989 Bixby determined that to move forward they wanted to have not only City staff involved in the process but also the community at large. In 1989 Bixby came to the City Councll and received permiSSIOn to hold public hearmgs in regard to Bixby's intennon to develop its property. Referring to a map, Mr. Bradshaw explained how portions of the property came back to Bixby's possession after a long term ground lease with the Federal Government expired. The Federal Government had secured a long term lease on the property when the Navy was operaong that facihty. In 1983 the lease expired and the Government chose not to renew the lease, stating the current type of air operations at the facility were not the same as when the Navy was operating It and therefore their reason for leasmg the property was no longer valid. That was when Bixby began thinkIng of additional planmng for that property. In 1990 there were a series of monthly meeongs held and mid-year the decision was made not to pursue the public-pnvate meetings reviewing the Bixby property. The project then sat still for SIX to eight months. At that time Bixby felt the intention was not to rem state its meetings with the public and BlXby filed a plan for development. That plan is consistent With the plan under review at this time, with the exception that there was addloonal housmg taken away from Candleberry, near Lampson A venue. The process and meeongs With various groups continued without the City's involvement. In 1991, Bixby was approached by the City Councilman from that distnct, who suggested continuing to work, on a non-bmding baSIS, with the community to see if there was a plan that could be developed. That was done and that project continued until the Fall of 1994, when Bixby amended its origmal plan and the present plan was initiated for the FEIR review. He added that it was always known that the discussions with the community were not official. Bixby felt it was important to interface with the community, to get their ideas, to address their concerns to the degree Bixby was capable and to make modifications to the plan as a result of that. In addition, Bixby met with indlViduals and groups during the three year period and would remam open to meeting now, as we move forward during the public process. . . . Page 8 - ~ of Seal Beach PIaoamg ComnusIIOll MmutcB of JUIIC 7, 1995 Mr. Bradshaw summarized the project, noting the golf course was expanded by fifty (50) acres, there were 98 residential lots on the North end of the property; they requested a VITM for that. During the hiatus between Bixby's initial community diSCUSSIOns, the City's Housing Element was found to be inadequate. During a study of that issue, the Bixby property was identified as one of the potential sites for providing affordable housing within the City of Seal Beach. BIxby has realigned that particular SIte and gone ahead with its plan for affordable housing. Additionally, Bixby was approached by the community to consider having Bixby provide a community center for the North area of Seal Beach, rather than having another park. After review by the City's Parks and Recreation Committee, the City Manager and the Planning Department, the City suggested Bixby put the Old Ranch Tennis Club into that use. He dId not believe the City's intent was to have an exclusive tennis facility but rather to have a community center. Bixby agreed to provide the additional facility, in addition to the seven (7) acre site, for a community center. The City would determine how the currently existing facilitIes would be used m the future reconfiguration. Regardmg the North site, Bixby believes a commercIal designation is the site's best use and would provIde fiscal benefits to the CIty. The mitIal project has been downsized by 25 % with 70 single family homes being deleted. The commumty was very concerned there be no commercIal development on Lampson A venue; there is none. Another major concern was the issue of the project's compatibilIty WIth the Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC), Los Alamitos. The base operator, the CalifornIa NatIonal Guard, had permission from the Federal Government to use an Air Force criteria to develop an AICUZ document for their operations. That document was completed m June 1994 and that allowed Bixby's final EIR to be completed. The community was also interested in the historical Eucalyptus tree grove on Seal Beach Boulevard and that has been preserved. The few trees that will be cut to allow for the development WIll be replaced in kind, on a two for one basis. The Country Club entrance would be moved from Lampson A venue to Basswood A venue to proVIde a signalized access. That required the relocation of the drivmg range to the golf course's interior; this is an aesthetic improvement. Bixby made a commitment to the community group to make this a final land plan for the BIXby property in Seal Beach. This IS important because one of the issues of concern is that Bixby would, on a pIecemeal baSIS, continue to develop and have the entire golf course under development in the future. That is not BIxby's intent. Bixby owns and operates the golf club and feels it's a good busmess to be in. Adding fifty acres to the golf course shows BIxby's interest in the continued recreational use of that property. Not reviewed in the EIR, but important to the community and City, are the economic benefits or negatives of this proposal as they accrue to the City of Seal Beach. Mr. Bradshaw prOVIded the following figures and noted Hoffman & Associates completed a full economic review of the proposal and thIS may be revIewed: . City permit fees . Property tax basis step-up [property taxes, bed taxes, sales taxes] . Traffic mitigatIon fees . School fees $ 350,000 $ 850,OOO/year $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Pllgc 9 - C11y of Seal Beach PIamung Coouwa8101l MInutes of June 7, 1995 . . Jobs - temporary & permanent . Community Center's raw land value $2,500,000 Mr. Bradshaw said Bixby has recently negotiated a contract with a cellular phone facihty. BIXby chose an annual lease, that is CPI protected, and which wIll generate $13,000 per year to that site and be income to the City. Commissioner Sharp asked if the $13,000 would be dedIcated to the City? Mr. Bradshaw said that IS Bixby's intent. Commissioner Sharp asked if the existing tennis club's facilities were adequate for a community center? Mr. Bradshaw said that while it's a lovely faclhty It would not be adequate for indoor recreational use. Bixby will build an addItional facllity on the site and dedIcate it to the City. Bixby views this as somethmg the City would direct. SIGN UP LIST Chairman Dahlman, with the consensus of the CommIssion, provided a sIgn up list to the citizens who wish to speak: tomght. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Chairman Dahlman stated he might have a conflict of interest in that he is a member of the Old Ranch Tennis Club but not a member of the golf club. . KEN BORNHOLDT. Esq. * LAW FIRM OF WALTER & BORNHOLDT Mr. Bornholdt stated he was present on behalf of the Bixby Ranch Company. He was asked to address his comments toward the CEQA document and the EIR the CommiSSIOn is being asked to review. The EIR Identified fifty (50) significant Impacts from thIS proJect. It also identified 136 separate mitigation measures plus 136 mitigation monitonng measures to monitor those impacts. The FIER has within it 356 comments received from the pubhc and public agencIes to which City staff and its consultant team spent a lot of tlme responding. Mr. WhIttenberg enumerated the four (4) of the fifty (50) Impacts which remain significant and unavOIdable notwithstanding mitigation. Mr. Bornholdt said he would momentanly address two of the four. Mr. Bornholdt went over the documentation he felt was important for the Planning CommIssion to review, as part of the CEQA document. There's the FEIR itself, the DEIR whIch is a component of it, all the appendices attached. In particular, there's an appendlce done by the City's aviatlon consultant. Another important document IS the AICUZ study adopted by the California Army National Guard and the Department of Army 10 June 1994; this is a part of thIS document. The AICUZ study is extremely important because It'S the Department of the Army's statement of Its analysis and conclusions regarding the aviation effects on the surrounding community to the AFRC aIrfield. The traffic study contaIns highly techmca1, detailed informatlon and It'S a part of the FEIR. . The EQCB's recommendation was adopted unanimously. In effect, they said the FEIR was adequate in identifying the 50 SIgnificant environmental impacts, 131 of the mitigatlon measures were adequate but 5 were not. Of the 5 that were not adequate, they relate to two subjects. P8ge 10 - CIly of Seal Beach PIaIInmg ComnuaSIOIl MInutes of JUDe 7. 1995 . First, they relate to traffic, and a consultant will speak tonight specifically to the EQCB's concerns. Second, they relate to aircraft nOIse in two very specialized areas --- smgle event noises and the mission of the airfield in the event there's a disaster. The EQCB called attention to one of the Response to Comments, which CIty staff and consultants had addressed to one of the comments at one of the agencies. This IS in the EQCB monon. Mr. Bornholdt then referred to the proponent's handout and a document entitled "FEIR ISSUES". He said those issues are the issues which the EQCB asked the Commission to look at and which were the basis for their finding that the document was madequate. He said he had prepared responses to all of those issues, WhICh were based on the record which he referenced earlier (all of these documents and reports). Regarding the two issues which were raised in connection with the FEIR and are hsted on page 19 of the staff report. These were posed to the Commission in a question format. He said these are the issues the Commission must consider when listening to all the pubhc testimony. He believes that when all the public testimony is over, the Commission's answer will be m the affirmative, "Yes, thIS is an adequate document. Yes, It should be certified". . He said Bixby wanted to call the Commission's special attention to the two letters, which are Attachments 6 and 7 to the staff report. One is from the California Army National Guard and one from Caltrans' aVIation secnon. These letters did not receive responses from CIty staff or their consultants because they were received after their responses were prepared. He said these should be given a lot of weight in the Commission's dehberations on adequacy. He said Bixby Ranch Co. also had a lot of comments on the document itself. They were put into a letter, dated May 23, 1995, and addressed to Mr. WhIttenberg. He handed this to all the Planning Commissioners. He said he would not go through all the comments but would dISCUSS two: Traffic Impacts. Bixby agrees with the City's consultants that they can be mingated to a level of insignificance. This is after an extensive review and analysis by Bixby's own traffic consultants. . Single Event Noise Aircraft. In terms of the cumulative mrcraft noise and traffic noise which will impact thIS project, Bixby agrees with the City's consultants. Under the existing Federal, State and local noise standards and gUldeltnes for land use, all of the traffic and aircraft noise can be mItigated to a level of msignificance. Of the four areas that are designated "significant and unavoidable", the first one relates to single event noise impacts from mrcraft. This IS one area where BIxby disagrees WIth the City's consultants. The Commission will hear a lot of testimony about nOIse and how you measure noise and how you evaluate noise but m turn, noise must be taken and related to land use compatibiltty. How much noise can people live with in a residennal area? He noted there are standards and cnteria WhICh he thinks are important and whIch the Commission should follow. As a result of their consultants' analysis, Bixby feels that Page 11 - Cd.y of Seal Beach PIamung ComouaaIOO Mmufe8 of 1_7. 1995 . when you take the noise generated by aircraft and street traffic wlthm the context of the existing urban envrronment and when you consider some of the unique operaoonal restraints that this airfield operates under, Bixby feels the Commission will conclude, as Bixby has, that the single event noise level of an aircraft at a given pomt and time IS not significant given the existing environment. Another point is that under CEQA, the Commission is asked to look at the impacts which are going to be caused on the existing environment by thiS project. He said that obviously this project is not going to cause the single event aircraft nOise - it has nothmg to do with It. Bixby feels the Commission must keep thiS in focus. Bixby wants the Commission to understand that based on the 1994 AICUZ study, done by the military for their airfield as the operator, that thiS project is compatible with that air base. It will not alter the operations of that air base today or into the future. The purpose of the AICUZ study is to assist the CommissIOners to get input from the airfield operator as to what they see are the compaobllity Issues surrounding their aIrfield. On the Bixby property there are no compatibillty issues relative to thiS project. . AFRC Disaster Su,pport MiSSIOn The second thmg is the Issue of the disaster support area miSSIOn at the air base as an environmental impact. Bixby wants to state that the miSSIOn of the AFRC for disaster support rellef was gIVen to them in 1979. That miSSIOn was gIVen to them predicated on the occurrence of an earthquake in the magnitude of 8.3. Mr. Bornholdt handed the Commissioners a copy of the Annual Report prepared by the AFRC for 1992, which was used by the City's consultants for some of therr Responses to Comments. This document shows that the disaster support mission was given to the AFRC predicated on the occurrence of an 8.3 earthquake. ThiS document also contains helpfulmformation in understanding the issue of noise and the operational characteristics of thiS airfield. One of these charactenstics that's important in terms of environmental impacts is the fact that thiS airfield is closed at night and does not operate between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. That's a restraint the base has Imposed on themselves beginmng 10 1973. When the EIR was done for the airfield, and when it was turned over to the Guard, that was when this night restraint was put 10 place. The aircraft noise that would be generated on this project at mght, while people sleep, is zero. The disaster support mission, Bixby thinks, should not be included as a significant environmental impact because the mission, by ItS nature, is predicated upon a disaster occurring which IS an unpredictable event. It would be speculaove to say when that miSSIOn may, If ever, occur. . Conversion of Pnme Agricultural Land The conversion of prime agnculturalland, which Mr. Bradshaw referred to as subject to the avigation lease With the AFRC, is approximately eighty (80) acres. The Site has been used for agriculture from ome to ome but is currently used as a sod farm for the Bixby golf course. He said he was not sure there actually is a conversion of prime agricultural land taking place. Even if there is, this is clearly an mfill project and there . . . Paae 12 - e,ty of Seal Beach PIannmg ComnusaIOD Mmutca of June 7, 1995 will still be a lot of agricultural land out there. As such, he felt this was proper for the Commission to consider m their deliberations. Air Quality In terms of air quality, there are many over-riding considerations that would justIfy this project, not the least of which is housing and affordable housing. There are several CEQA guidelines that Mr. Bornholdt thought important m terms of the areas of disagreement. He highlighted the followmg: CEQA Guideline 115125 which states" An EIR must include a description of the environment in the vlcmity of the project as it exists before the commencement of the project in both a local and reglOnal perspective" . He said this IS important because the Commission is dealing with impacts caused by this project. You start with the existing environment and then look at It in terms of what Impacts are being caused by thiS project. CEQA Guideline 115143 which states 'IThe sigOlficant effects should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probablhty of occurrence" . He said in terms of the single event noise levels you have to conSider probability of occurrence. How often will they occur? How often do they occur for other smgle event noise levels that we already have in our environment? Based on that, is it a significant environmental impact. CEQA Guideline 115145 which states "If after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency so note its conclusion ..." [Secretary missed last few words on ~65032(t) and Title 21 ~5006.] Chairman Dahlman asked staff about City noise regulations. Mr. Whittenberg explained the General Plan refers to CNELs and the noise ordinance refers to dBa's. RECESS With the consensus of the Commission, Chairman Dahlman called a short recess at 9:12 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:22 p.m. CLOSE OF MEETING Chairman Dahlman referred to Plannmg Commission Resolution 94-20 which establishes certain time limits and procedures for the conduct of Planning Commission meetings. The Commission Page 13 - Cq of Seal Beach PIannmg ComouBBIClIl MInutes of June 7, 1995 . briefly discussed their interpretation of a meetings' termination time. It was concluded that tonight's meeting should conclude at 10:55 p.m. and the meeting adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Gary Michael Allen. PhD. * Aviation Systems Associates Mr. Allen noted his firm has been advising Bixby Ranch Co. on this project for several years. He sald he holds a Ph.D In Environmental Sciences, his specialty is in the area of airport noise and land use compatibility and he has been doing thIS work for twenty-five years. Mr. Allen talked about flIght tracks. On a large exhibit, he pointed out that flight tracks are how aircraft fly and aid in developing noise contours. The exhibit depicts the ground tracks of the aircraft as they fly over the Bixby property. The red area is 01 and is pnmarily used by large transport aircraft, fighter/trainer aircraft and helicopters. The blue area is 03, is primarily used by small fixed-wing aIrcraft. The green area, is track 04, and is primanly used by helicopters. . Mr. Allen said one of the noise issues mentioned earlier by Mr. Bornholdt relates to how nOIse is measured. How is its impact measured? It's the difference between an average noise metric, like a CNEL or a Single event metrIc like the sound exposure level. The CNEL is based on considerable research, both in the United States and abroad, on community perception of nOIse. It has a solid foundation and embodIes all the factors which acousticians have regarded as being Important in community perception nOIse; such as the magnitude, the noise Itself, number of times it occurs, the duration of the noise. The CNEL is used by all Federal, State and local governmental agencies In determining land use compatibility. The SEL, the single event level, is an acoustical buIlding block to the process of CNEL or LON. An SEL is simply a measure of the noise of an aircraft flying over a location. All of the single events are incorporated into an hourly noise level and all the hourly noise levels are averaged for a 24-hour day. That's how a CNEL is derived. The average CNEL IS the measure WIth all the research weIght behind It and the force of law. The State has consistently adopted 65 dB/CNEL as the bright lIne between compatibIlity of a residential land use. The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted this as well. The CNEL methodology IS used via computer modeling to develop noise contours and an exhibIt showed noise contours for the AFRC. Another exhibit was shown, demonstrating the surface traffic nOIse. The combination of these is the cumulative noise contour and about 10% of the dwelling units In this proposal would be exposed to 65 CNEL or higher. It will depend on the final layout of the family area. 81 % of the dwelling units will be in the 60 - 65 CNEL zone. This does not mean they are not compatible, it means they have to provide eVIdence that the interior nOIse level would not exceed 45 CNEL. The remainder, 9 %, are in a zone less than 60 decibels. . Surface traffic dominates the noise environment in that portion of the project area closest to the freeway. Once the surface traffic noise is mitigated you are left with the aircraft noise. 90 % of the dwelling units are exposed to less than 60 dB --- clearly compatible under any measure. Approximately 10% are in the 60 - 65 dB zone -- again compatIble WIth some Interior nOIse evidence. There are zero dwelling units exposed to the 65 dB zone. . . . Paae 14 - Crty of Seal Belch PIaonmg ComnuaBIOIl Mmutell of JUlIe 7, 1995 Another exhibit demonstrated the adopted contour in the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan in 1994. This was prepared by the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, incorporated in the AICUZ study and subsequently adopted by the Orange County ALUC. It shows a similar result with respect to the dwelling units with zero umts in the 65 dB zone. Regarding SEL, he clarified that an EIR statement suggests there should be a limit for SELs of 100 decibels. It points to John Wayne Airport as an example where that's done. As he was closely involved with the John Wayne Airport situatlon for a number of years, Mr. Allen said the way it is stated in the EIR is not accurate. For example, (1) the limit there has been set by the airport owner-operator not by the adjacent community. The courts have clearly held that an adjacent community cannot Impose a restriction that affects airport airfield operations in any way; (2) the limit at John Wayne Airport is not 100 decibels, it's 101.5 decibels. Thls represents 41 % more acoustlcal energy; (3) that hmit is on the quarterly energy average of all Class A flights flown at John Wayne Airport by each indiVidual carrier - not one fught. Many carriers can and do fly flights noisier than the 101.5 dB limit as long as they have an off-setting less-noisy flight which causes the quarterly energy average to comply with the limit; (4) Orange County does not use that as any measure of land use compatlbility. They still use 65 dB/CNEL as the determinate of residential land use compatibility. At Los Alamitos airfield, the SELs have been cast 10 a significant hght but the truth IS that only a few of the operating aircraft are capable of generating an SEL over 100 decibels -- the C9s, 727s, C5s, C141s, C2s, 38s and 43s. He said he confirmed thiS through extensive computer modeling. Table 4.8-3 shows these aircraft comprise only 1 % of the total average dally operations out of the airfield. An operation IS either a landing or a takeoff. When considenng the airfield usage, this really means only 0.7 departures and 0.1 landings adjacent to this property. Each of the aircraft mentloned above would have its own noise signature and its own SEL. But the event duration for the SELs and exceeding 100 decibels on the property range from four (4) to fourteen (14) seconds. This he confirmed with computer modeling. Looking at the table and the operational levels, the site has an average of eleven (11) seconds per day of noise exceeding 100 dB SEL. Another way of loolang at the slgmficance of SELs around thiS arrfield would be to look at the complaint history. From 1992 through 1993 there were twenty-six (26) complaints. Even when the AFRC was activated for the Los Angeles nots, thls complamt hlstory did not change. Almost all of the complaints came from the other end of the airfield with 10% of the complaints from Seal Beach. CommissIOner Brown asked if the CNEL average would really be much higher since the AFRC is closed at night and the CNELs are averaged over a 24-hour penod'1 Mr. Allen said it wouldn't be a CNEL under this hypothetlcal question, but It would be an average nOise. It would be higher if the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. time period were excluded. Page 15 - CIty of Seal Beach PIanmog COIDIDIIlIlOO Mmutell of JIIIIe 7, 1995 . Commissioner Sharp suggested the consultants prepare exhibits that can be read from a distance. He said the Commission could not read these. PAUL WILKINSON & LINSCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Mr. Wilkinson said his ftrm is a traffic engineenng firm who has been advising Bixby on the project for almost six years. Mr. Wilkinson said DKS Associates prepared the traffic study and Lmscott, Law & Greenspan reviewed it. Due to comments made at the EQCB meeting, Mr. Willanson began with an overview on trafftc studies, for EIRs in partJ.cular. He noted trafftc studies are derived from techniques and approaches which are nationally recognized. California IS one of two states which license trafftc engineers. These studies are prepared by bcensed professionals. Secondly, Within a traffic impact study the impacts focus to intersections, focused particularly in the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. This is some hour, either m the a.m. or p.m. commuter period, when the extreme volume for four (4) consecutlve mmutes is the highest. There was some confusion at the EQCB meetlng as to what the peak hour was. The peak hour IS the extreme one (1) hour period -- whenever that occurs. These intersections are evaluated m a setting which considers the increment of project traffic added to a background condition which accounts for other area growth in other specific projects. It's not done in a vacuum and it's not layered onto existing traffic. . When evaluating intersections, the engineers consider how it's working now, how it will work in the future without the project and how it would work with the project added to that future conditlon. What's important at intersections is the volume to capacity ratio. Volume is somethmg that is counted or forecasted based on growth of eXlstlng traffic, cumulatlve proJects, the speciftcs of this project etc.; volume is the numerator. Capacity IS the denominator and it's defined by the number of lanes at an intersection, the way the signal operates etc. . What do the traffic studies tell us? The study looked at twenty (20) intersections which were selected for analysis because those were the locations where this project was expected to have the greatest andlor a measurable impact. Of those twenty mtersections, four (4) were determined to have an impact which may be measurable and adverse. Regardmg the volume-to- capacity relationship, if the volume grows, the capacity needs to grow to maintain the same ratio. Capacity is increased is by changing the signal timing andlor largely by addmg traffic lanes through re-striping or physical widening. These are the types of measures for those four intersections. In every case, at all four intersections at the p.m. peak: hour, the mltlgatlon measures mitigate those intersections to less than the conditions that exist without the project. In several cases, because of existing congestion, that mltigatlon not only takes care of the trafftc related to the Bixby project at full development but other background traffic growth, traffic related to other specific projects and some existing deficiencies. Two of the intersections of great concern to everyone are the ones at the interchange area at Seal Beach Boulevard. He worked with an exhibit to explain the improvements identified within the EIR at Seal Beach Boulevard; refer to Figure 4.9-11 at page 5-44 of the FEIR. He said this represents roughly $1,000,000 of improvements. . . . Pegc 16 - CIty of Seal Bcacb PIamwJc ComnusslOIl MJJlIIlc8 of June 7, 1995 Commissioner Law asked who pays for this? Mr. Wilkinson said "This is expected to be a mitigation measure that Bixby would be required to provide as part of their traffic I1lltigation fees". Commissioner Law asked if Bixby would pay all costs? Mr. Wilkinson said "It is meant to be a fair share obhgation. It's my understanding, because we don't know exactly what the trip fees that the City is going to require on the project will be, It's my understanding that this would be provided in heu of paying those trip fees. The whole thmg" . Commissioner Law noted the EIR says re the hotel and the commercial property that the entrance will be put as far down on Lampson A venue as possible. Will any dnveways face Seal Beach Boulevard? Mr. Wdkinson said it was his understanding that no driveways will be on Seal Beach Boulevard. All the access will come off Lampson Avenue at a location that's determined by a registered traffic engmeer to the satisfactIon of the City. Commissioner Law asked if this would be a gated community? Mr. Wdkinson satd he didn't know. Indicating that only one way out of a community would be perilous in a disaster, Coml1llssioner Law said an emergency connection at the northeast comer of the property, which would go through to Rossmoor Center, was mandatory. Mr. Wilkinson said there is the opportunity to mclude an emergency connection between the two parcels. Commissioner Campbell asked if Bixby would pay to re-stripe the bridge, addmg what happens in a few years when the bndge has to be Widened? Mr. Wdkinson satd the re-stripmg of the bridge is an mterim measure that gets a capacity gam. This bridge is an improvement project that's Within the City-wide Trip Fee Program. Through development, the City is collectIng fees for improvements Within the City. ThiS would be an ehglble project to use those fees --- to widen thiS bridge. In the long term, funds from the Trip Fee Program, Measure M funds, and aCTA grants for matching monies could be looked for. Re-striping is recogmzed as an mtenm measure but it fully mitIgates the impact of the Bixby project. Bixby will pay for all of the re- striping and widening of the bridge. Chatrman Dahlman, With the consensus of the Commission, called those who Wished to speak to the podium without selection as to who was in favor of or who was opposed to the proposal. The Chairman noted about fifteen people wished to speak and he asked them to be brief, less than five minutes. John Follis lie College Park East Mr. Follis spoke in opposItIon to the proposal. Mr. Follis satd he IS a 22 year reSident of College Park East. He spoke about the many area traffic problems. Since Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson A venue cannot be widened, the increased traffic from the proposed project would further clog the streets. He felt that having Bixby Co. pay a "fair share" would never come to be and the City would wind up paying for all the traffic improvements. He suggested the Commission vote no and not allow the Zone Change. . . . Ptae 17 - ~ of Seal Beach l'IamwIa ComnusBKlD Mmulll8 of J\IIIe 7, 1995 Larry Michaels * College Park East Mr. Michaels spoke in Opposltlon to the proposal. Mr. Michaels said he is a 27 year City resident and does not like to see the quality of his life threatened by this proposal. He noted John Nakagawa of the EQCB requested the traffic consultant prepare another report using EMA (Santa Ana) figures for Southern California so he could compare it to the eXlsting report which uses national averages. The traffic consultant did prepare a companson but it was not useable. Additionally, Mr. Michaels said the hours used for the peak travel times were 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. He suggested they use 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. to be more accurate. The EIR states the traffic would go to level of service (LOS) "C" but if the earher hours were used It would be a higher LOS. He suggested the Commission vote no. BlII Erickson * College Park East Mr. Erickson spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Enckson said the AFRC would respond at lower than an 8.3 earthquake. He suggested Figure 4.9-11 at page 5-44 needed to be more user friendly and was hard to read. He asked where the sidewalks would be and If the bike lanes would be the same width throughout. He was afraid groups of bicyclists would be forced into traffic. He said traffic congestlon and safety affect all of us and all the facts are not m the record. Dean Stewart * College Park East Mr. Stewart spoke in oppositlon to the proposal. Mr. Stewart said he was very concerned about putting housing so close to the end of the runway --- It's not safe and It's nOlsy. Routlne aircraft operatlons at the base will subject the residents to excessive noise levels. If there IS an emergency requiring the base to be operated it will subject the reSidents to even more nOlse. He felt it was unrealistic to expect Southern Californians to open their windows Just a minimum width. He felt there are many unanswered questlons -- such as who is paymg for what, is the noise level based on a twelve hour period or a twenty-four hour period? Joe Siler * College Park East Mr. Siler spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Slier smd hiS is a 24-year reSident of College Park East. Four years ago there was a flier put out by their Councilperson to all the members of College Park East and they met at the Southwest Regional Laboratories. About one hundred people attended. The Bixby project was discussed and a straw vote was taken on various options. The option that got about 80% of the vote was the optlon to compromise With Bixby on an acceptable basis and try to put an end to the on-going arguments with Bixby. They didn't want piecemeal development. A committee of twenty was put together with the goal to see if an acceptable compromise could be worked out. He also said he had been worried about the proJects' compatibility with the AFRC but, after reviewmg the AICUZ study of 1994 he no longer believes those concerns are vahd. He said opponents of this project generally forget that Bixby already has 22 acres zoned for commercial development. If thiS plan is rejected, those 22 acres will sooner or later be developed commercially. ThiS project includes 13 acres of commercial development and 31 acres of residentlal development. He smd what we are really talking about is whether an increase of 9 acres of commercial development is better than or worse than 31 acres of reSidential development. Those 9 acres mclude the tenms facility, which . . . Plgc 18 - ~ of Sell Belch P\amwJg CommIIsIOll MInutes of lunc 7, 1995 Mr. Seiler felt should be retalned as it's the entry to College Park East and makes a nice statement. That parcel is zoned commercial and the citizens don't have the abihty to change that development if Bixby is unwilling. The traffic will be worse from an all commercial 22 acre development because at peak hour the traffic from one commercIal acre is 6 to 7 bmes greater than from one residential acre. There would be 719 peak hour trips generated --- only 188 of those come out of the residential component. The commercial use will cause even greater traffic problems. If Bixby were to develop commercially, with no residential, all the same mitigation measures would not be available. Bixby would pay their fees and develop. The proposed mitigation measures in the traffic area are significant --- they reduce the current ratio of capacity at each of the intersections, they make significant changes that will improve the traffic flow. This plan is compatible to the community -- Seal Beach is a residential community. The new homes in a gated community would enhance the area and increase property values. The community center is important and would be lost if the project is rejected. FinanCIally thIs project is very good to the City --- it generates about 1.1 million dollars per year in on-goIng revenue at a cost of only $300,000 for services provided. That's over $800,000 profit to the City on an on-going basis. There's over 2 millIOn dollars in up-front fees paid to the CIty and the school district. This project meets all of the tests we can reasonably ask. Nick Rini · College Park East Mr. Rini spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Rini thanked the Planmng Commissioners for being the citizens' representatives and said he was offended that Mr. Siler said he's got a group who represents the community. Mr. Rini said he has not given Mr. Siler his authorization to represent him. Mr. Rini said no one represents College Park East residents except the Planning Commission and CIty Council. When Mr. Bradshaw saId he met WIth the community he did not say exactly who he met with. If it was not the Commission, the Council or the EQCB, but Mr. Siler's group of twenty people, then he's insulted. He asked the CommiSSIOn to not think any citizen's group represents the community. He said everyone within the community has the same motives and bIases that the Commission has --- to make this a good commumty to live in. He said he didn't know if any of the consultants hved In Seal Beach or had the same goals as the City's reSIdents. He said the developer's goals are dIfferent that the community's. He asked the Commission to conSIder the mobvabons and goals of the dIfferent parties involved. He saId he was also insulted when Mr. Bradshaw saId the City would be making $1,000,000 without telling the Commission all the ramifications and costs --- the physical ramifications to the reSIdents of the community and the finanCIal costs to the City, Without knowing the costs, the community cannot legitimately evaluate any project. When Mr. Bornholdt said "We feel that the disaster report should not be considered" Mr. Rini felt this was indicative of BIxby's approach to the whole project. Mr. Bornholdt said the report should not be considered because earthquakes are unpredictable. Mr. Rini said earthquakes are very predictable -- the only unpredictable part is when it's going to occur. Mr. Rini said if that thinking were upheld, for example, Caltrans would build bridges without any precautions for earthquakes. Mr. Rini pointed out this is consistent with Bixby's motivabon which is to make profit. And the easiest way to make a profit IS to cut down on their costs. Mr. Rim referenced the January floods at Leisure World and indicated that the property owners are left paying the costs, not the developer. That builder built without precaunons to save money. Mr. Rini felt . . . Pace 19 - Cd1 of Seal Beach PIaaomg ComnuSSIOIl Mmutcs of JUDC 7, 1995 the term "paying our fair share" meant "sue us for It later". He suggested looking at the Orange County bankruptcy for a similar example. Orange County has offered payback at $ .70 on the dollar and says if that's not acceptable then sue the County and incur the legal costs trying to get that 100%. Regarding traffic problems caused by this project, Mr. Rini said the consultant's statement that trip fees would pay for the mitigation measures was double talk. In fact, this developer would owe the City the trip fees plus monies for the mitigation measures. But the developer says we will pay our "fair share". He suggested the scare tactics of having to accept this proposal or be faced with an all commercial proposal were awful and "a lousy way to make decisions". Decisions should be made on what is good for the community. Frank Clift * College Park East Mr. Clift spoke in favor of this proposal. Mr. Cbft said he was a former City Councilmember who represented College Park East. He wanted to go over a discussion of the concerns presented by the opponents of Bixby plan. He felt the opponents, members of Peoples Response on Bixby Expansion (PROBE), made two horrorific statements to scare College Park East residents who receive and read PROBE bulletins. He saId that since he left the City Council in the summer of 1988 he has only rarely received any written newsletters or mformatlOn from the current College Park East Councllman and asked why? SuggestIng the Councilman did not want hlm to be aware of his position on controversial issues because he might take the opposmg position. He suggested his address, and others, may not receive the Councllman's informatIon on purpose as they oppose the position the Councilperson supports. He suggested the Councilman may fear to discuss opposmg positions or may not want to hear from anyone who opposes his position. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Clift to direct his comments to the applicant's proposal. Mr. Clift said one of the horrorific statements was "Put in 98 homes at the end of the Los Alamitos air runway". This is an obviously misleading statement. PROBE has scared the reader to believe that a major catastrophe is going to occur as a result of home SiteS at the end of the runway. The homes, if built, would be 2200 feet to the right of the runway's centerbne. This is a lateral displacement to the nght, away from the air traffic and puts the homes clear of harm's way. These 98 homes would be farther away from air operatIons than many of the College Park East single family homes and all of the College Park Easts' townhomes located across the South side of Lampson A venue between Basswood and Candleberry. For an aircraft to be bothered by high-end home siting, the pilot would have to turn right on his takeoff instead of left, as is dictated by the takeoff procedures in current use at the AFRC, directly opposing the order. This is working as a perfect example of mis- information by opponents of the Bixby plan to make College Park East reSidents think of the plan as dangerous to the extreme. One other report by the opponents of the Bixby plan engages in a disavowal of the existence of a "Plan B". They claim the opponents use "Plan B" to say that if "Plan A", the plan now proposed by the appbcant, IS not approved then Bixby will go to Plan B, which would be a full commercial plan with no housing. Unfortunately PROBE members are unwilling to disclose that "Plan B" is an option which Bixby has been capable of exercising for more than 20 years because Bixby does own more than 22 acres of commercially zoned land. Bixby does not have to receive the City's permission to develop those legally zoned acres as long as they conform to the appropriate type of development allowed under that zoning. It's not a matter of denying "Plan A" and there's nothmg the land owner can do with his legally P8&c 20. Cdy of Sell Beach PIaonmg ComnusBIOII Mmutcs of June 7, 1995 . zoned property. The full commercial opt1on would be disastrous for College Park East as it would have much greater traffic volumes and nOise. It would also deny a much-needed community center for the College Park East residents. College Park East property values would be affected by a full commercial development. With the proper zoning, C-2, there is no reason that BlXby or anyone else is going to have to worry about traffic mitigation. He said he hoped the members of this Commission would think twice before voting it down. Chairman Dahlman said it would now take a motion of the Commission to hear any more testimony tonight because it IS past 11:00 p.m. Hearing no motion, Chairman Dahlman said the Commission would then wrap up busmess for thiS evening and plan to continue, differing from the usual routine, in one week at the North Seal Beach Community Center at 7:30 p.m. He said there will be a speaker sign up list at the front and those who haven't spoken tomght will have first rights. The Commission will pick up where It has left off tonight. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to Continue the Open Public Hearing on Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), General Plan Amendment #95-1 (a) and (b), Zone Change 95-1, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #14465 to Wednesday June 14, 1995, 7:30 P.M., at North Seal Beach Community Center, 3333 St. Cloud, Seal Beach. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Campbell, Dahlman, Brown, Law STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meet1ng at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~o~~,. Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROVAL: The Plan-i,mg Commission Minutes of June 7, 1995 were approved on June JJ./ -r 1995. .