Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1999-08-16 8-9-99 I 8-16-99 By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:32 p.m. and reconvened at 10:16 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council received reports relating to the items identified on the agenda, including the Bixby and Brendel cases, no action was taken. He announced that oral argument on the Hellman archaeological lawsuit will take place the following week. I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned the meeting until Monday, August 16th at 7:00 p.m. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 p.m. f!) cio clerk Beach 1J(; Approved: I Attest: Seal Beach, California August 16, 1999 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Dorsey, Assistant to the City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Ms. Yeo, City Clerk Councilmember Campbell recalled the recent introduction of the Los Alamitos Girls Softball Team upon winning the State Championship, announced that they have now won the National Championship and will be recognized at the August 23rd meeting. She recognized as well the seventeen year old College Park East resident, Kevin Gustafson, who is making his solo cross-country flight, also, acknowledging the article in the sports section of the news this week profiling Jack Haley, and extended best wishes to him. I 8-16-99 The Mayor announced that the public would be given the opportunity to comment on the various ordinances and resolutions as shown on the agenda. I PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared Public Comments open. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, recalled her mention at the last meeting of the Bixby lawsuit and the direction of the court, stating that the Council should have responded and announced this meeting at that time. Mayor Yost offered that the Council did not have the necessary information to make such announcement until the Closed Session. The City Attorney explained that a public hearing is scheduled for Monday, August 23rd, the Resolution proposed vacates the prior actions pursuant to the court order, that to be done at the next available time, the ordinances for consideration are for introduction only, the public hearing relating to those documents will the on the 23rd, ordinances require two readings, the first reading, which is the introduction, is not an action to adopt. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, claimed that the meeting was not properly noticed, the newspaper notice states that it was published on July 22nd where in fact it was August 12th. He made reference to a meeting in April of 1997 where he said a number of people signed their name and address on interest cards to receive notices but notices were not sent out. Mr. Clewley spoke to his letter of this date directed to the Council, complaining and advising that the business operation at 143 Main Street is operating out of compliance with its Conditional Use Permit as seven parking spaces ~t the Grace Community Church must be available for Hennessy's patrons. He said his communication contained photographs of the Church parking spaces with signs reserving them for certain Church personnel, in the past the Church committed half of its alley parking spaces to John's Market by a gentlemans agreement, then seven committed to Hennessy's, and three to O'Malleys, which he claimed is sixteen plus parking spaces where there are only thirteen, no spaces say public parking. Mr. Clewley said he would like to see this violation by Hennessy's rectified immediately. Ms. Corbin again said the public should have been fully informed of this meeting. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared Public Comments closed. I WAIVER OF FULL READING Councilmember Campbell was informed that she would have the opportunity to pose questions relating to the agendized documents. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4726 - VACATING/VOIDING CERTAIN ACTIONS _ BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT The City Attorney explained that the court directed the City to vacate, set aside, and void Resolution Number 4660 and other actions taken pursuant to that Resolution that relied on the Environmental Impact Report for the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Development Plan. He noted a minor change to the proposed Resolution, Section 5 reflecting new language to read "...subject to and pending further order from the 8-16-99 court. " Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4726 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SETTING ASIDE, VACATING AND VOIDING CERTAIN ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE AUGUST 3, 1999 WRIT ISSUED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT REGARDING THE BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4726 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried The City Attorney explained that the ordinances listed on the agenda all relate to the Bixby project, adopted November 23, 1998, and pursuant to adoption of Resolution Number 4726 those ordinances have now been vacated pursuant to the court's order, the recommendation would be to introduce each ordinance individually. ORDINANCE - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN An Ordinance was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RE-ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND BIXBY RANCH COMPANY REGARDING THE "BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of the Ordinance was waived. Mr. Reg Clew1ey, Seal Beach, complained that the ordinance was not properly noticed, he did not receive a notice. It I was clarified that the referenced notice was for the hearing scheduled for August 23rd. Ms. Corbin, Seal Beach, expressed her opinion that the judge directed the prior approvals to be voided because the EIR was found to be inadequate as a result of bad advice, and discussed initiatives. The City Attorney explained that there are certain technical, non-substantive changes to the Development Agreement, none of the points have been changed, as a result of the court order the additional environmental review is added, numbers are added, and there are certain blank spaces until numbers are available. Section 1.3.11, to the end of the paragraph add "as subsequently revised"; Section 1.3.18.1, delete the Resolution Number for the time being and the adoption date of November 23, 1998; Section 1.3.18.2, delete and leave blank the Resolution numbers and the date of adoption; Section 1.3.18.3, delete Ordinance numbers 1436 and 1439 and adoption date of November 23, 1998; Section 1.3.18.4, retain the Ordinance Number of 1440 however delete the adoption date of November 23, 1998; Section 1.2.19.2, Area A, delete 26 acres and replace with 26.045; Section 2.1, at the end add the following sentence, "On August 23, 1999 the City Council held another public hearing to consider reapproving this Agreement"; Section 2.4, the Resolution numbers will be I changed once the new numbers are known; Section 3.1.1.2, Area A, the reference to 26 acres on the fifth line from the bottom is to read 26.045 acres; Section 3.1.3.1, delete the words "Planning Commission" from the second line, "City Council" may be inserted instead. The Attorney noted that if there are any similar changes that have been missed they will be corrected by the time of public hearing. Councilman Boyd requested confirmation that these are not substantive changes to the project, only changes to resolution numbers, dates, etc., the only substantive changes were those defined in the 8-16-99 I writ from the judge. The City Attorney confirmed the first question to be true, explaining that the judge did not require changes, merely some additional environmental analysis, there are no changes to the project except for clarification of size of the project on parcel A, clarified that it is inclusive, also, that changed the acreage from 26 to 26.045, all changes are of a technical nature. I Councilmember Campbell referred to Section 1.3.15, said two lines from the initial Agreement were deleted, mentioned that she has been working with the group considering uses of the tennis club site, the Section refers to the site and 'all structures permanently affixed thereto' to which she inquired if that means the kitchen appliances, etc., that is why she had requested that that language be included. The City Attorney responded that an Operating Memorandum was adopted subsequent to the adoption of the Development Agreement, it addresses such things as the fixtures, equipment, etc. clarified other issues, the Memorandum will be before the Council at the next meeting and there may be a need to revise portions of the Development Agreement to reflect those changes, the Operating Agreement in fact part of the Development Agreement. In reference to Section 2.8, Term, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to what has to take place for the project to be termed out, its completion, a percentage leased, or whatever. The City Attorney said normally the term would apply thirty days after adoption of the ordinance however litigation was filed, thus subsection (ii) states "...the effective date shall be the date such litigation is concluded in a manner that permits the legal commencement of the parties' obligations under this Agreement...", comment was that it would then be a date rather than an occurrence. with regard to Section 3.2.5.1., Exhibit "0", Councilmember Campbell noted mention of all rights to cellular transmission towers, to that she inquired as to what those rights are and where are they spelled out, are there dedication requirements for the cell towers. The Director of Development Services explained that the dedication will be required if the Development Agreement is reapproved by the City, until such time as there is an approved Agreement the dedication can not be required, and at the time of the dedication Bixby will provide whatever lease documents exist between them and the cellular companies, those rights will transfer to the City along with the payments due, it is presumed that the Council will have the opportunity to review those documents at such time as the dedication comes before the City. It was clarified that it is the City that must accept the offer of dedication. with regard to the $1,000,000, Councilmember Campbell said she wanted the record to reflect her request that that money be placed in a separate account within thirty days of receipt, specifically noted that it is for the tennis club site conversion. Section 3.2.5.3.1, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the Encumbrances of Record, referred to as Exhibit "K", in response the Director of Development Services pointed out that until the final maps are ready to be recorded there will not be a list of those encumbrances from the title company, at that point they will come before the Council, they are such as sewer, storm drain, avigation easements, etc. Again, with regard to the Greenbelt Area, councilmember campbell said she wished to go on record once again that she would have liked to have seen dedication of a strip along the backside of that property for improvements to the on- and off-ramps to the 405 Freeway whereby the point of entry could have been moved about eight hundred feet to the I 8-16-99 east, also, a longer on-ramp to allow the storing of traffic off of Seal Beach Boulevard, pointing out that if the Bo1sa Chica project goes through the people coming from that project going northbound on the 405 will be entering from Seal Beach Boulevard, therefore a better entry would have solved a number of problems. With reference to Section 3.2.5.3.2., Councilmember Campbell noted the forty foot wide I area along the windrow, it starts at the curb and not the easterly side of the sidewalk, that is disappointing as there could have been an additional five feet of trees, also, the arborist report recommended an eighteen foot buffer, inquiring if that will be seen. The Director of Development Services explained that the eighteen foot buffer is from the existing trees that are to be retained, there is a condition in the site plan review that the Planning Commission last approved that requires the buffer in those tree locations, that has now been incorporated in the document for the site plan review that will be before the Council on August 23rd. Section 3.2.5.4., Monument Signs, the Director explained that the effective date is the date of this Agreement which will be much earlier in the process than the issuance of occupancy permits, this requires certain easements to be granted to the City earlier, pointing out that these are signs to identify the College Park East neighborhood, not signs relating to the shopping center. with regard to Section 3.2.5.7, the bike bath adjacent to Lampson Avenue, Councilmember Campbell noted that there is presently a bike path on both sides of that street, the northerly side somewhat dangerous, inquiring if there is to be bike paths and sidewalks on both the north and south sides of Lampson. The Director stated his recollection was that there would be an off-road bicycle path on the south I side of the street, no path on the north side as the south side would be wide enough to allow bike traffic in both directions off of Lampson Avenue, as to a sidewalk on the north side, he said again recollection is that there was not to be, that all activity was to be on the south side within a fairly substantial setback from the street so that there is not the potential danger of having a sidewalk adjacent to a driving lane of traffic. Councilmember Campbell inquired of Mr. Bradshaw if the high berm along the north side of Lampson Avenue is permanent or will it be graded, to which his response was that it will stay, that is part of the driving range. She asked also if the City could have final approval of the tenants, specifically those of the shopping center, in response, the City Attorney stated that such provision is not in the Agreement now, it would need to be discussed with the applicant, if agreeable it could be dealt with through another operating memorandum. He noted also that Operating Memorandum Number One should in fact be attached to the Development Agreement, that Memorandum addressing a number of issues raised, the personal property located at the tennis site, which will go to the City, the Agreement then refers to all fixtures permanently affixed thereto, covering all. Councilmember Campbell again inquired about approval of tenants, the City Attorney advised that could be a direction I to staff if that is the desire of the Council. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to introduce the Ordinance as revised. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Boyd, Doane, Yost Campbell Snow Motion carried 8-16-99 Counci1member Campbell said her vote was because the people of College Park East do not want the project. Mayor Yostsaid he would not have a problem with exploring the tenant approval issue with the applicant before the next meeting, and there was no objection voiced. I ORDINANCE - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - TENNIS CLUB SITE - DEVELOPMENT AREA "E" An Ordinance was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB SITE, DEVELOPMENT AREA "E")". By unanimous consent, full reading of the Ordinance was waived. The City Attorney pointed out that there were some technical changes to Section 4 subsections c, d, and e, and Section 5, changes identical to those of all of the other ordinances. Mr. Shanks, Surf Place, asked if there is a complete operating EIR pursuant to the court ruling. The City Attorney explained that there is an EIR and revisions to the EIR which are 1) clarification of the square footage of the commercial site, 286,967 square feet; 2) an obligation to consult with the school district with regard to school impacts arising from the seventy-five homes; 3) the City consulted with Los Alamitos with respect to mitigation measures proposed in Los Alamitos for the intersection of Los Alamitos and Katella; 4) concern as to whether the revitalization of the Rossmoor Center is a foreseeable event; and 5) dealt with impacts from lighting. He said the August 23rd public hearing will address these issues, and the EIR revisions and appendices will likely be available from the City the following day. Mr. Shanks asked how the ordinances can be discussed until there is a public hearing and approval of the EIR, question is what if a problem is found with the EIR at the hearing. The City Attorney said the speaker raised a good point as to what would happen if after the public hearing there are changes to the EIR or the Council determines that the document should be recirculated, in that case the ordinances would not be adopted. This is merely the introduction of the ordinances, it does not bind the City to adopt the ordinances. To question of Council, he explained that the legal time frame between introduction and adoption is five days, there is no maximum time limit. The Mayor pointed out that the Council has seen most of the technical revisions because as they have come to the City there has been adequate opportunity for review. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, said this is proceeding without an Environmental Impact Report, there is a reduction of the square footage of the garden center, some ten thousand square feet of green space, that is an impact on this project. with regard to the proposed Ordinance he said he could see nothing in the tennis club site that will help the financial needs of the City, there is a choice, just say no. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, spoke regarding the initiative process, and said it is terrible what has been done to the trees. Ms. Corbin claimed that a request can be made of the court for more time. Mr. Robert Haub, College Park East, said the proposed ordinance relates to the tennis courts but is just one element of a domino effect of tennis courts, commercial development, and the overall reconfiguration of the north area of Seal Beach. His understanding is that the judge referred this matter back to the Council because of the lack of review of the impact of seventy houses substituted for the proposed church site, failing to look at the impacts on Los Alamitos. Mr. Haub said he received a call this week inquiring as to what was wanted in terms of development. Councilmember Campbell I I 8-16-99 interjected that people were asked their preference as to no zone change, which would effectively put the zoning back to where it was, not allowing a shopping center or housing, second was the project as presently proposed with shopping center and seventy-five homes, or the two hundred twenty- three homes. Mr. Haub asked if this would mean that there is still consideration of other developments or by the items I under consideration are other developments being precluded. The City Attorney responded that introduction of the ordinances listed on the agenda does not preclude any options. Mr. Haub asked further questions about the significance of a first reading and the Bixby plans. With regard to the ordinance relating to the tennis courts, Mr. Haub recommended that it be disapproved on the basis that the first reading should be after receiving information on the EIR. Councilman Snow inquired as to the year that the Bixby issue first came before the Council. The Development Services Director said he believed the first was in 1994, prior to that there was a public involvement process with community meetings, the residential project was withdrawn by the applicant, the current project was submitted last year. Mr. John Unrath, Dogwood Avenue, said he was present the evening the EIR was approved, that when there was a substitution of the seventy-five homes for the church, it was said then that that was covered by the scope of the EIR, this issue is back because the judge felt it was not covered in the EIR, this needs to be done correctly. With regard to the survey, Councilmember Campbell explained that telephone calls began Thursday evening, the reason was that she found that people have varied opinions, many people did not even know that the golf course was going to be renovated, that a reason I for distributing her newsletter describing the progress of the project, after being distributed the writ was received, people need to look at all sequences of events, people need to determine what they can live with. She said out of the seventeen hundred homes in College Park East, about twelve hundred were contacted, the initial comments were overwhelmingly against this project, given the opportunity they would prefer no zone changes, the survey is still being completed, yet it is indicated that the people do not want either project, rather, open space. Councilman Boyd moved to introduce the Ordinance. The City Attorney clarified that, if approved after second reading, this Ordinance would change the land use from commercial to public land use/recreation. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried ORDINANCE - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER - AREAS I'A" AND IIB" An Ordinance was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREAS "A" AND "B") AND ADOPTING THE OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of the Ordinance was waived. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, objected to this consideration claiming that it was not properly noticed as he had filled out a form in 1997 to receive notice of hearings. He said he did not approve of the Plan overlay, houses should not be where they are proposed, they would be detrimental, the air base is important and will close, then Los Alamitos will develop more shopping centers and houses on I 8-16-99 I the site. He claimed that Councilman Doane voted for Ordinance 1369 in 1993 therefore should not be voting on this. Ms. Sue Corbin, said no action should be taken on these documents, there are blanks in them. She said the public is being left out of the process, this project will bring half the tax dollars and twice the traffic. Mr. Bill Orton, Trailer Park, commended Councilmember Campbell for polling and representing her constituents on the matter under consideration by the Council. Mr. Orton expressed his opinion that development plans going up against the borders of that base would be hard pressed, anything that is being considered would not in the widest stretch be a threat to the continuation of a Base that is so critical to the Southern California region and to the California National Guard. Mr. Matt Stein, Rossmoor, offered some food for thought between now and August 23rd, the total square footage of the retail space proposed for the area, about 286,000 square feet, about fifteen thousand square feet of restaurants, there is four hundred fifty thousand square feet existing at the Rossmoor Center with a potential for a hundred thousand more, that is around eight hundred sixty-six square feet of retail, the new shopping center on the 605 freeway is a million square feet, this project is about eighty-seven percent of that. He questioned where the people are going to come from to support this Towne Center. Mr. Robert Haub, College Park East, stated his opinion that areas A and B are far too much commercial development for the area, if Rossmoor Center can not sustain and grow with the people that support it, it is a marginal view that the new development could handle anything such as that. Mr. Phil Fife, College Park East, said if the EIR information is not going to be available until tomorrow that allows only about four plus days for public review which he claimed to be unfair, suggesting action on the ordinances be postponed until the EIR process is completed with more time for the public to review and prepare comments, the school impact is said will be cured by reducing the number of inter-district transfers, yet asked how many employees of the shopping center are going to want to transfer their children into this district. I The City Attorney said a good point was made by a speaker with respect to this ordinance, there are two blank spaces, in Section 1 'Resolution Number 4726' will be inserted, and Section 2 will reflect a resolution number to be considered at the next meeting. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to introduce the Ordinance. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried I ORDINANCE - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER - DEVELOPMENT AREA "C " An Ordinance was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-=1 (DEVELOPMENT AREA "C") AND ADOPTING THE OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of the Ordinance was waived. Ms. Corbin, Seal Beach, asked how many days the EIR needs to be circulated. The City Attorney advised that revisions to an EIR do not require recirculation, the Council however can make a decision after the hearing on the 23rd if it is felt recirculation is necessary. Ms. Corbin said again this project will be half the taxes anticipated and twice the traffic, also objected to 8-16-99 considering the proposed ordinances. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to introduce the Ordinance. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell ' Motion carried ORDINANCE - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER - DEVELOPMENT AREA "D " An Ordinance was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (DEVELOPMENT AREA "D") AND ADOPTING THE OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of the Ordinance was waived. The City Attorney advised that an insert will be made, as there was to the Ordinance for Area "C", to Section 1 and language added to Section 2 at the conclusion of the public hearing. I Boyd moved, second by Doane, to introduce the Ordinance. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), a conference with legal counsel relating to existing litigation, and Government Code Section 54957 relating to personnel matters. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 8:44 p.m. and reconvened at 10:22 p.m. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items identified on the agenda, no action was taken. I ADJOURNMENT Councilman Boyd moved to adjourn the meeting until Monday, August 23rd at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Yost seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Attest: I Approved: