Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1999-08-23 8-23-99 Seal Beach, California August 23, 1999 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned and regular sessions commencing at 5:02 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meetings to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public worksl City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Director of Recreation and Parks Ms. Yeo, City Clerk By unanimous consent, the presentation of the Los Alamitos Girls Softball Team was held over until 7:00 p.m. I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Yost requested that Item "M", the Minor plan Review appeal hearing to the denial of construction of a two story cabana home at 24 Cottonwood Lane, be held over and continued until the next meeting, September 13th, for reason that there is additional information being gathered as well as the number of items on this agenda. Yost moved, second by Boyd, to hold over Item "M" as requested. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried A member of the audience inquired as to the specific time of the hearing on the Bixby matter in that it was advertised for 7:00 p.m., the response was that it would start as close to that time as possible. Councilmember Campbell requested that Item "L" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Doane moved, second by Boyd, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried I Councilman Boyd moved an amendment of Council policy to limit public comments at this meeting to three minutes. Councilman Doane seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Yost said upon giving this suggestion further thought he could not support the idea. Councilman Boyd withdrew the motion. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be open. Mayor Yost noted receipt of three communications from Seal Beach resident Ms. Michelle Brendel and advised they will be on file with the City Clerk. In response to a member of the 8-23-99 audience, the Mayor stated this is a regular adjourned and regular meeting, the City Attorney confirmed that to be true, explaining that the items on the 7:00 p.m. agenda are a presentation and public hearings, advised that in accordance with the Brown Act the public are entitled to comment on any item on the agenda prior to a decision being made, also, for items not on the agenda public comments may be made at the I end of the meeting with respect to the second session of oral Comments. Ms. Whyte questioned why the meeting was starting at 5:00 p.m. with only Consent Calendar items, why the Agency meeting at 6:45 p.m. if the public hearing meeting is at 7:00 p.m., said she also believed that the meeting will be stopped at 10:45 p.m. to determine if it will continue past the 11:00 p.m. meeting adjournment hour, and claimed that people were not aware of the August 16th adjourned meeting. Ms. Whyte said the College Park East Councilmember has been doing a survey, everyone should be included in that however many people were not called, the options posed were commercial, the mixed use of two hundred twenty-three homes with commercial, and no development, no zone change, stating that no zone change does not mean no development but the people should be informed that if there is no zone change the tennis club will come down, and the site is zoned C-2 with a liquor license. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, claimed violation of the Brown Act by setting the meeting for 5:00 p.m. without proper notice, rather, it is a regular meeting starting two hours early so that the public and press are not aware, he claimed also that notice of the Bixby issue was not properly noticed, mailed on the 18th, received the 19th or later. He asked what action has been taken to place the revocation of CUP 98-18 before the Planning Commission, why ~as the second I reading of the Hellman project agendized as old business which prevented public comment except under oral communications where it has nothing to do with the hearing item, the Bixby project has a hearing for second reading without timely notice to the public and hoped he could talk to the judge about this. Mr. Clewley referred to a letter received from Ms. Brendel containing serious allegations and pictures that are not being shown on cable because of the hour. He called for renoticing the public hearings. It was explained that the published notice of hearing meets the legal requirements as well as the notices that were legally required by law to be mailed, thus in compliance with the noticing requirements. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared the Public Comment period closed. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "L" Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item "L", removed for separate consideration. B. Approved the waiver of 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 the reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I C. Approved regular demands numbered 02485 through 02721 in the amount of $782,481.89, payroll demands numbered 4602 through 4808 in the amount of $175,617.45, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the 8-23-99 Treasury for same. D. Approved the minutes of the City Council regular meeting of August 9, 1999. E. I Approved the Professional Services Agreement with Jones & Madhavan for design, construction specifications and administrative services associated with the development of plans and specifications for renovation of the McGaugh Pool, Project Number 046-202-58, at a cost not to exceed $13,750, and authorized the City Manager to execute same on behalf of the City. F. Authorized the Police Department to replace existing body armor vests for full time and reserve police officers, that this purchase be made through Adamson Industries under the Bulletproof Vest partnership Program at a total cost of $15,241.24, funded by $3,000 in the 1999/00 budget and the Supplemental Law Enforcement Block Grant (COPS) of 1997/98. G. I Approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 820, the construction of Main Street Alley Improvements (Main Street/10th Street alley from Electric Avenue to Ocean Avenue alley), and authorized staff to initiate the bidding process. H. Approved the plans and specifications for Project Number 673, the annual Pavement Rehabilitation program for Fiscal Year 1999/2000, and authorized staff to initiate the bidding process. I. Bids were received for the construction of the Pier Waterline Replacement, Project Number 735, until August 18, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: I Atlas-Allied, Inc. Valverde Construction, Inc. James C. Cushman, Inc. Doty Brothers Equipment Co. $56,800.00 $76,835.00 $81,425.00 $88,903.00 Awarded the bid for the construction of the Pier Waterline Replacement, Project Number 735, to AtlaS-Allied, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $56,800.00, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. J. Adopted Resolution Number 4727 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #803, CENTRAL AVENUE/4th STREET ROUNDABOUT 1998/99, CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN 8-23-99 NOBEST INCORPORATED AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4727 was waived. K. Approved the introduction and first reading of Ordinance Number 1450 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE X OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF PARKING METERS IN DESIGNATED OFF-STREET MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS AND THE PARKING AND CONTROL OF VEHICLES THEREON." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1450 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "L" - PROCLAMATION Councilmember Campbell read in full the Proclamation of September 20th through the 24th, 1999 as "Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week." Yost moved, second by Doane, to so proclaim. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with legal counsel relating to. existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), and personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:23 p.m. which concluded at approximately 6:05 p.m., to be continued at the end of the meeting. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach reconvened the regular adjourned/regular session at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Yost . Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Badum, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Chief Cushman, Lifeguard Department Ms. Beard, Recreation and Parks Director Ms. Yeo, City Clerk I 8-23-99 PRESENTATIONS I NAVAL WEAPONS STATION Captain Thomas Bernitt, Commanding Officer of the Naval weapons Station, introduced Captain Paul Bruno who is to assume Command on August 25th. Captain Bruno expressed his pleasure at being back in Southern California, specifically the City of Seal Beach, and stated he looks forward to the interchange with the City Council and the people of Seal Beach. Captain Bernitt expressed appreciation to all in this community. The Council thanked Captain Berni~t for his services as Commanding Officer and extended best wishes. LOS ALAMITOS GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM Councilmember Campbell noted that best wishes were conveyed to the Los Alamitos Girls Softball Team a couple of weeks ago as they headed for Nationals where they won the Championship. Councilmember Campbell introduced and presented Certificates of Recognition to each of the team members and coaches that were present, and noted that the competing teams were from eight States, several from California, and directed attention to the very large trophy they won. Councilman Doane announced that the Team would be interviewed by host Rick paap on the upcoming Talk of the Town Show. The Council was invited to sign one of the winning game balls. I PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - MINOR PLAN REVIEW 99-5 DENIAL - 24 COTTONWOOD LANE By action earlier in the meeting, this item was continued until the regular meeting of September 13th. PUBLIC HEARING / RESOLUTION NUMBER 4728 - RECONSIDERATION - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN - REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mayor Yost explained that there would be two public hearings, one relating to the revisions to the Environmental Impact Report with regard to the five issues specified by the court, that hearing will be closed, thereafter the second hearing would be opened to consider the other related ordinances and resolutions. The City Attorney explained that the court identified five separate issues, directed that the City or the consultant analyze those issues, yet that did not require a change to the Environmental Impact Report, the issues were the project description, the size of the commercial Towne Center, not just the square footage but that the acreage increased by an acre, that because of the addition of the forty foot windrow of trees, the next issue was the impact on schools because of the addition of the seventy-five homes, to that there is a letter from the Los Alamitos Unified School District addressing that issue, the third issue dealt with mitigation measures of two intersections in Los Alamitos located at Katella and Los Alamitos and Katella and Bloomfield, to that the City had two meetings with the City of Los Alamitos, a summary is provided of those meetings and an analysis of the mitigation measures of those intersections, the fourth issue was wheth~r there would be some cumulative lighting impact, to that a lighting consultant was retained and the report therefrom is attached as an appendix to the EIR, and the fifth issue was cumulative impacts associated with any revitalization of the Rossmoor Center produced by the Bixby Center. The City Attorney noted that there are documents to be entered into the record, the revisions to the EIR, and the Los Alamitos 2010 General Plan adopted about August 9th, also noted the presence in the audience of the attorney for the three petitioners who may I 8-23-99 wish to speak to these issues, and recommended that the speakers at this portion of the public hearing focus on the EIR document, specifically the five issues, these are not five revisions, rather are minor amplification and clarification of the lighting, Rossmoor Center, and the Los Alamitos intersections. Mayor Yost pointed out that this is not the time to speak to a another project, with legal I counsel confirming that comments can be made to the project itself at the latter hearing. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and there were additional mailings to interested parties. The Director of Development Services noted that the staff report provides considerable detail with regard to the issues referenced by the City Attorney, the revisions of the Environmental Impact Report document had been provided the Council, the conclusion of that document is that the additional analysis has not brought forth any new, significant, adverse environmental impacts that were not previously described under the initial EIR and that no new mitigation measures are required based upon that analysis therefore the EIR does not require recirculation for an additional public comment period, it is felt the document is an accurate representation in response to the writ of the court and addresses the issues the court asked to be addressed. He stated the basic request is for Council to certify the revised EIR, adopt the findings of statement of facts, and the statement of overriding , considerations, these the same actions that were taken in November, the documents are very similar to those adopted in November with the exception of some minor technical changes I to reflect acreage figures, the size of the shopping center, as well as the chain of events since the lawsuit was filed and the action of the Council to rescind the approval of the previous EIR certification resolution and the scheduling of this public hearing. The Director explained that on August 3rd the Orange County Superior Court ordered the City Council to set aside, vacate and void Resolution 4660 and the Notice of Determination, on August 16th the Council adopted Resolution 4726 which complied with the order of the court. He noted that the project is the same as was approved in November, a commercial shopping center of approximately twenty-six acres of land, 286,967 square feet of buildable and leasable area, a seventy-five home residential subdivision, the reconfiguration of the golf course to one hundred fifty-seven acres with a public/private driving range, dedication of the tennis facility to the City for recreation purposes, the development of a senior care facility, hotel, and two restaurants, this basically identical to what the Council adopted in November, 1998 with the exception of the reduction of size of the shopping center from 299,000 to 286,967 which was the project as evaluated in the EIR document therefore the project as shown now conforms with what was in the initial EIR. In addition, the court mandated additional environmental documentation relating to I the project description, that reflects the reduction of the shopping center from 299,000 to 286,967 square feet and 26.045 acres which is due to the required dedication of the eucalyptus windrow along the frontage of the property, with regard to the impacts associated with the increased size of the project, that too relates to the increase of the shopping center from 25 to 26 acres as to increased traffic impact, however it is felt that the revision to the EIR document addresses that issue thoroughly. With regard to school impacts, the Los Alamitos School District has indicated the 8-23-99 I project will not have any significant impact on the District and have merely requested the payment of the school impact fees in accordance with state law, the issue of traffic impacts and mitigation, this relates to the two intersections in the City of Los Alamitos, the revisions to the EIR indicates that the mitigation measures that the City established are the same that the City of Los Alamitos recently adopted in the Circulation Element of their General Plan, the issue of cumulative traffic impacts relates to the revitalization of the Rossmoor Shopping Center, the revisions address that issue, as to cumulative aesthetic impacts that relates to the lighting issue, an analysis of that has been prepared which indicates that the mitigation measures proposed by the EIR are sufficient and that no additional mitigation measures are required, also, as requested by the court, the consultants looked at any other environmental issues or impacts that may be affected by the project and determined there are no other issues that requires additional analysis. The Director noted that representatives of the environmental consultants, Culbertson, Adams and Associates, and the independent traffic engineers, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, were present to respond to any technical questions that may be forthcoming. I Mayor Yost declared the public hearing open for the reconsideration of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Development Plan, Revisions to the EIR, and invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. It was again stated that the time limit per speaker is five minutes and requested that comments be directed to the five issues previously identified. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, claimed that there seems to be a misconception that the second reading of the ordinances should take place at this meeting, her belief is that the judge directed that the city make the five changes to the EIR, questioning the second reading. Mr. Matt Stein, Rossmoor, said at the last meeting he left three thoughts with the Council to think about before voting on this matter, first of all, there will be eight hundred fifty thousand plus square feet of retail between the existing Rossmoor Center and the Bixby Towne Center, that equal to about eighty-five percent of the size of the Long Beach Center at Carson and the 605 Freeway, to that he had asked where the people are going to come from to support an area of that size. Mr. Stein expressed amazement that councilmembers at the last meeting abstained from voting because of a lack of understanding and information given the paid professional staff and mountain of printed reports, question also as to how long this process had been going on, his interpretation of the reaction was that it has gone on too long. Mr. Stein reminded that we live in a free country that is run by a democratic government, this process, no matter how long it takes, is a product of democratic government, and no matter the amount of time, he and the others will be present. He questioned why there is fear of addressing the full impact of the revitalization of the Rossmoor Center, especially since it is said in the EIR that the Bixby Center will cause revitalization, this he said is not addressing reality, to just try to fix the EIR and not comply with the order of the judge is preposterous. Mr. Stein encouraged a no vote on the ordinances and all other documents. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, made reference to a provision of CEQA guidelines requiring new mitigation measures if there are significant environmental impacts from a project. He claimed that the Bixby Company was before the I 8-23-99 Coastal Commission recently with the idea to slant drill from an area near Westminster Avenue in the vicinity of wetlands to a proposed oil drilling site north of the proposed Bixby project, and said environmental impacts would be mitigated if the senior housing is eliminated and instead install a slant drilling facility. He said the public has not been given adequate time to speak, evaluate, or comment on the five revisions. Mr. Clewley again made reference to CEQA provisions relating to reducing impacts to a level of insignificance, claiming that the garden center is being reduced by ten thousand square feet of living plant space which would provide oxygen to compensate for what is being lost by the windrow of trees that are being removed or destroyed, he claimed too that his comments were precluded from the draft EIR, that an unsigned, returned document he received stated that his comments to the environmental report had nothing to do with the socio-economic importance of the EIR, which he claimed they were, there needs to be significant components to the EIR included, which includes his comments. Mr. Clewley charged that the EIR is fundamentally flawed under CEQA provisions and needs to be fixed before the EIR is certified. Mr. Joe Siler, College Park East, said he believed the Council is aware that the proposed project is unpopular with the people of the College Park East community, virtually everyone is against it, it was rushed through in November and December, it is again, the people are now addressing a Council that has already voted for first readings in favor of this project, the staff, attorneys, and consultants are in favor of this project, suggesting that their suggestions be looked at with the same skepticism as to those of the opponents. He offered that the writ says the judge will make a decision in September as to whether the EIR is to be recirculated, that decision with the judge and not the Council. With regard to school impacts Mr. Siler said it was heard that there was a letter stating that there is capacity in the District to absorb the sixty-seven students that were projected by one member of the Los Alamitos School District as coming from the proposed seventy- five homes, there was no mention of the eight hundred sixty- eight employees that would work at the Bixby project, how many of those persons will relocate into this School District and seek to use one of the many exceptions that the law allows to bring those children into the District, if there is not a capacity problem, however if the letter is read carefully it will be found that the grammar schools are at ninety-six percent capacity already and with the addition of twenty-eight grammar school children it will be ninety-seven percent capacity, no provision for employees, persons moving in, or natural growth, what is the natural growth, that is not known because the EIR has not been recirculated, the public has not had time to research that issue. As to traffic impacts Mr. Siler stated this is a traffic generated project, the retail component is the major contributor of traffic, approximately fourteen thousand projected trips per day onto an already congested street, an unusual street as it is the sole entrance to the Bixby project, the Rossmoor Center, and the freeway, a natural bottleneck with natural chokepoints, the proposed project is merely an off-the-shelf generated figure of how many cars will be generated and care must be taken to be sure the street can handle the traffic that is projected. The traffic consultants say a revitalized Rossmoor Center will generate only a little traffic, maybe two thousand cars per day, if the Center is expanded, which has been heard is the intent, it could handle about one hundred eight thousand more square feet which is an increase I I I 8-23-99 I of about five thousand more cars, also, Mr. K's American Grill is about to open, quality restaurants generate between seven hundred to a thousand cars a day, fast food restaurants go up to three thousand cars a day, therefore one is looking at a possible eight thousand additional cars over and above what the traffic engineers have studied, said this is not in the ErR, the streets will go from thirty-nine thousand cars a day, which is already congested, to over sixty thousand if that traffic materializes, thus his feeling is that time should be taken to have an adequate ErR and input before making a decision. Mr. Siler claimed the people feel somewhat cheated, expect democracy to work differently, some three thousand plus signatures were presented to Council last November/December yet the Council voted for the project. He claimed that the landscaping is short, it was done for twenty-five rather than twenty-six acres. Mr. Siler reported that the State released a study this week indicating the intent to bring forth amendments that will cause sales tax revenues to be distributed based on population and not on point of sale, in this case the City is passing up the opportunity to increase its population slightly, get more sales tax revenue in the long run, yet in exchange there will be a huge retail center with all of the problems of traffic and congestion, there will be less revenue than is anticipated, that revenue will disappear, the City will be left with the problems and no revenue instead of having a nice residential neighborhood and more revenue. Mr. Siler asked that his written comments be marked for the record as well as a press clipping regarding the sales tax redistribution proposal. Mr. Chris Caldwell identified himself as special CEQA counsel for the City of Los Alamitos, Century National Properties, and the Rossmoor Homeowners Association, as well as counsel for each of those entities in the lawsuit that has resulted in this hearing. Mr. Caldwell stated he had written comments for the Council from the Rossmoor Business Center, Century National Properties, as the author, Mr. Gibbons, was unable to attend, also asked that the written comments submitted earlier this day by the City of Los Alamitos, Century National Properties, and the Rossmoor Homeowners Association relating to Negative Declaration 99-1 be included for the record relating to another CEQA document that he claimed is in fact part of this same project however is under a separate CEQA review rather than the same review as required under CEQA, which he claimed can not be done by two separate documents, and standing alone is a project description issue that will invalidate the actions about to be taken by the Council. Mr. Caldwell said he wished to clarify that his comments are not a full statement of the City of Los Alamitos, the Rossmoor Homeowners Association and the Business Center, they have had inadequate time to review the documentation, it is not believed that comments are even required at this hearing to satisfy legal requirements yet he wanted to call information to the attention of the City so that it does not make another legal mistake that would lead to further litigation, also, they reserve the right to make additional comments in the appropriate forum, some of the materials were received last week, further materials this morning, he has not had the opportunity to have any of it reviewed by their technical consultants, including the traffic analysis, which they intend to have done to present to the court. He said he has had the opportunity to speak with some of the people, not in detail, to whom certain statements are attributed in various portions of the ErR and it would be fair to say there is a strong difference of recollection as to what was said. Mr. I I 8-23-99 Caldwell said he would try to organize his discussion in terms of the five different issues as were presented in the revised EIR. Mr. Caldwell made reference first to the project description, stated that, setting aside other problems with the project description, there is the piecemealing problem, the full project has not been included, part of the project is the 405 overcrossing, this project description comes just to the line where the overcrossing widening will begin, it is talked about but it is not analyzed in this document, again stating these can not be placed in two different documents, therefore in his opinion there is still a flawed project description, the Council will be voting on a new EIR, it needs to be voted upon on the basis of the information on the project before this body, based on the fact that it has been decided to go ahead with the 405 widening its analysis must be included in this document and not some other Negative Declaration to try to minimize the overall impacts, that the reason that piecemealing is not permitted under CEQA. with respect to school impacts, Mr. Caldwell commended several comments made by Mr. Siler, and said his preference would be that all of the comments this evening be incorporated for the record on behalf of this clients. He stated there is no analysis in this document to support the conclusion that there will not be an impact on schools, including the two page conclusiary addendum relating to school impacts, that addresses the issue of what is going to be the capacity of schools at the time it is anticipated that this project will be completed, is there going to be room in the schools at that time, that issue is not addressed in any way, that an issue that confronts the Council this evening in determining whether there is going to be a school impact, and, there is no basis for concluding the flip flop from the prior environmental documentation for the larger residential project that said there would be school impacts. The fact is that the information from the schools that is included in the EIR shows that they intend to build additional classrooms, presumably they are doing that because they know there is going to be additional students, the question is how many students, at what grade level will there be overcrowding particularly when you add the new students that will be caused by this project, once again, the EIRis silent on that issue, there is no factual support for the conclusion that there will be no school impacts. With respect to the issue of traffic mitigation, Mr. Caldwell said he would like to state as clearly as possible so that there will be no confusion about this issue, the City of Los Alamitos believed that what is described in the EIR as full take mitigation is necessary at the Katella/Los Alamitos intersection, necessary because of this project, when the City of Los Alamitos did prior planning documents this was not a path it wanted to go down, including the most recent General Plan amendments, but because of this project the City of Los Alamitos has revisited the issue and this is the straw that is breaking the camel's back and it can not be ignored, that being the case, mitigation has to be analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report, it can not be pretended that it is something that mayor may not happen, and when it is analyzed one has to talk about how much it is going to cost, whether Los Alamitos can afford it, and how much this developer is going to be required to pay for, one can not couch that in terms of a morphous language about a fair share because mitigation measures have to be concrete, they have to be defined, they can not be left for future days, they can not be illusory, that is all of the things what you are doing here, the cost of those mitigation measures, which are going I I I 8-23-99 I to be well into seven figures, those are figures that can be arrived at today, there is no need to wait for another day, because of this project and the contribution that this project makes in making the mitigation measures necessary can be determined today, as a result the amount of money should be set aside before any building permits are issued, either by letter of credit or deposited into an account, the same thing that is being done for mitigation measures in this City, needs to be required today before this Environmental Impact Report can be certified, and finally, when there is a major mitigation measure like this it is going to cause environmental impacts in and of itself, when you do an EIR and the mitigation measures cause impacts those impacts need to be analyzed as well. This EIR is entirely silent on that issue because it engages in some verbal gymnastics in order to try to avoid the inevitable about what Los Alamitos is saying is going to have to be done because of this project, the City needs to recognize it, analyze it, figure the cost, make this developer commit to paying that cost, and analyze the impacts caused by that mitigation measure. The bottom line is that there is additional mitigation that is feasible and in order to make the necessary findings one has to go far beyond what is there. Mayor Yost noted that the City Attorney had requested, as a professional courtesy, that this speaker be allowed adequate time to outline his issues. with respect to the Rossmoor Business Center, Mr. Caldwell stated that the letter from Mr. Gibbons addresses that issue more clearly than he could, he is the person that can speak to the plans of the Rossmoor Center, however they make it clear that one can not sweep the changes at the Center caused by this project under the rug, they are real, they are intended, there are three sets of plans attached to his letter, three different formulations, the only reason they are not more concrete, at least one of the real reasons, as addressed in his letter, is because he has not had cooperation from the City of Seal Beach to assist with figuring out the ingress and egress so that the plans can be made more definite. Mr. Caldwell said what the revised EIR says about the Rossmoor Business Center is one of the finest examples of how it is a sales brochure, it is not an unbiased analysis of the issue, reading from page twelve it states that 'Rossmoor Center has stated that it has no intention to revitalize, remodel, or spruce up the existing Center' then cites to Appendix K which he said Appendix K does not so state, instead, all that has been done is try to shore up conclusions that there is no evidence. With respect to the lighting impacts, Mr. Caldwell said the only conclusion shown by the additional analysis is that there are in fact unmitigated lighting impacts, at least on a cumulative basis, and it is known that by the results driven analysis of this document the only reason that is not being acknowledged is because that would require recirculation, it would require the opportunity for the public to study these things in a timely manner and comment on them in a timely manner, there is absolutely no support in this record for the conclusion that there are not lighting aesthetic impacts at a minimum on a cumulative basis. It is thought what is being seen in this result driven document, a result driven process certainly, no one has had adequate time to review these documents before tonight including members of this body, and it has been decided in an effort to cut through this process to ignore the City's own requirement for the review of such matters by the Environmental Quality control Board and Planning Commission. He said when the court ordered, over vigorous objection by legal counsel and counsel for the developer, that the approval of the EIR be I I 8-23-99 set aside, it is not believed that the court did that with the intention that at the same meeting it was set aside the City would start the process of readoption with the same numbers even, before anyone had the chance to look at the documents, what he believed the court intended was a full public analysis of the environmental impacts and the alternatives, that it should not be a post-hoc I rationalization which in and of itself is a violation of CEQA, he has not seen a clearer example of that than what has been seen with the process here, and it should not be done in closed session, as has been reported in the press at least. With respect to the Council's consideration of these documents, it is believed what is being seen is a legal equivalent of Seal Beach thumbing its nose at the court, he thinks this process makes a mockery of the public participation requirements of CEQA, it completely undermines the notion that before decisions are made information about those decisions should be made available to the public, the reason that one has comment periods and public participation is so that errors and problems with documents such as this can be brought to light, can be stopped, and corrected sometime before five minutes before a vote. Mr. Caldwell said that concludes the substance of his comments, from a procedural perspective he would ask that the charts provided by the Development Services Director be included in the record as well. Mr. Caldwell stated in light of what the court has ordered he did not believe that the distinction between the first agenda item and the latter agenda item can be made clear so he would ask that his comments be made part of that record as well. Ms. Anne New, College Park East, said her comments relate to I traffic and environmental impacts, she had addressed the Planning Commission with regard to the statement of the environmental consultant relating to carbon monoxide in their area, since then the Council has approved the removal of all of the trees that had acted as a natural filter for the pollution coming from the freeway, now there are excessive pollutants, no filtration system, and anticipation of more traffic due to the massive commercial development that will impact College Park East, Los Alamitos, and Rossmoor, the benefit to the City will be additional revenue and none of the burden, there is no concern with carcinogens because there is no impact on the Council, the families in these areas are impacted continuously, this being children, infants, adults, elderly, and pregnant women. She criticized the Bixby Company and the City for placing this project in the backyards of these areas, the Council changing the zoning to accommodate themselves in order to reap additional revenue, the blame is solely with the City Council of Seal Beach, the Council cares not how this development will impact the people. Councilmember Campbell noted for the record that she has continuously voted no on this project. Ms. Kathy Fife, College Park East, stated her objection to how the Council has made revisions to the EIR without having brought I these issues to the attention of the residents by means of an open meeting, instead, choosing to meet in a closed session. To her this was reminiscent of the Memorandum of Understanding adopted in 1997, signed by the Council with disregard for the rights of the residents as to home values, lifestyle, and health which will be adversely affected by acceptance of this EIR as it now stands, clearing the way for commercial development to proceed and the sacrifice of these rights by City officials whose sole focus is money. The actions and discussions of revisions to the EIR in closed 8-23-99 I session, not making the resulting report available to public until just five days prior to this hearing, altering the time of the meeting with no formal notice, and then expect the public to inform and educate themselves to a position of meaningful comment to the revisions is not acceptable, these tactics are meant to cut off public comment and debate and force this project on an unwilling community. Ms. Fife said the choices for District Four have always been and remain today residential or commercial development, no development has never been an option, City officials know this, the no zone stand by the Council representative serves only to confuse and mislead the constituents, it suggests to them that without a zone change Bixby would be unable to develop anything, that is not true as Bixby is entitled today, as it was four years ago, to develop twenty-three acres commercially with no zone changes whatsoever, opposing residential development guarantees commercial development which guarantees a negative environmental impact on the surrounding areas. Ms. Fife said the Council still stands behind this project and the passing of this EIR leaves College Park East and surrounding communities as long time sufferers of this outrage. It was confirmed that the statement of Councilmember Campbell that the referenced MOU did not convey any project approvals, passed so that the City could receive reimbursement, and the fact that she voted for approval of the MOU did not mean she approved a project, was true. Mr. Robert Haub, North Seal Beach resident, said his comments were to traffic impacts and mitigation as described in the EIR document, made reference to a statement that all of the impacts imposed by this project can not feasibly be mitigated, therefore the only conclusion possible based on the staff recommendation for overriding considerations, is that the impacts that will affect Los Alamitos are being ignored, they can do nothing about it so just do it, to which he said this is an impossible consideration, the impacts of this project on Los Alamitos must be considered, certainly the judge in this lawsuit will rule on some of these measures, this can not be denied, so given the staff recommendation to ignore that things can not be mitigated so then vote for the overriding considerations, the vote on this matter should be no. Mr. Phil Fife, College Park East, said he echoes the comments of the previous speakers, objected to the little time for the public to review and speak to this, his understanding is that comments are to be limited to the five issues yet the order also says any other environmental issues. As to school impacts he mentioned that four years ago that was identified as non-mitigatable in the context of the residential development, now, with a letter, that is swept aside, also agreed with a previous speaker that this project will create jobs, not high paying jobs, there will be people with small children who are going to apply to the District for hardship transfers, those currently make up a substantial part of inter-district transfer population, the EIR ignores that concept, there is abandoned Navy housing at the AFRC and if that housing is repopulated with military personnel with young families or people through a government assisted program that will mean more students where the District is currently at ninety-eight percent capacity, his feeling is that the EIR has failed to address the school impact issue. Mr. Fife said the previous EIR barely touched on the issue that levels of carbon monoxide in the area already exceeded EPA recommended thresholds, the document merely stated that the residents of the assisted care facility would be living in air conditioned facilities, nothing was discussed about those who presently live in the I I 8-23-99 area or the young families that would be moving into the seventy-five homes. He said the EIR fails to address the fact that in addition to the increase of traffic the project is converting twenty-five acres of oxygen generating carbon monoxide converting vegetation into twenty-five acres of asphalt on which transmission oil, grease, and other hydrocarbon substances will drip and evaporate into the I atmosphere to further degrade an already degraded air quality of the region. Mr. Fife said it is one thing to override this type of thing on the premise that there is a need for money, it is another to threaten ones health. Mr. Fife also mentioned the news article that reported the State Controller is proposing a new formula for distributing local sales taxes that would shift tens of millions of dollars from communities with auto and other large shopping outlets, rather sales taxes would be divided based on population rather than where the sales take place, this proposed to be phased in over a period of ten years, the shift would benefit better land use and economic planning, the comment of the Controller was that local governments have faced a revenue squeeze in recent years that has forced them to abandon responsible planning to pursue any available tax source. Mr. Fife claimed that is what has been done with this commercial plan, there was an opportunity for residential development yet the commercial proposal came back which will lower home values, which is a loss of property tax revenues, and in three or four years the windfall that this project is supposed to generate will be swept away, the only things remaining will be traffic, noise, and pollution. With forcing this project on District Four it sets a precedent by saying it is okay to do this type of thing to one area of the City, a further fractioning of the I City, he urged that regular public hearings be commenced at the Planning Commission level, let the public reanalyze this entire project, otherwise a referendum can be anticipated to overturn actions of the Council, or other actions relating to this project as the people will not accept it. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, spoke to the previously approved MOU, said to be meant only to recover costs, claimed however that it identified the type of development and stores, she advised people to review that MOU, and requested that the comments of the Council representative be limited to after comments by the public. She asked too that the political nature of her fliers be looked into. Ms. Fran Johnson, Coastline Drive, said she frequents the Rossmoor business area yet once the widening of the Boulevard is started it will require traveling an alternate route. As to the EIR she said the traffic will be impossible, the trees are being removed where it was said only a few would be taken, no consideration is being given to what this will do to Seal Beach. Ms. Cibella Wilenius, College Park East, read a letter addressed to the Council on behalf of all children that need to use Los Alamitos Boulevard to travel to and from school, that is the only street there is to use, with the construction of this development even the closing of one lane I can not be afforded, if the traffic should slow or come to a stop the whole school schedule would be thrown off. She requested that the Council take more time to look into this area of the EIR. To the issue of traffic impacts, Ms. Eulalee Siler, College Park East, said nothing has been mentioned about traffic going over the bridge, which she claimed is a bottleneck, the traffic should be considered when there is need to reach the hospital in Los Alamitos. She offered that at present there are about thirty-nine thousand vehicles a day at St. Cloud and the Boulevard, this development will add another fifteen thousand which will 8-23-99 I result in about sixty thousand vehicles a day, there is no intent to widen the Boulevard, to widen the bridge will not improve traffic, all intersections north of the freeway will deteriorate even after the traffic mitigation measures are in place, including the bridge. She submitted a letter for the record. Mayor Yost said that he would allow anyone to speak on any environmental concerns. Mr. Tim Anderson, westminster, stated the bulldozing is hurting the environment, the area under consideration was once agricultural with a little oil production, the environment will no longer support another person in Orange or Los Angeles counties, suggested that this not be approved, rather, develop a plan to undevelop. Mr. Cliff Mayer, Leisure World, offered that if there is going to be a problem with traffic gridlock on the bridge which would require an alternate route to seek emergency medical services, that could put people in Leisure World in jeopardy. Mr. William Brown, Rossmoor, prior resident of Seal Beach and Los Alamitos, directed his comments to traffic, the school impact, and the interaction of the two, mentioned that some speakers said it was inevitable that traffic to and from the schools will travel Los Alamitos Boulevard, a statement that he did not believe to be necessarily true, one of the possible impacts of this project long term is to divide the cities of Los Alamitos and Seal Beach as well as Rossmoor that will fracture the way they function as a community, they currently function as a community in the area of recreational activities, support of various businesses and restaurants, and most importantly the schools, the schools important for the education of children but as important as is the property value aspects is the quality of the schools, it is recognized that this is a good place to raise and educate children in a safe environment, his concern is that this project will change the fundamental nature of the heart of these three communities that are currently functioning as one community. If not well thought out this project could threaten the way these three independent communities work together, said he does not oppose all development, this property belongs to private individuals, people have benefitted from how it has been maintained in the past, yet it needs to be responsibly done, the impact will be felt over a great period of time, the time it takes to carefully consider all of the factors and impacts is worth the effort. I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:29 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:46 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. Once again, Mayor Yost invited anyone to come to the podium to speak to the five issues identified by the judge and any other environmental issues. I Ms. Ellen Lewis, Leisure World, said she hoped the Council would consider something better, concerns have been heard, hers are narrow roads, getting to Rossmoor, and most important is the need for ambulances to get to the hospital, paramedics, she has watched the Rossmoor Center dying, the same as happened in Long Beach, she may need to move back to Long Beach, this does not seem like a wise plan, suggesting that more thought be given this project. Mr. Irwin Anneson, Rossmoor, said he has spoken with the members of the Council at one time or another regarding this project, most recently Councilman Snow who seemed to be reasonable and open, Councilmember Campbell had the opportunity to vote for the mixed use plan last November but she has a mindset that if houses are built the Base will close, a blind faith without 8-23-99 objective fact, Doane just wants this issue to be over, Councilmembers Boyd and Yost are young, their attitude was exemplified by a comment that the City needs the project because it needs the taxes, they should be ashamed of that attitude, stating he was brought up to take responsibility for his actions and what they will do to other people, and it should be kept in mind that the people have long memories. I Mr. Anneson suggested that the Council surprise the people and turn back to the mixed use plan. with regard to the specifics of the revised EIR, he said the Rossmoor community objects to the intersection of St. Cloud at Seal Beach Boulevard, the original EIR showed that intersection as a highly impacted level of service, nothing was done to improve that, the buildout of the Rossmoor Center by one hundred thousand square feet will have further impact, also, not revealed until the site plans were seen is that St. Cloud will be a truck entrance for the entire project which will have a cumulative impact on their community, for those reasons he asked that the revised EIR be rejected. There being no other speakers, Mayor Yost recessed the public testimony portion of this public hearing. In response to issues raised, the City Attorney referred to comments of the attorney for the three petitioners with regard to the process, other speakers as well, to which he directed attention to Appendix B in the revisions to the Environmental Impact Report, the writ of mandate that was actually prepared by counsel for the petitioners and signed by the judge, page three thereof lays out the schedule, something that counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the real party in interest, Bixby, and counsel for the City of Seal Beach, discussed I together in court, this is the schedule that was worked out, the City realized this would require considerable work before August 25th but made its best effort and did a good job. He quoted from page three 'on or before August 25th, 1999, Respondent shall submit to Petitioners' counsel and the Court such documentation as Respondent wishes the Court to consider in determining what additional steps, if any, must be taken by Respondent to correct the deficiencies identified in this Court's June 18, 1999 Order, including without limitation whether recirculation of the EIR or any portion thereof is required...', the paragraph further states that there will be a interim compliance hearing before the court on September 23rd, therefore the Council was required to take action this date as the 25th is Wednesday, also, this gives the petitioners a month to review the documents. It was confirmed to the Mayor that this was written by the plaintiff's attorney. The City Attorney noted that counsel also represented that he had only a day or two to look at the revisions to the EIR yet his two clients received the documents mid-day on Wednesday, picked up from City Hall, so they have had them for at least five days, there is a letter confirming that, and that will be entered into the record. He mentioned that staff will be recommending a change to the revisions of the Environmental Impact Report, page twelve, I Section D, Potential For Revitalization of Rossmoor Business Center, mid paragraph three, a sentence states that 'Rossmoor Center has stated that it has no intention to revitalize, remodel or spruce up the existing center' and based upon the testimony this date staff is recommending that that sentence be deleted. The Attorney noted allegations that the City has violated the Brown Act by going into closed session to approve this document, such allegations have been heard before with respect to the MOU and basically with every approval of this project there has been an allegation that 8-23-99 I the City has approved the items in closed session, that is not the truth, this document has not been approved yet, the public hearing has been held before consideration of adopting the revisions. The Director of Development Services made reference to an issue raised with regard to the Negative Declaration for the bridge widening at the 405 Freeway/Seal Beach Boulevard, the EIR clearly indicates that to be part of the project, evaluates the issues, and indicates a number of actions that would be taken as part of that process, based on the initial approval of the EIR document in November the City then started the preparation, once the City obtained Orange County Transit Authority funding for their share of that bridge widening project, a Negative Declaration was prepared regarding details of that particular improvement plan that were not formalized at the time the EIR document was reviewed and considered, that Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study was circulated for public review and comment as required by CEQA prior to the court issuing its writ on August 3rd, once the City became aware of the writ issued by the court further consideration of that environmental review is being held until such time as the court determines whether or not the EIR is legally sufficient, the Mitigated Negative Declaration clearly indicates that it is based on the environmental documentation included within the EIR document. The City Attorney made reference to the August 23rd memorandum which identifies technical revisions and changes to the Resolution, the changes in bold and underlined. A change to Sections 9 and 10 to make it clear that this process is pursuant to court order, 'subject to and pending further court order' and that this particular portion of a proposed action at this meeting is within the context of the June 18th order; a date added to pages four and five; Section 21, a quote has been added from the court order concerning the Statement of Overriding Considerations to read "...Accordingly, the Courts order, dated June 18, 1999, ordered the City to revisit the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" in light of its order and the additional analysis provided in response thereto. The City Council has done so.....; Section 22 with regard to other environmental issues, noted that the Mayor handled that well by allowing persons to speak to any environmental issues, and quoted from the court order .....any other environmental issues or impacts that may be affected thereby..... meaning affected by the five issues; page twenty-two, the two underscored paragraphs have been added concerning the Rossmoor Center, at the bottom of page twenty-two under Section 2, Finding, a discussion of the six intersections pursuant to Mitigation Measure F-1 requiring the applicant to pay a 'fair share' of improvements; the same type of clarification on page twenty- three, also a reference to the newly adopted Los Alamitos 2010 General Plan; Section K, Public Services, page twenty- nine and thirty, a discussion of the school issue; on page thirty-one, K-7, the current statutory fees are shown, $1.93 per square foot for residential construction and $0.31 per square foot for commercial/industrial projects; page thirty- nine, Section III, the first paragraph of the Statement of OVerriding Considerations, a quote from the court order, .....The Statement of Overriding Considerations appears adequate for CEQA review. However, because the underlying approval of the FEIR is insufficient, it is unclear whether the Statement of OVerriding Considerations remains valid. The City Council should revisit this issue in light of the writ relief granted herein....., that is why the Statement of Overriding Considerations is being reconsidered; and Finding F at the bottom of page forty relates to the intersections in I I 8-23-99 Los Alamitos. With those changes, the recommendation of staff is adoption of the Resolution. Councilman Boyd noted comments claiming that this project is being forced on them, to which he requested clarification that the reason for this meeting is because Section C of the writ says on or before the 25th the City needs to respond to this issue, the response of the Attorney was affirmative, that consideration is of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and EIR at this point. Mayor Yost asked if, through the process, two writs are prepared, one by the legal staff of the City and one by the legal staff of the plaintiffs, then the judge signs one of those two, the one the judge signed was that of the legal staff of the plaintiffs, the response was yes. Mr. Caldwell, attorney for the plaintiffs, confirmed that the writ had been prepared by his office, what occurred at the hearing was that the judge asked the attorneys for Seal Beach and the respondents how much time they wanted, a response was given the judge, on that basis the schedule was set, it was not a date chosen by Los Alamitos, it was his position then as it is today that recirculation is required which would require additional time, to blame this on Los Alamitos is inaccurate, if the City of Seal Beach would like additional time he would stipulate to go to court to seek that. Councilmember Campbell referred to the second paragraph on page four, relating to the size of the commercial Towne Center, confirming that 'Area A consists of 26.045 acres rather than 25 acres, as indicated in the EIR, this change results from shifting the commercial center to the east to accommodate additional eucalyptus windrow preservation mitigation within the creation of a 40-foot parkway', to which she said first of all Bixby was told up front, as she understands, that there was to be no development south of St. Cloud, then they shifted everything north to accommodate what they wanted, yet the point was to limit the size, and if the project is being shifted 40 feet east because of the trees and if an 18 foot buffer zone is added, what does that do to the project. Confirming that the 18 foot buffer zone is the one referenced in the eucalyptus tree approvals, the Director of Development Services explained that the eucalyptus tree permit approvals require an 18 foot landscaped area around the area closest to the buildings along Seal Beach Boulevard, it is believed there are only five trees involved in that issue along the entire frontage of the shopping center, a minimum impact, that is a separate condition that will still apply. Counci1member Campbell confirmed then that the 18 foot buffer will not impact the project, not reduce it in any way, and staff explained further that part of the 18 foot buffer is already incorporated in the 40 foot buffer. Counci1member Campbell noted some concern with the indoor/outdoor garden center, referred to Appendix E, Table 1, questioning if it is in fact indoor or outdoor, to that the explanation was that it is an uncovered outdoor garden center, the ten thousand square feet is part of the 286,967 square footage. Councilmember Campbell stated she could not support the project. I I I Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4728 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CERTIFYING THE REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A 8-23-99 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS." consent, full reading of Resolution Number AYES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost NOES: Campbell By unanimous 4728 was waived. Motion carried I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER - READOPTION - ORDINANCES NUMBERED l436-A / l437-A / 1438-A / l439-A / 1440-A - RESOLUTIONS NUMBERED 4729 / 4730 / 4731 / 4732 / 4733 / 4734 / 4735 / 4736 / 4737 / 4738 / 4739 / 4740 / 4741 / 4742 / 4743 Mayor Yost declared the continued public hearing to be open. The City Attorney noted that the counsel for the three petitioners had requested that his comments be incorporated in this segment of the hearing for the public record as well. The Attorney explained that the documents are virtually identical documents to those previously adopted by the City, ordinances, resolutions, and permits, in connection with this proposal, only three have been revised in any substantial way, those being the General Plan Amendments to the Land Use and Housing Elements, and Site Plan Review 98-1, all involve the square footage and acreage of site A, the number proposed is 286,967, the substance of the changes to the General Plan Amendments and changes to the Zoning Ordinance are identical to those approved on November 23rd, with respect to the maps, the Conditional Use permit, Tree Permit, and the Planned Sign Program, the approvals granted have the identical conditions and items as were approved by the City since November 23rd. The Director of Development Services explained that the major change to the Housing Element and the Land Use Element is to a Table that is not part of the actual amendments to those Elements but is part of the recitals of those Resolutions that specifies what the project itself consists of, as was adopted by the Council in November of 1998 the size of the shopping center at that time was about 299,000 square feet, the footprint for the center is now being rolled back to the maximum footprint of 286,967 square feet which is identical to the project evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report document that was just certified, the change to the site plan is also to reflect the square footage of 286,967, the other changes, as the City Attorney indicated, are primarily to the process that the City has gone through based upon the writ to rescind the approval of the EIR resolution and then to reconsider all of the project approvals once action has been taken to recertify the EIR. The City Attorney explained, although not as important now in that the court vacated all of the prior approvals, that it was not the Council who approved the 299,000 square footage in November, rather, it was the Planning Commission approval of the site plan in either December or January, that was 299,000 plus the outdoor garden center, Site Plan 98-1 before the Council now is a substantial reduction at 286,967 inclusive of the garden center. I I The City Attorney advised that at this time the public may comment to any aspect of the project. Mayor Yost invited members of the audience to speak to this item if desired. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, suggested that this is the time to move towards a referendum, the residents are not being listened to, it would be desirable to also have an initiative for staff reorganization, said the writ should have been available to the public, claimed the judge did not say the ordinances needed to be adopted tonight. Mr. Joe Siler, College Park East, said he wished to make a suggestion, the Council is making a decision on this proposal for all persons in the City, therefore why not put a measure on the ballot, 8-23-99 let the people decide, and one option, even when money is needed, is to live within ones means, it is felt certain that there are areas where that could be done. He claimed that what is being done is inflicting fourteen to twenty-two thousand cars upon his area where there could be a project that would bring only about five thousand cars according to the EIR, that project would bring a substantial stream of I revenue to the City, that is golf course homes, also, according to the EIR about $3 million over a period of ten years, that is not as much as is projected for the retail center, but, in his opinion, the numbers for the center have been boosted upwards by proponents who file reports with the City in an effort to gain support for that project and correspondingly the golf course homes estimates have been reduced to make that seem less desirable. He said the question is what does that mean, if one reads the EIR financial carefully it will be found that there is an insurance cost added in, the City overhead insurance costs are added into the golf course homes alternative but it is not there for the retail center, for the golf course home plan there is no allocation for the DMV return based on per capita, there are numbers of things that they overlooked. What makes no sense is to think that this is some kind of regional power center that will draw people from five miles around, there were representatives I consultants from Lowes who told the City that, Lowes would be a wonderful tenant and would take advantage of all of the people who would come to town, but, Lowes has disappeared, they found it would not produce the revenue that had been thought, the San Gabriel River and the 605 Freeway are natural barriers to people coming from Long Beach, there will be no business from Long I Beach, none from the Naval Weapons Station, people do not live there, the Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos Race Track, El Dorado Park, the electric generation plant, the Hellman property, all being population voids, much of the five mile circle is the Pacific OCean, to that he claimed that the proponents used off the shelf numbers, and because the Council has bought into this plan it is selling out his community and the City. It was previously said that the Council needs to listen to the experts, to which Mr. Siler said they are proponents of the project, and asked that the Council then look critically at his analysis and the analysis of the proponents as well, and it is thought that the $1.4 million stream of revenue that is expected will not be there, as compared to the $300,000 from golf course homes, maybe $800,000 as compared to something better than $500,000 from golf course homes, and if the State Controller prevails the return would be better because the small population from golf course homes will ultimately bring more money in the long term, they will always go up in value where businesses do not change hands and get reassessed often, the City will win eventually if it returns to the golf course home project, it is best to bring only five thousand cars to the neighborhood rather than fourteen thousand cars, and if the EIR is read it shows the default plan also produces fourteen thousand cars. I Mr. Siler said if there is care for the community, traffic, the City, and its long term finances, the Council will surprise all with a little bit of hope by determining to wait, analyze further, and be more critical. Mr. Jim Sarte said in his opinion this project is done, expressed his criticism of staff, claimed they hired consultants who in turn provided information that was desired, the Environmental Board and Planning Commission have been ignored, things have changed from week to week, in his opinion an attempt to keep the public off balance, his concern is with things that have 8-23-99 I not been listened to, to what has been, and maybe even the wishes of a judge, his understanding of the writ was that nothing could be done on the Bixby land until appearance once again before the judge with the exception of flood control, and it is certain that the dirt that has been moved since the writ has nothing to do with flood control. Mr. Sarte charged that the only concern is with money and because of that morals and ethics are suspect. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, asked that the readoption of the ordinances and resolutions be rejected, the Planning Commission is wrongfully excluded from this consideration. It is understood that twenty-seven thousand square feet of outdoor garden space is being reduced, that raw garden space is being reduced by ten thousand square feet, the land is being poisoned, moving the project north is inappropriate, the commercial development would be better suited to the residential area, alleviating the concern of closure of the air base, and allow slant drilling where the senior care facility is proposed, the City and Bixby would benefit from oil extraction. To that Mr. Clewley suggested there are options that need to be explored. Ms. Eulalee Siler, College Park East, said when going to the Rossmoor Center, traveling north on Seal Beach Boulevard she generally uses the entry by Colonel Sanders or in front of the grocery store, with this plan it appears a turn will be required at St. Cloud, that will be a considerable impact on St. Cloud, in excess of what was covered in the EIR. She mentioned also that there is presently a large mound of dirt along Lampson and blocking view of the golf course, it is understood it will remain that way, there will be a ten acre driving range with cars going onto and off of Lampson, suggesting that has not been adequately addressed, in the mixed use plan the driving range was going to be in the interior of the project and was to have been private. Ms. Fran Johnson, Seal Beach, said when the Mola plan went to the ballot it was defeated, it can be done. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared the public hearing closed. I I To the comment as to whether the writ was available to the public, the City Attorney advised that it has been filed with the court for nearly a month, also, it is part of the revisions to the EIR as Appendix B. Councilmember Campbell made reference to page ten of the readoption staff report, Conditional Use Permit 98-16, the request for a drive-through window and twenty-four hour business operation, to which she said the building is very close to the driveway, if there is a traffic signal that would be a point of entry for College Park East residents if they choose to go there, it is too narrow, and the corner of the building has a loading dock, the drug store building needs to be moved about one hundred feet to the north for a better driveway. Her preference would be to eliminate that driveway as there are four at two hundred feet apart, the second driveway goes through the trees for incoming cars from the south and leaving to go north with no traffic from opposite directions, she considers this a superfluous driveway, her preference would be to eliminate it to save fifty feet of trees. With regard to Attachment 5, Zone Change 98-1, Tennis Club Site, Councilmember Campbell inquired as to the status of the cell tower contracts, the response of the Director was that the towers are part of that property that will be dedicated to the City, the lease rights that Bixby has with those operators would transfer to the City, the specifics of those leases are not presently known. Councilmember Campbell made reference to the dirt berm for the driving range as 8-22-99 unsightly, the current driving range has a large fence, it was said the berm was constructed in lieu of to keep the golf balls from going into traffic, and asked if that could be redesigned so that people can have a view of the golf course. Mr. Ron Bradshaw, Bixby Ranch Company, said it may be recalled that when the original golf course driving range issue was brought up and was to be moved further to the west on Lampson Avenue one of the conditions of the EIR was that it not have a large fence on a permanent basis, even though there may be need for a small fence temporarily, the idea for College Park East was to not have a large fenced area for the driving range along Lampson, the entire mounded area will be planted and landscaped, at this point the design can not be changed. Councilmember Campbell said the concern is with visual loss of the golf course, to which Mr. Bradshaw offered that instead people will be looking at the driving range, also, because of the mounding there will be less of a lighting issue in the evenings, and it is correct that a driving range is not as aesthetically pleasing as a golf course, but that is the area for the driving range, it is not golf course. I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4729 - GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT ~ Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4729 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4729 was waived. Councilmember Campbell stated that the fliers she distributes in College Park East are not political, they are informational. She mentioned that one of the things she has supported is no zone changes, that because that is the least amount of development, Bixby currently has C-2 zoning on three parcels for a total of twenty-two acres, needless to say forty-five acres of development is going to generate a lot more traffic than twenty-two acres. Councilmember Campbell mentioned doing a survey of College Park East over the past ten days to get a feel for what people wanted, they were asked their preferences, one was no zone change, that would mean no shopping center, no residential, thus reverting back to the three parcels that are zoned C-2, the second choice was the present project with the shopping center and seventy-five homes, the third choice was the mixed use plan with two hundred twenty-three houses. She said of the over seventeen hundred homes they had telephone numbers for about twelve hundred, each was called, of those there was a response from five hundred ninety-seven, of that sixty-six percent were in favor of no zone change, the reason for not wanting the two hundred twenty-three homes was that they did not want more people moving into the area, as to the preferred project surprisingly the shopping center was a bit ahead, people wanted less houses than the two hundred twenty- three. Councilmember Campbell mentioned being faulted for not voting for the mixed use plan, to which she said there were two elect~ons in College Park East and the people had stated clearly that that was not what they wanted, how could she vote for a project that the people did not want. She said one of the things she wanted to see done on the corner of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard was improvements to the on- and off-ramps, when the bridge is widened then they will have to redo the on- and off-ramps, the bridge can only be I I 8-23-99 I widened to the east, there will not be enough land to do that, her proposal was to take a slice of the property and bring the point of entry eight hundred feet to the east. With regard to the financial analysis of the golf course homes project, it was the project on the corner of Lampson and the Boulevard that made money, the homes themselves were in the red because some of the parameters used were wrong, they used a property turnover tax rate of ten percent, the community does not have a turnover rate of ten percent, rather two to three percent, for homes in that price range it is likely lower, the housing project itself would cost the City money. She noted that one of the problems is that Seal Beach is a bedroom community, about six years ago the State did a take away of property tax and are now giving less of that money back to the cities and counties, the first year the City lost $4 million of its $24 million budget, it is said there were times when the City did not know if it could make payroll, the City cut back and cut back, the bankruptcy was a difficult time as well, houses do not pay their own way, that is one of the reason Seal Beach is in the financial situation it is in, a bedroom community, this City is second from the bottom of the thirty-two Orange County cities in terms of retail revenue yet not at the bottom in terms of population. With regard to the selection of consultants, the firm of Culbertson Adams has done a very good job in terms of the Environmental Impact Report, whether or not one agrees with what she found Ms. Culbertson was not selected by City staff, rather, two Councilmembers and their appointees to the Environmental Quality Control Board, forty applications were reviewed, the number reduced to ten, they were interviewed, and Ms. Culbertson comes very highly recommended in terms of dealing with airport issues, that is known because of being a member of the Airport Land Use Commission and her reputation at that agency. Councilmember Campbell stated she does not agree with the project, nor do the people of College Park East, the survey showed the people want open space, if this ends up to be a referendum then the people should understand what they will get, her preference again, open space, original zoning, no more projects. She commended the Bixby Company for building a quality project, as to the tennis club site, Bixby would not want something of less than quality across from the Golf Club. Councilman Boyd expressed his belief that a number of good points have been made at this meeting, this project has been taken under consideration in two phases, residential and commercial for nearly ten years. He mentioned a comment that he and the Mayor were the young Councilmembers, a generational change, which he said he did not believe is so, what prompts him to vote for a project such as this was learned from the prior generation, personal freedoms, liberty, property rights, and prudent land use, in his opinion this one project will not save the City from a financial standpoint, options have been looked at, as has the final disposition of available land, and what can come out of this project, people in the audience called out names of potential stores, that is not yet known, it is not a massive project, the project is being looked at as a South Coast Plaza by the opponents, Councilmember Campbell has some concerns as that is her District, yet he has heard differing opinions from others. The Site Plan shows 286,947 square feet of buildable, leasable area however there is 116,000 square feet of landscaped area as well, no one has mentioned that, Bixby Ranch has gone above and beyond for the City's concerns for landscaping, it can not be imagined that any other city would ask a project applicant to put in as much landscape as Seal Beach has. Councilman Boyd said he did not I I 8-23-99 want the issue of money to continue to be thrown at the Council, it is District One that assumes the actual impacts of the City, the Orange County Tourism Council says that 1.4 million tourists come to Seal Beach each year, they do not go to College Park East or Leisure World, they come to District One which assumes the impacts of commercialism and tourism, the exact thing that others are saying they do not want, fact is, it is believed this will be a good project, making a reference to the Bixby office building that now exists. Councilman Snow said even though he has been on the Council for a short time he has lived in Seal Beach for twenty-two years and has given due consideration to this project. In his opinion he did not feel that the project will create the problems that have been stated, there will be some traffic increase but he did not believe things need to be changed as mentioned by some speakers, indicating that the project should remain as proposed. Councilman Doane said he is the only member that was on the Council when Bixby presented what is now referred to as the mixed use plan, that was presented to the Planning Commission, they turned it down, so the Council never heard it. The Bixby Company spoke with some members of the Council individually and Bixby did not present that proposal further. He said Councilmember Campbell is correct that the people of College Park East did not want the mixed use plan, at that point Bixby could have gone to a default plan, they did not, rather, they spent considerable time and money to develop an alternative plan which is what is before the Council now. Councilman Doane said he would request an explanation from Mr. Bradshaw as to what the default plan was, it is not acceptable that the default plan is being referred to as open space, rather, in his opinion, it is no tennis facility, no mitigation money for the bridge, yet would still generate traffic. Mr. Bradshaw responded that it has been some time since he thought about the default plan, confirmed that it consisted of twenty-three acres of commercially zoned property on three different parcels that could be developed under the existing zoning, the thought was to come up with an orderly development, in terms of a residential plan and the plan currently before the Council, a plan that then put to rest the final disposition of all of the property under Bixby'S control, under the twenty-three acre development Bixby would not have given up the right to come back at some time in the future with additional zoning requests, that was felt to be a piecemeal type of development, Bixby has always preferred to have a development embraced by the Council and the city, Bixby does build a good project and this will be a good project and asset for the City. The default plan is falling back, going with the existing zoning, and the City would be betting on the fact that Bixby would not have additional zoning requests in the future, it can be assured that with the excess acreage involved that would not be an option, and instead of having an orderly development, one that would have an immediate impact on the community in terms of build out, massing of dollars for public roadwork, including the bridge, collecting all of those funds at one time and moving forward with the final disposition of the property, under the other plan fees would be comparable, but whether the City could hold on with the twenty-three acres, built out on a random basis, and down the road hope there would be additional credits, question would be if the City could pull together a project that could bring the tennis club to the City, the additional improvements, traffic impact fees to go along with the Measure M funds to help build the needed infrastructure, with or without this project the bridge needs to be redone. Mr. I I I 8-23-99 I Bradshaw said that is thought to be part of the wisdom when the City came to Bixby with an MOU requesting that another look be taken at development, that is what has been done. He expressed pride in the commercial development and the mixed use component, which includes the residential, it is thought that over the past four years that this project has been evolving it has turned out to be admirable and one that it believed the City should support. Councilmember Campbell mentioned that in July of 1983 Mr. Chase Morgan wrote a letter to the Chief of the Real Estate Division of the Corps of Engineers in Los Angeles stating he did not wish to renew the lease,on the crash zone but the desire was to expand the golf course to twenty-seven holes, to which she asked why did someone change their mind with that as no one would have had objections. Mr. Bradshaw said that project never came before the City, to comment would be speculative. Councilmember Campbell countered that one of the reasons given to not renew the lease was to accommodate a compatible development since it was at the end of the runway and Bixby would commit the entire of the Navy land to golf course use compatible with continued Base operations. Mayor Yost commended Councilmember Campbell for her leadership to try to get the most out of this project for her district, stated he too has a problem with the default plan where permits could simply be obtained to develop a big box, as an example, adjacent to Rossmoor Highlands where it is zoned C-2, there could be intensive uses at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, the tennis court facility would be lost, there would be no final resolution for the property, and there would be commercial uses scattered in three different locations which generates even more traffic without the sales tax revenue and at least as much negative impact on the City. Mayor Yost emphasized that this is a mixed use project, in fact the previous mixed use was a more intense use of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard in terms of traffic, these uses now are designed to be low in impact, that is why they were chosen, the issue of homes is quite confusing, the court ordered review of homes was because of potential impact on schools yet the alternative that the opponents want is even more housing which would cause greater impact. with regard to Los Alamitos suing Seal Beach over Katella and Seal Beach Boulevard he suggested a look at the massive expansion of Ganahl Lumber and the addition of Plow Boys, it seems strange, the cities should be able to work together, it is felt that they can, that is the intersection of most concern to them yet they have just approved those major changes, possibly the CEQA process should be looked at for those massive expansions. He confirmed that he is concerned about the financial future, that is how the City runs, with regards to changing the tax base to population as opposed to sales tax point of origin that has been discussed for years and has yet to be accomplished, at this point it is nothing more than sheer conjecture, also, with the recent change to the utility tax the projection will likely be that even more money will be needed and it is uncertain if there will be adequate monies to do the College Park streets that were proposed, part of his responsibility is to find a way to meet the financial needs of the City, especially infrastructure needs, a residential project does not accomplish that. Mayor Yost expressed sadness that this issue has divided the community in the way it has, it would have been preferred for the community to come together in a way that would benefit everyone, in terms of the Rossmoor Shopping Center there have been attempts to get them to upgrade for years yet they have shown no interest in doing so, for them to put something out I I 8-23-99 at the last minute is questionable as to whether it is for show or for real, it is certain the City would work with them towards positive impacts. He agreed that people have made a lot of good points, as to personal impacts his daughters travel Seal Beach Boulevard at least twice a day to and from school so he too realizes impacts on that roadway, so whatever is developed he too will need to live with. Mayor I Yost said his inclination is to vote as he voted before for the reasons so stated. The City Attorney advised of a change to Section 1 of the Resolution, language added to the last sentence to read 'subject to and pending further court order', also Section 2, the insertion of the words Resolution Number 4728. Councilman Boyd, with the concurrence of Councilman Doane, amended the motion to incorporate those changes. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4730 - GENERAL PLAN - HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT ~ Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4730 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN {HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT 98-1, BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4730 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4731 - GENERAL PLAN - SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4731 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-1, REVISION #2, APPROVING THE SITE PLAN FOR A 286,967 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, INCLUDING A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER, WITH PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ANCILLARY FACILITIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND ST. CLOUD DRIVE {BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4731 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4732 - GENERAL PLAN - OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT / BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT / CIRCULATION ELEMENT / NOISE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4732 I entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ELEMENT, BICYCLE ROUTE ELEMENT, CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN {OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/ CONSERVATION, BICYCLE ROUTE, CIRCULATION AND NOISE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS 98-1 , BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4732 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried 8-23-99 I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1436-A - RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB SITE The City Attorney advised that the same change would apply to Section 1, 'subject to and pending further court order,' and with reference to Section 4, the first subsection should be (a) not (b). Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance Number 1436-A entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TENNIS CLUB SITE, DEVELOPMENT AREA "E") as amended and corrected. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1436-A was waived. This item changing the zoning the tennis facility site to public land use, Councilmember Campbell stated she would support this action. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Snow, Yost None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1437-A - RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 / BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - RETAIL/COMMERCIAL/HOTEL.ETC. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance Number 1437-A 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 Ordinance Number 1437-A was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1438-A - RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 / ADOPTING OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY _ BIXBY GOLF COURSE Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance Number 1438-A 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 Ordinance Number 1438-A was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1439-A - RE-ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 98-1 / ADOPTING OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY _ RESIDENTIAL/PARK The City Attorney clarified again the addition of the wording to Section 1 to read '...subject to and pending further court order', and to the same section reference should be to 'Development Area "D" rather than "B". Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance Number l439-A 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)" as amended and corrected. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1439-A was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1440-A - RE-ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The City Attorney noted the same change to Section 1, and the 8-23-99 insertion of Resolution Number '4728' at the bottom of Section 2. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance Number 1440-A 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 Ordinance Number 1440-A was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell I Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4733 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-165 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4733 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-165 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4733 were waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4734 - TRACT MAP NO. 15767 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Director of Development Services noted that the lot areas for each of the parcels in Section 4 are incorrect, offered to read those figures into the record, was directed however to subsequently provide the correct numbers to the City Clerk. Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4734 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE I CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 15767 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN)" as corrected. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 15767 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4735 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15797 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4735 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15797 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AREA "D")." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4735 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4736 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-15 - MARRIOTT BRIGHTON GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4736 I entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP NO. 98-15, PERMITTING A THREE-STORY AND A ONE-STORY STRUCTURE TO HOUSE A 162-BED FACILITY (91-BED ALZHEIMER'S CARE FACILITY AND A 45-BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY), PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ANCILLARY FACILITIES ON PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAMPSON AVENUE AND SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD (MARRIOTT BRIGHTON GARDENS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4736 was waived. 8-23-99 AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4737 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-16 - PHARMACY DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW I 24-HOUR DRUG STORE OPERATION - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4737 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-16, APPROVING A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW FOR PHARMACY PURPOSES AND A 24-HOUR DRUG STORE OPERATION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND ST. CLOUD DRIVE (RETAIL "F", BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4737 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4738 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-17 - HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER I OUTDOOR GARDEN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4738 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-17, APPROVING A HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER BUSINESS OPERATION WITH AN OUTDOOR GARDEN AREA ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND ST. CLOUD DRIVE (RETAIL "A", BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4738 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4739 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-5 - SALE OF LIOUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH DRUG STORE - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4739 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-5, APPROVING SALE OF LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 24-HOUR DRUG STORE OPERATION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND ST. CLOUD DRIVE (RETAIL "F", BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4739 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 4740 - SITE PLAN REVIEW 98-2 - FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION SIGN - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4740 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-2, APPROVING A FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION SIGN ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND LAMPSON AVENUE (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4740 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4741 - HEIGHT VARIATION 98-5 _ ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES I SHOPPING CENTER - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4741 8-23-99 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 98-5, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED 26.045 ACRE SHOPPING CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND ST. CLOUD DRIVE (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER I . " By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4741 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell I Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4742 - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM - SHOPPING CENTER - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4742 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 98-1, PERMITTING BUILDING, MONUMENT AND TEMPORARY SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 26.045 ACRE SHOPPING CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD AND ST. CLOUD DRIVE (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4742 was waived. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4743 - EUCALYPTUS TREE PERMIT 99-1 - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER PROJECT Boyd moved, second by Doane, to adopt Resolution Number 4743 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING EUCALYPTUS TREE PERMIT 99-1 (BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER PROJECT)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4743 was waived. I AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane, Snow, Yost Campbell Motion carried Councilmember Campbell requested to report the results of her survey of College Park East residents. That was prefaced with the explanation that the survey was conducted independently without taxpayer expense. Councilmember Campbell reported there are one thousand seven hundred twenty-five residences in College Park East, of those the thirty-one telephone callers had one thousand two hundred seventeen telephone numbers, of that five hundred ninety- seven, forty-nine percent of the numbers called, gave a reply, on a per house basis, on the first tier of questions sixty-six percent preferred no zone change, preferring open space, eighteen percent preferred the shopping center, and sixteen percent preferred housing, to the second tier of questions there were twelve percent that preferred no zone changes, sixty-five percent preferred the shopping center, and twenty-three percent preferred housing. She said the reasons heard were a concern with more people moving into the community and the impact to the schools, it appears that I people moved to this community for what it is and not for what someone can turn it into, Seal Beach is situated with the San Gabriel River on the west, the Weapons Station east, the Air Station on the north, and the ocean to the south, it is said that in Southern California one can drive from one city to another and never know it, that can not be said about Seal Beach, this is a small town, this is what makes it desirable, that is why people come here and want it to stay that way. 8-23-99 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report was presented. CITY MANAGER REPORT No report was presented. I PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Yost declared Public Comments to be open. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, claimed that when the revisions were obtained this past Wednesday there was no writ attached, some people went to the court to obtain the writ, and suggested members of the public write their comments to the judge in the lawsuit. She charged that the EIR was not sufficient in this instance, complained about legal fees, and that she will be working on a referendum to stop the Bixby project and an initiative for a change of law firm. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, questioned a comment that homes would operate in the red north of the freeway, that was not so for the Hellman Ranch and other areas. She referred to a comment of division in College Park East, criticized the survey, and questioned if it means the Bixby money, rather than General Fund money, will be used to fix streets. Ms. Whyte objected to her Concilmember copying fliers at City Hall, she claimed the City has treated the Bixby Company poorly while it was made certain that the Bellman's got what they wanted, the Councilmember traveled here and there to support the Hellman plan while doing nothing to communicate with her constituents about what was happening in her own neighborhood. Mr. Joe Siler, College Park East, said it was difficult to listen to wrong information after the public hearing and not be able to rebut it. Be said he wished to point out that the first choice of Bixby was the golf course home plan, they approached the City with that first, that plan was vetoed by the then and now Council representatives by representing that the AFRC would close, which was based on no facts, it was said that they could stop any development, there would be no development, and there would just be open space, some of the people realized that was impossible, realized there would be a major development, the intent was to get the best possible. Mr. Siler compared the proposed project to the plan he prefers. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, said the record should reflect that the speakers have addressed a topic which has already been approved, have said nothing that the record will reflect. Mr. Clewley asked what the City proposes to do about the unsafe pool conditions on Ocean Avenue, what does the City proposed to do about the vagrants sleeping under illegally constructed decks on Crestview, what does the City propose to do about Hennessy's violation of its conditional use permit, Hennessy's proposed a high class menu and restaurant, but there is only one menu item at about $12 and that is available after 5:00 p.m., they were to have seven parking spaces at the rear of Grace Community Church but there are no spaces and they are not entitled to park there. Be asked what the City is going to do progressive. Ms. Eulalee Siler, College Park East, made reference to the survey of the Council representative, said she too did not get a call, objected that comments were made back to the respondents, and compared the old mixed use plan to the one approved. There being no further comments, Mayor Yost declared public comments closed. I I COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Campbell countered that the first survey was by Bixby, the second was Ms. Siler, the third was hers, they went to the whole of the community and the response was for 8-23-99 open space. With regard to homes on Hellman, she responded that the land is already zoned for housing that is why it was allowed, those houses will likely operate in the red as well because homes do not cover the cost of services, with regard to deception, the recall effort was to elect someone who would support their project, to the complaint filed with the District Attorney their feeling was that there were likely untruths with regard to the collection of signatures, she did not pursue the matter in the interest of the community, it is still said that everyone supports the old project but at the Planning Commission hearings the people were against that project four to one which is a matter of public record, she would welcome holding town hall meetings however there is a group that attends that causes disruption therefore the choice has been to prepare newsletters, the community is informed about every four to six weeks, and claimed it is others that are the divisive factor. Councilmember Campbell said she works hard at representing the people, that was the reason for doing the survey that consisted of the three preferences, and noted she voted against this project because the people did not want it, stated she was elected, survived the recall, and is representing what is considered to be the majority of the people. Councilmember Campbell said she believed the animal control issue will be on the next agenda, also, Mr. Shanks asked that it be announced that the Postal Service in cooperation with the City and the Historical Society will be unveiling the newest u. S. postage stamp featuring 'All Aboard' 20th century trains on August 27th at 11:00 a.m. at the Red Car Museum. Councilman Boyd mentioned that in the Council agenda there were three contract document packets and suggested that the full packets are likely not necessary given their size, the staff reports have been detailed and precise and should be sufficient unless otherwise noted, however receipt of the detailed plans and drawings are appreciated. He mentioned that his town hall session scheduled for August 31st will be canceled and rescheduled, especially since Mayor Yost has a session scheduled for the prior evening. Councilman Boyd noted recent letters in the local papers regarding City Attorney fees, to which he clarified that the Council has made every attempt to lessen the impact of ~ttorney fee costs that are passed on to the taxpayers, the amount has been reduced by percentage points over the past two budget cycles, there was mention that when entering into development issues there are often lawsuits, the cost of which are passed on to the taxpayers, to which he clarified that in the case of such legal issues the costs are paid by the developer, not the City, that is often brought to the Council in the form of an agreement such as an MOU, as Counci1member Campbell has made reference to, where the taxpayers do not incur costs associated with the development, to allege that the City pays $1,500 a day for attorney fees is wrong, the fee is about $135 per hour which is reasonable for an attorney in todays practice, in private practice that can range from $250 to $500 or more, the City budgets for a retainer each month, additional hours as needed, the annual budget is about $280,000 and that is about one percent of the annual budget, to that he said the legal counsel of Richards, Watson and Gershon have done an exceptional job representing and protecting the City, they represent a number other cities in Southern California and have an excellent reputation. Mayor Yost announced again his townhall meeting scheduled for August 30th at the Senior Center, there will be representatives of the Hellman project present to discuss the status of that development proposal. He mentioned the I I I 8-23-99 / 8-24-99 holding of this years surfing contest and that the Mayor got the first wave of the contest. Mayor Yost mentioned that a friend is losing her battle with cancer, her family has decorated their home in the Halloween motif as that is her favorite holiday, said he will be doing so also, and invited others to do so as well. I CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items identified on the agenda, a conference with legal counsel with regard to existing litigation, the City of Los Alamitos et al versus City of Seal Beach pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), and personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 11:05 p.m. and reconvened at 11:45 p.m. with Mayor Yost calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed the items identified on the agenda as well as received a report on the Hellman matter which came to attention after the posting of the agenda, there were no actions taken on any matter. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned the meeting until Tuesday, August 24th at 2:30 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 11:49 p.m. I Cit of Approved: ~ Attest: Seal Beach, California August 24, 1999 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 2:35 p.m. with Mayor ProTem Doane calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor ProTem Doane Councilmembers Boyd, Snow Absent: Mayor Yost, Counci1member Campbell Counci1member Campbell arrived at 2:36 p.m. Also Present: Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Ms. Yeo, City Clerk