Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1997-05-05 5-5-97 Seal Beach, California May 5, 1997 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:01 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers, Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hastings moved, second by Brown, to approve the order of the agenda as presented. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings None Motion carried I PUBLIC FORUM - BIXBY RANCH COMPANY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Forsythe described the topic of discussion as an issue, an issue that should be kept in perspective, an issue that will come and go. The intent is to come to some solution of this issue, comments from those present will provide guidance in that direction, and hopefully relieve the concern of friends and neighbors not speaking to one another. The Mayor called for compliance with the rules of conduct for this forum, respect for the speakers, respect for opposing opinions, no disruptive comments from the audience, requested that opinions be kept to the issue, personal attacks will not be tolerated, each speaker allowed a period of five minutes, if an individual can speak collectively for others, that will be appreciated and in that case if more speaking time is necessary that will be given consideration. She asked that all persons conduct themselves in a professional manner, the intent is to seek input, if the meeting gets 'out of control a recess will be declared, and if that does not resolve the conduct, persons will be requested to leave or the meeting will be adjourned. With regard to specific questions of the Councilor staff, Mayor Forsythe requested that they be posed, they will be recorded and if possible a response will be provided at the conclusion of the public input, thus eliminating dialogue or debate, and too, asked that the Council refrain from any dialogue with the speakers, also, the intent is to conclude the meeting by 9:30 p.m. The City Manager noted that given the large audience it is presumed that there is a wide spectrum of background, knowledge, and information as to how this issue started, what the issues are, and how it has reached its current status. The Manager offered a brief summary as to his understanding of the sequence of events to the present, to which he pointed out that his comments would not be technical in nature as there is no application pending with the City, however stated if there are technical questions he would make note of them for eventual response, also in that City Hall is somewhat of a clearing house for ideas and suggestions, offered to share I 5-5-97 information that may not be commonly known to all. The Manager stated in November, 1995 the City Council was scheduled to deliberate the Environmental Impact Report and other pertinent documents relating to the mixed use, housing and commercial, plan proposed by the Bixby Company, however in their opinion sensed that the mixed use plan did not have much chance of being approved therefore Bixby elected to withdraw that plan. At the time of withdrawal Bixby representatives indicated their intent to proceed with development of approximately twenty-three acres of their property in three different segments under the existing commercial zoning, the tennis club site, the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson, and the parcel across from the Rossmoor Center, their intent was to do this by means of obtaining an over-the-counter building permit or through the conditional use permit process. As that became known as well as Bixby's plan to sell one of the parcels to Marriott for development as a senior assisted care facility on the tennis court site, considerable concern was expressed, as this was not proposed under the mixed use plan. At that point Councilmember Campbell contacted and selected five individuals having strong feelings counter to hers and those of the Planning Commission who rejected the mixed use plan, to meet with a like number of individuals having opinions similar to hers, for the purpose of discussing what the issues were, the points of disagreement, the areas of specific interests, the differences were basically directed to not wanting massive development, high intensity commercial, loss of the golf course, loss of the AFRC and development of that land, etc., the conflict continued as to a mixed use plan with a housing component, residential in any area of the AFRC flight facilities, and it seemed to be understood that continuation of that impasse would result in Bixby moving forward to develop under the existing.zoning, which meant the tennis courts could be demolished and application could be made to develop the senior assisted care facility at that location, application could also be made for commercial uses at the corner of the Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson and northerly on the Boulevard, as currently zoned, by means of an over-the-counter building permit. He expressed belief that the committee of ten came to an understanding that failing to reach a consensus, compromise, or agreement to do something different would likely result in continued impasse, as the City and community could not come to some agreement as to what type of development to support, therefore Bixby would be left to build whatever they could under existing zoning. with that in mind the committee of ten came to agreement that something different should be submitted to Bixby, the basic parameters for that was that Bixby be requested to submit an informal layout of a project consisting of some housing, some limited commercial, yet meet the parameters of leaving the tennis facility in tact and giving that facility to the City, set aside approximately five acres at the corner of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard to be used for future freeway ramp improvements, the remainder of that site to have some commercial development, $bme commercial on the northerly Boulevard site, in addition, t~e key condition, agreed to by the opposing sides, was that any housing be completely outside the seventy-eight acre boundary that is known as the previous leased property for the crash zone. He reported that he had submitted those parameters to BiXby, they in turn submitted a plan that met those parameters with the exception of the condition to keep the residential totally outside the seventy-eight acre previously leased land, the mixed use plan encroached by I I I I I I 5-5-97 about eighteen acres, the alternative plan encroached approximately ten acres. The Manager said the committee of ten considered the alternative for a few weeks, spoke with their neighbors in the interim, the individuals that initially supported the mixed use plan felt that the alternative was inferior yet in the interest of compromise hesitantly lent their support, the other half of the committee said they could have supported the alternative had it met all of the constraints and kept all of the housing completely out of the previously leased land. The committee had met about every other week for six months, at this point it was felt the effort had been made, the committee did the best they could, the alternative was what is termed to be a committee plan which is likely inferior to a plan designed by architects and land planners, not the best process for designing a project, and, given that the constraints were significant, Bixby said they could not meet them as they did not pencil out. The Manager noted that there has never been a consensus as to how to develop the Bixby property, rather, a deeply divided community, the failure to reach a consensus or compromise puts this issue back at an impasse, if there could be some agreement a plan could be processed, the City could work with Bixby to ensure the parameters are met, without a consensus or compromise the result is what Bixby is presently moving towards, selling the property and developing it under the current zoning, which they are entitled to do. The Council took a five minute recess .at 7:26 p.m. to arrange for additional seating for the audience. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience to present their comments. * Mr. Al Kime, College Park East resident since 1980, directed his comments to the parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson known as the Arco site and to the tennis club site; his understanding is that dedications of land to the city are required to accomplish the necessary road widening in preparation for the freeway overpass bridge widening and seismic retrofit in the form of forty-eight to fifty feet of land on Seal Beach Boulevard from the center line of Lampson to the new bridge width and approximately thirty-three feet on the south side of Lampson from the new center line of the Boulevard due east approximately one thousand feet; the first would accommodate an upgraded meridian, two additional car lanes on Seal Beach Boulevard, a bus turn out, a bike lane, a sidewalk, parkway, and revised northbound freeway entrance, the second would accommodate an upgraded meridian and one additional car lane on Lampson, a bus turn out, a bike lane, a sidewalk, and parkway; noted that no left turns can be permitted from that property onto either the Boulevard of Lampson due to the impact of traffic flow; offered that when forty- eight to fifty feet is taken from the front of the 405 on and off ramps a significant modification to the ramps will be needed which will require further land dedications on the southern portion of this property; now is the time to address and plan for those dedications or acquisitions as they will impact any proposed development of the site; those dedications or acquisitions will amount to three and a half to six acres to properly configure the roads and accesses; that redesigned acreage should be downzoned from C-2 to C-1 5-5-97 to preclude construction of any type of hotel/motel on this property; personal preference would be to see the finalized acreage transformed to an upgrade nursery type business such as Rogers Gardens or a Ruth Chris or Outback type steak house; proposed that the City offer to buy the Tennis Club site from the Bixby Company at the assessed value of $1,070,004, the site then modified to meet a portion of the park deficit; and called upon other Seal Beach neighborhoods to support this proposal. I * Ms. Betty Forster, College Park East, stated she has never attended a meeting before, does not belong to any side of the issue, and is upset with the bickering; asked to see the EIR for the newest plan; Bixby has a right to build on their own property; a compromise should come about and should have a long time ago; in the past there was argument with regard to the Office Park, she drove past that field of weeds each day, today there is a beautiful building and nice restaurant, the 7th Street connector is great, the entire area looks good, from her experience the traffic is not bad; if traffic is the issue, it is coming from Cypress, from people who are avoiding the freeways, traffic is the result of having a freeway ramp; suggested that people stop fighting, get together, and do something; she would not like to have a low cost motel, would like the tennis club kept for the community, allow some commercial, quality development, but not all commercial. * Mr. Joe Siler, twenty-five year College Park East resident, stated he has been involved with Bixby proposals since about 1990, this proposed project felt to be the most important question faced by College Park East; what is wanted is to minimize the traffic in the area, lock in the golf course, preserve the tennis club, the look and feel of Lampson is liked as an entry and exit with the golf course and greenbelt, Seal Beach Boulevard is liked for its eucalyptus trees and the golf course in the distance, these the things that are wanted to be preserved; most likely everyone's first choice would be to leave things the way they are, no change, but that is really not an option, Bixby has the right to develop their land, certain things happened that indicated Bixby was going to move forward with some kind of development, it was then incumbent for he and others to try to have as much input and influence on the type of development to better the community; the AFRC was once the Los Alamitos Naval Air Station, it then operated high performance jets, they had a crash zone, that zone extended into seventy-eight acres of Bixby property, leased from Bixby, in the mid-1980's the Naval Air Station closed, in transition finally became the AFRC, instead of high performance jets they then had ninety-seven percent helicopters having significantly different flight patterns and noise contours, they no longer needed the seventy-eight acres even though the government could have bought that land for a permanent crash zone if they had wanted it, the government chose not to do that, rather, released the seventy-eight acres when the lease expired back to Bixby, Bixby then had seventy-eight acres on which they could move the golf course into the interior, freeing like acreage on the periphery, considerable land for development; some College Park East people did not want that to occur; the people and Bixby had just gone through a fight relating I I 5-5-97 I to the Office Park, it was felt that building was too tall as originally planned, the people actually got the height reduced, Bixby remembered that fight, I opposed Bixby at that particular time; within a couple of years Bixby came to the Council representative and said they planned to develop their property, at that time they wanted to compromise, take the community concerns into account, rather than what had occurred with the Office Park; the Council representative then called a meeting, believed to be sometime in 1990 at the SWIRL building, about one hundred people attended, the question was presented 'do you want to let Bixby build whatever they want to build, it is their property, or do you want to fight them on anything they build, we want the land left vacant, or do you want to work out a compromise;' ninety percent of the people at that meeting voted in favor of a compromise; following that meeting a committee was formed, meetings with Bixby started, there were a number of concerns, many of those have been mentioned, the committee wanted to make certain that any plan would be compatible with the AFRC, the desire being that the AFRC stay, another massive urban development was not wanted, the desire was to lock in the golf course, save the tennis club even though commercially zoned, an assurance that there would be a contribution to the City in terms of revenue as well that would exceed whatever the cost of the development would be, also that there be an agreement that would prevent any future Bixby development, a commitment from Bixby that there would be no piecemeal, no going back to the Council for added development; all of those things were obtained over the years, additionally the eucalyptus grove was preserved, certain lots along Lampson were secured as a guarantee that the area would be open and the bushes would not overgrow the view of the golf course, it was made certain that Bixby did not propose postage stamp lots for the proposed golf course homes, rather sixty-six hundred square foot lots, Bixby agreed, a greenbelt along the south side of Lampson where there are two golf holes was requested, Bixby agreed to a three acre landscaped urban forest in that area with bevels and berms that would prevent view of parked cars, enough trees so that a building would be screened, as much of a green look as there is today; unfortunately those plans did not come into fruition, the Councilperson opposed the plans, evidently did not believe that Bixby would ever build; the next Council representative's view has been to take into account the AFRC and express concerns about the crash zone, even though the crash zone has not existed for about twenty years, there is no crash zone, that crash zone has been verified as not being present, was not required by the EIR when the mixed use plan was presented, also verified by the ACUIZ study that was put out by the AFRC in 1994, they said there are no prohibited noise zones and no prohibited crash zones on the Bixby property where homes were proposed, therefore there is no legal or proper reason for golf course homes' to be turned down at that location, the question then is if it is wise to ask for homes to be there and is it something that the community wants; at the time the military returned the seventy-eight acres to Bixby they in fact voted that they did not need or have any requirement for a crash zone at that location, therefore the concern with crash zones is inappropriate; the AFRC changed its mix of aircraft from high performance Navy I I 5-5-97 jets to helicopters, ninety-seven percent of the flights are helicopters, roughly fifty thousand operations per year or twenty-five thousand take-offs and the same number of landings, only three percent or seven hundred fifty a year are fixed wing aircraft, about two-thirds of those are small shuttle aircraft, less than one heavy duty multi-jet aircraft takes off from that base per day, maybe an average of five a week; whatever sounds they produce are substantially the same in College Park East, only two to three decibels difference between the Bixby proposed home sites and the College Park East area, the human ear can only distinguish three decibels, therefore for all practical purposes the sound, even from the heavy duty jets which come closest to Bixby homes is substantially the same as College Park East, the sound lasts about thirty seconds each, flights are over the very location where people today pay thousands of dollars to play golf, yet some people are saying the noise is so overbearing that you could not possibly build homes; the plans that Bixby presented have been rejected, they first went to the Environmental Board, that Board compared the so-called unmitigatable factors, which were four, yet those factors only exist if they are compared to vacant land, they do not exist if they are compared to a commercial development, which is the real alternate use of some of the Bixby property, as an example it was said that farmland would be lost, Bixby grows sod, in the area they grow sod is where they want to move the golf course, therefore instead of having farmland where the grass is picked up and sold there would be grass all the time for golf, that does not seem to be a very big difference nor should an Environmental Board worry about that; the Board worried about air pollution, that motor vehicles cause air pollution, yet there will be more traffic from an all commercial plan so there will be more air pollution if one considers the real alternatives, vacant land is what they compared~ as pointed out, the reason the noise contours changed is because the mix of aircraft changed; at least three surveys have been taken in the CPE community as to whether the citizens prefer golf course homes on the property or whether they prefer an all commercial development, every survey was overwhelmingly in favor of residential development, in fact the Council could take a survey of the people present at this meeting, even the survey by the current Councilperson showed that, other than vacant land, residential won over commercial; there is interest in minimizing traffic, commercial produces substantially more traffic than does residential, one acre of commercial generates about one hundred sixty cars per day, one acre of golf course homes generates forty-three cars, someone could argue with those numbers and claim they are ten percent off one way or the other, yet if one is worried about traffic in the community those numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of residential development; Bixby is now talking about developing their twenty-three acres commercially without the consent of the Councilor the community, they have the right to build office buildings and retail stores without even going to the Planning Commission, if they request a conditional use permit the Planning Commission and Council does not have discretion in those areas, they have to find bonafide reasons to turn them down, and they can be reviewed in court, so the chances are that Bixby is going to find something to do, the community I I I I I I 5-5-97 can delay and stall but sooner or later Bixby is going to develop its twenty-three acres; now they are talking about developing ninety-four acres, once again the piecemeal fashion, recreational golf, public driving ranges, things that will bring in traffic, some have asked how much traffic and the answer is about thirty- two thousand cars a day if all ninety-four acres were developed, and that only attributes about one-half of the traffic to the recreational golf development that would occur if there were all commercial development; in this community there are other examples of how people feel about the project, for the Hellman area people prefer residences and golf course, that is what they want, we want the same thing; we do our share in terms of revenue, there is already the Rossmoor Center, the largest Center in the City, one that is understood to produce about twenty-five percent of the sales tax, there is the Bixby Office Park, perhaps the largest office park in the City, the area does its share, the EIR pointed out this project would generate nearly four dollars for everyone that would be spent in the area and that assuming that the tennis club and community center would be supported from those funds, once again the area is prepared to do its share; golf course homes operate at a profit to the City, each golf course home makes more than a thousand dollars per year net to the City over the cost of supporting the occupants of that golf course home; the Council represents all of the City, it is their obligation to take into account what the majority wants in College Park East, once again, ask that the Council ask tonight how many people want golf course homes, the residential component in this plan, how many people want all commercial; it is thought that the Council will find that the people want residential golf course home development, it is hoped the Council would support that, it is hoped that this is not just a chance to talk, it is hoped the Council is listening. * Mr. Jay Covington, Seal Beach resident from 1964 until 1988, during that time was involved in every effort to obtain open space, recreational parkland in the City; many of Mr. Siler's comments were correct; not here to take sides, his presence is that of a historian, people need to know the background, how some of the problems occurred when the Council agreed to things that were not in the interest of the City or College Park East, without the background it may not be possible to determine what the options are; first resided in College Park West, there was no parkland until lease rights were obtained for the Edison Company land; moved to College Park East because of the jet aircraft, there were over two thousand children, no schools within the area, however two elementary and one middle school should have been required to be dedicated, that at least thirty-five acres; the County Master Plan called for four acres per thousand for local and neighborhood parks, about twenty- five acres, rather, there were a couple of scrap acres along the freeway for park use, only with community involvement and threatened lawsuits was Bluebell and Heather parks obtained, parkland still deficient by about twenty acres; school land could have been taken on a reserve site basis even if it could not be built, the only site that is seen as evidence today is the SWIRL property that was going to be an elementary school, neither the School District or the City insisted on the 5-5-97 taking of that land, therefore no contribution by BixbY1 the term 'open vista' was used for the golf course to justify the lack of twenty acres of parkland and approximately thirty-five acres of school site that would never be available for the residents or children, a moral and probably legal obligation of BixbY1 before allowing any development of the golf course land for any purpose that will increase the present density, since Bixby has had tax and profit advantages and use of that land for over thirty years, before any additional gain is given to them, the Council and the people should use this opportunity to make certain that some of the fifty- five acres of open space, recreation land is restored to College Park East and the CitY1 have seen nothing that refers to this shortfall 1 with regard to the Bixby Office Park, the height came down because of danger from the takeoff flight paths, also to reduce the density, traffic flow was an issue, the roadway from Seal Beach Boulevard to 7th Street is the result of the people, was not originally proposed by Bixby, that because at peak traffic hours the bridge was a bottleneck and could likely impact the route of emergency vehicles1 before any development make certain that the widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge is not just a promise but paid for and assured, should be built before any other consideration1 take this opportunity to correct the errors of the 1960's. I * Ms. Audrey Kime, College Park East resident since 1980, read her prepared comments with regard to public confusion and the Bixby Company as a neighbor1 believes there is no Bixby plan or proposal before the Planning Commission or Counci11 in that case it must be recognized that reference to plans is fictitious, a trial to see what will be acceptable and what will generate the most hysteria, force acceptance of the least offensive of the optional plans when brought forward 1 the imaginary plans, land uses and claims change from flier to flier; the motel and RIG development move around 1 RIG development is shown in areas were the City has flood control easements and no structures are allowed; if Bixby sells the golf course the easement runs with the land1 fliers state the all- commercial plan will generate 32,000 car trips per day, the mythical senior care facility, motel, and gas station can't generate 32,000 trips a daY1 they don't bring forward a plan but criticize the Councilperson for not cutting a dea11 virtually any use mentioned in fliers will require a Conditional Use Permit, that requires a public hearing, the public has a right to be heard, to protest, if not compatible with the surrounding area how could the Commission or Council grant a use1 the claim that tonight is the last chance to have golf course homes is not true1 there will be a public hearing for any plan that requires a CUP1 propose Bixby come forward if they have a plan, work with the people to make it fit the communitY1 donate the Tennis Club and grounds to elevate the park deficit1 establish an endowment of $750,000 for each of the next five years for repairs and refurbishment of that facility and needed youth activities1 there is no plan before the City, the people will be heard. I I * Ms. Linda Thomason, College Park East, determined to support the mixed use plan as it was felt to be best for I I I 5-5-97 future property values in College Park East~ have seen the City in too many fights over the past twenty-five years where community volunteers found themselves pitted against big corporations at big odds, that was not again appealing~ the best situation is for representatives of the community to sit down with the developer in a non- confrontational atmosphere and work out a plan that would best meet the needs of both sides, that is just what happened, how many neighborhoods ever get that opportunity~ we support the mixed use plan, a plan worked out by a group of neighbors willing to volunteer their time to develop the best solution for all~ the good thing about College Park East is that it is not ringed by commercial streets, the approach is a winding road through a golf course, that is why they bought, others feel the same, that is important to preserve~ major consideration of homeowners is the future of property values~ it is believed that commercial development, by default, along Lampson is an immediate threat to the neighborhoods~ the mixed plan calls for homes around the golf course, accessed from Seal Beach Boulevard, only ten and a half acres of commercial at the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson~ existing homes would benefit from having more nice homes~ the default plan would be twenty-three acres of commercial beginning at the Tennis Club site plus as much as eighty additional acres zoned R-G along the Boulevard and Lampson~ the mixed use plan has many benefits to College Park East, commercial would be at the corner, that minimized by three acres of urban forest landscaping, the Tennis Club given to the City for a use that the residents choose, the entrance to the golf club moved to the light at Basswood, eliminating cars pulling out onto Lampson at a near-blind curve~ no one is asking for backroom deals without public hearings, rather asking the Council to support the mixed use, revised EIR, plan that calls for less commercial and nice homes, then submit it to the Planning Commission for public hearings~ is this commercial development being allowed to take place because the City expects to increase its sales tax revenue~ is that fair to College Park East to have to accept added commercial in the neighborhood~ that area of the City already has Rossmoor Center that is said to generate twenty-five percent of the sales tax and the mixed use plan allows more commercial as well; Lampson was not built to carry the heavy load of traffic that increased commercial development would bring~ expensive homes bring in more revenue~ commercial may bring in more tax revenue but also six times more traffic during the day and at peak hours~ surveys have shown that residents overwhelmingly prefer homes, property values are adversely affected by commercial, without the mixed use plan there will be commercial all along Lampson, without an upgrade of Lampson, commercial rather than a community center at the tennis club site, expensive homes do pay for themselves~ homeowners adjacent to the Hellman land did not want commercial either~ the question is why should College Park East homeowners be asked to accept increased commercial in their neighborhood where it will have an adverse affect on College Park East and property values. * Mr. Larry Baish, ten year College Park East resident, provided visual aids relating to noise contours~ claimed that some people do not see a problem building homes at 5-5-97 the end of a runway; two members of the Airport Land Use Commission who once took planes down the AFRC runway were against the Bixby housing plan when it came before the Commission in August, 1995, they abstained from voting for the project as they said it would close down the Base in a few years; new construction is not permitted in excessive noise areas, that defined as 65 decibels; at the last ALUC meeting a developer presented a project in Portola Hills that was 4.8 miles away from the El Toro runway in a high noise contour area, it was turned down because of the noise contours; the meeting before a developer presented a project that was 5.5 miles from the end of the runway and it too was turned down; why are the Bixby proposed homes, which are only two thousand feet from the end of the runway, not in an excessive noise contour area; was told that Bixby had the noise contours moved off of their property, they ended up over the west end of College Park East; want them off of our homes; if Bixby gets a zone change before the noise contours are moved they will never be off of the residents homes; have been told if my home is under a flight path that will reduce value by ten to fifteen percent, the College Park East homes are not in a flight path but in a designated noise area, that will have financial impact on selling the property; the Realtors Association requires that any material fact must be disclosed when a property is sold, anything that affects the value of the house or the quality of life, excessive noise is a material fact and must be disclosed; want the noise contours off our homes, do not want planes flying over us so that land will be free to be built on by Bixby, do not let Bixby make money at the expense of the residents by means of reduced values and quality of life, no to residential homes in that area; made reference to a diagram of the initial noise curvatures, revised in 1994 showing the contours over the College Park East area; the noise contours never could have been there when College Park East was built in"the 1960's; a recent study shows the contours have been shifted to over three hundred homes; could support some development but Bixby needs to be more truthful and forthcoming in what they present. I I * Mr. Walt Horne, College Park East, referenced prior comment with regard to vehicle trips of the two plans citing six thousand and thirty-two thousand; previous publications from the same group referred to the same plan as having thirteen thousand trips; comment tonight also that the thirty-two thousand included development of ninety-four acres; behooves all to question the facts contained in publications; one of his concerns, the potential closing of the air base upon approval of the Bixby plan where they would build in the crash zone; the City would face the problem of people living in $600,000 homes at the end of the runway and be irate if jets took off; there would be no end to the call for closure of the base; convinced that once the crash zone is occupied in a short period of time the base will be closed; after development of the thirteen hundred acres there would be a new and less desirable lifestyle in that section of the City; base closure would put Los Alamitos in control of defining development of that property for commercial or residential; Bixby supporters say building in the crash zone will not impact a decision to close the base; encroachment has been and will continue to be a concern I I I I 5-5-97 of the base occupants; in 1988 then Assistant Secretary of the Army wrote in a letter to the Mayor of Los A1amitos that 'encroachment continues to be a concern to us, the AFRC is the only army installation in Southern California where component aviation units are stationed"; encroachment will continue to be a problem, particularly in the southwest end of the runway where most of the flights take off; at a recent Airport Land Use Commission meeting a member of the Aircraft Operators Pilot Association said sixty percent of all aircraft accidents occur during takeoff and within the first four miles of the runway; they have not said that Seal Beach would not be liable if there were a crashl a comment of a Lt. Colonel in the office of the Secretary of the Air Force stated that encroachment is a big factor in considering a base for closure, and named such bases in California; some Bixby supporters are now saying so what if the base closes, that is a concern for this community; AFRC is the source of disaster support for Seal Beach as well as all of Southern California; can not afford to encroach on the base or place people in harms way at the end of the runway; no secret that City is divided over this issue; Bixby withdrew plan before Councilperson took office; Councilperson designated a citizens committee to reach a consensus even without a plan, had difficulty initially, then agreed to negotiate and try to reach consensus, I was member; those not in support of Bixby plan made effort to compromise, would not opt for plan that threatened base or put homes in the crash zonel proposed some potential options, develop tennis club as part of residential plan and have Bixby provide seven acres elsewhere, move the golf course homes along Lampson by Basswood to keep residential out of crash zone, relocate Lampson for additional room to build homes away from the runway and eliminate the curve, put homes on the nine plus acres by the Mobile Station and move the commercial towards the runway path; Bixby supporters rejected, did not put forth alternatives other than the revised Bixby plan; until the Bixby supporters develop a compromise plan or Bixby presents another plan to the City it is recommended neither the Councilperson or the Council spend more time on this issue. * Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, noted there were to have been no personal attacks, technically there has not, but one does take offense to references of pro- development, pro-Bixby supporters, etc., that is an attempt to put people in bed with the developer, and is not truel everyone has worked against development for many years, such reference an attempt to infer backroom deals or bribes, that is not true; the reversion issue brought up about two years ago should have been looked into; if true, that information should be made available; no one wants to make a wrong decision for the community; asked if there are uses for the Bixby property for which only an over-the-counter permit would be required, an explanation as well of an over-the- counter permit, a conditional use permit, and a development agreement; it has been stated that this project would require FEMA approval; City should provide citizens with accurate facts; College Park East is not a divided community, does work together even when there is disagreement, will continue to be friends and neighbors. 5-5-97 * Mr. Phil Fife, College Park East resident since 1970, comments to be directed to whether construction of housing in the area of the golf course property proposed by Bixby would force closure of the base, if so, what would folloWl have heard the story for a long time that if the base closed it would revert to Bixby and they would probably build fifteen thousand homes within forty-five days or lessl although that an astonishing story, he went to the County Recorder's office, obtained copies of all of the deeds and decrees of condemnation that apply to the assembly of the Los Alamitos Air Station 1 have copy for the Council that shows where each parcel came froml there were twenty-five different contributing land owners through the condemnation process 1 the Navy commenced by taking the center or core of the base, owned by Suzanne Bryant Bixby, started condemnation procedures, final settlement in 1942 was $125,000 for one hundred fifty-seven acres of landl the same process with each land ownerl in looking at the deeds there is no reversion right to any prior owner of the property should the Navy or government ever cease its interest in that landl in every case the U.S.A. took title in fee simple absolute, the same type of title to ones residence, if one decides they no longer want their house it does not revert back to whomever it was bought from, it is the individual's property, yet the United States can buy anything it wants to, nothing can be done about it except payment of fair value for the land, if a price can not be agreed to, a court sets the price after a trial process, those lawsuits settle all the time, in the case of the base they were all settledl that land belongs to the government, they paid value for it, they took title to itl what happens if the base were ever to close, in his view that would be only if the federal government decided a disaster support area were no longer needed for this area or they could no longer afford it, there is no other logical location to place one, this is a perfect centrally located area1 his concern is not that the base would close, that there would suddenly be massive development, rather, that the base would expand its operations and not permit military sources 1 that because it is known there is a tremendous under capacity of passenger airport usage in the Southern California areal there are not nearly enough airports, there is already saturation, the projections are for massive increases of air traffic passengers and air traffic cargol one of the logical first steps to off-load a facility like LAX is to move Federal Express and UPS to a base like Los Alamitos, a massive runway, no need for a passenger terminal, just haul freight in and out1 it seems a way to make it less likely for that to happen is to encroach the southwest end, put the kind of development in that is compatible with present base operation which makes it discouraging for the base to expand its operations as a result of a joint agreement between the FAA and the militarY1 the military would derive revenue for the shared use of the base to help its budget1 with respect to the noise contours, they are not floated around at political whim or guesswork, they are floated as a result of the source of the noisel the noise generated by the aircraft takeoff pattern, that pattern is across two golf course holes, heads south along the San Diego Freeway, that is the military takeoff pattern, a one-eighty south turn, if that were not the pattern the flights would interfere with the I I I 5-5-97 I Long Beach Airport pattern; if there is thought that Bixby got the Armed Forces Reserve Center to change its flight patterns, that is crazy; they fly the planes the way they always have and generate the noise they generate; the noise of the 1960's was probably there all the time, it can not be believed that they flew straight over Rossmoor or to the north of the base; therefore there is no question as to having the noise contours moved unless one wants to try to convince the AFRC to fly its planes in some other direction, they are not going to do that, they are going to fly their planes in the air channel they have in this intensely busy air traffic area in Southern California as it now stands; going back, what would happen if the base did close for any reason whatsoever, how are bases disposed of; there have been about two thousand military bases closed since World War II, hundreds more after the Cold War, in not one instance has the government ceded property that it paid value for to any private owner from which it previously acquired the property, it is not permitted to do that by law, not permitted to do that by the Constitution, the government must get value for its property, it can not make a gift of public funds to a private individual any more than the city of Seal Beach can, neither can the State, no government can do that, the taxpayers paid for the base and it can not be given away; such property first goes to any other federal government agency, if they do not want it the facility then drops down to the lead civilian agency, in this case likely the City of Los Alamitos or the County of Orange; it is known that the Irvine Company owns most of south Orange County', the El Toro facility had to have been acquired in substantial part from the James Irvine Company, the predecessor of the Irvine Company, that land will not revert to the Irvine Company, it will be disposed of by whatever plan is worked out; the State of California has a Military Base Closure Authority Act, we have a representative on the El Toro facility committee because the State recognizes it is a huge problem with bases closing and no one city should have dictatorial power over everyone affected by the closure, everyone reasonably affected has a say in the matter, the County and the cities, which is known will take years; the question, why is there such pressure for an airport in south Orange County, because there is a desperate need for more airport capacity, as much as the people in that area do not want it, they will likely get an airport; that pressure is not limited to south Orange County, it is everywhere, the real danger with the AFRC is expansion of the airport as it is open and inviting for them to do it; the fundamental question is why are golf course homes absolutely out of the question in District Four, in an area which the base itself says it is not incompatible with their uses or interferes with their operations, yet golf course homes are okay south of the freeway on the Hellman property, land that was pronounced unsafe for any residential development some eight years ago; massive commercial, twenty-three or whatever acres, City Manager stated there are a number of uses that only requires a permit, construction is started, no public hearings in the process whatsoever; someone may believe that the assisted senior living center can be stopped, but it will not be possible to stop a strip shopping center on that property; commercial is not wanted at the entry to the College I I 5-5-97 Park area; it would be nice to twist Bixby's arm, do anything possible to get fifty acres of park, being a realist, in reality Bixby can not be muscled, they can muscle the City; the environmental documents, etc. was covered when the original zoning was placed on the property; one can not go back and correct mistakes that previous Council's made; believe what is best is to make the best deal possible with Bixby; it was thought that that was what the prior committee accomplished after five years of effort, yet it was rejected again; it is felt that if the City does not deal with Bixby, whether it is a less than desired motel or assisted living center, commercial structures will spring up on the tennis club site; the beginning of a down turn for the College Park East area, becoming the cash cow and commercial center for the City of Seal Beach; if that happens there will be increased traffic and a decline of property values; that is believed to be the real issue that brought people to this meeting. I * Mr. Frank Laszlo, College Park East, former Councilmember, responding to statements of the last speaker, reminded that there was a Council election about a year ago, main issue was the Bixby project, the citizens of College Park East turned down the candidate supporting the Bixby project by a nearly two to one margin; glad to hear and have the speakers authority that the base will not close; it was said that the noise contours do not just move, to which he stated he was on the Council and the Airport Land Use Commission and saw how they move; the original contours were over a proposed Bixby housing site in 1987; between 1988 and 1994 the contours were moved from the proposed housing site to the area now shown; the Airport Land Use Commission allowed that contour to move, it is understood there is a problem with how the ALUC handled that, and it must be reconsidered; the noise contours of sixty-five decibels now come over College Park East, moved in 1994; that means when a house is sold that information must be placed on the deed and the purchaser notified; the noise contours are lowering property values in College Park East, people are going to suffer financially; if this project is allowed to be built then Bixby can not move the noise contours back to where they belong, if not built then the noise contours can still be moved back; people living in the affected area should check the accuracy of his statements with realtors before this plan is approved. I It was the or~er of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:47 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:01 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. * Mr. Mel Kolumbic, twenty-four year College Park East resident, inquired if the Bixby property is zoned for residential or not - said he knew it was not; to change zoning to residential would require at least three of the five Council votes - said the answer is yes; is Bixby trying to build residential on the property - said the answer is yes; the people of College Park East voted for the Council representative by a large margin, she has been abused since election; the understanding was that there would be no zoning changes to increase density; I am against any housing in the Bixby area, will do anything to prevent it. I I I I 5-5-97 * Mr. Harold Norton, twenty-six year resident, cited his association with the Air Station since 1946i has background knowledge as to what has transpired at the Station; the flight patterns from the Station have not changed since the early 1960's; the contours have changed because the type of aircraft flying out of the Station changed; the contours have been reduced because of jets versus helicopters; he flew jets out of the Station after World War II when the area was basically grass and bean fieldsi there was a north/south runway that was abandoned because of the encroachment of Rossmoor and the cities; to say that the contours will go back to anything other than what they are today is wrong; it has been defined as a very narrow corridor from the end of the runway to and out over the least densely populated area of land, meaning the golf course, Weapons Station, and out over the ocean; the contour changes talked about did not happen as stated; the type of aircraft flown made the difference; some said that houses could not have been built, yet he flew over all of College Park East and Eastgate; now the change of aircraft and change of pattern; the Commander of AFRC tries to work with Los Alamitos, it is hoped that City will continue to work with the Station; no one can say that the station will close if residential is built, not off the end of the runway but north of the runway centerline; all aircraft from the Station depart south therefor how it can be claimed they will travel over the housing project is not known; an aircraft can not make a right hand turn, it takes a radius of turns, the faster the airplane the larger the radius; the helicopters can make short turns and get out much easier; there has been no change to the flight patterns since the 1960's. Mr. Robert Bee, twenty year College Park East resident, his residence is now in the noise contouri people say they can not see any legal or proper reason for not letting Bixby put the homes where they want to; two issues of concern, one is flood control, when the rain comes the golf course becomes a lake, understand the reason for that is that the drainage system in the College Park area is inadequate for the runoff, a storm of two years ago was an examplei glad the golf course was there because if it were not, or it was filled with homes and no longer flood control capable, his home would have been flooded; if that is in fact an easement how could the City think of changing the zoning to allow houses if that could create a flood; secondly, what is the City's liability if the zoning is changed from the present recreational to residential and if there is an accident that takes out a few of the half million dollar homes, what obligation will the city and its citizens have in the case of a liability suit because the homes never should have been there in the first place. * * Ms. Fran Levy, College Park East, she and many others voted for the present Councilperson because they knew her and for various other reasons, not necessarily because they did or did not represent Bixby or wanted Bixby to build or any other reason; she does not want commercial in the College Park East area; many people who are not present do not want commercial; the Council representative did a survey, the answer to that was that the people want residential, park area, that is the answer of the people of College Park Easti as for the 5-5-97 noise area that was discussed, she lives in it, has for twenty-six years, hears only helicopters, it bothers her not at all; maybe a couple times a week a plane goes out, not over the residents heads, rather out over the golf course; the only thing is helicopters, she does not mind them; would like to see the air base stay, but do not want commercial, believes she is talking for many people; would like the City to also do a survey of College Park East to see what the people want; the Mayor has worked with the Hellman Ranch, about to build houses on an earthquake fault, what if there is an earthquake, how is the City going to pay for that, that will be a question no matter where or what you build; if you build a store and a fire truck crashes into it, the City is liable, there will always be liabilities; would like the way of life maintained, not ringed with commercial; would like the senior facility, however up further on Lampson, not near the homes, she is familiar with such facilities, ambulances, change of shifts, truck deliveries, landscapers, at the same time children are going to school, getting on buses, riding bicycles, the senior facility should not be on the tennis court site, not on the corner of Lampson and Basswood, rather, further towards Seal Beach Boulevard, out of the way of kids and the homes. I * Mr. Ken Seiff, College Park East, so there is no misunderstanding, I do not support commercial, and that does not mean I support the Bixby plan; it is implied that if you do not support residential you support commercial, which he resents, that is on fliers and posters, which over-simplifies things; when moved here the Bixby Ranch Company impressed me, how could anyone make money with a golf course and tennis club, but they did, yet the more this issue has gone on the more he has thought about that company; Bixby is having a problem developing their land because it is a difficult piece of land, it is a difficult place, they should have a difficult time developing it; resent the fliers, the most recent, called the default plan, shows the motel, where did the word 'default' come from, maybe it means if we do not do what they want when it is time for them to submit whatever plans and go through the process it is a default; a speaker indicated that Bixby is going to rollover us, if they do they do, I will continue to live here, I will not rollover; it is confusing and interesting that now after twenty-five years the noise patterns are changing and the crash zone has moved into the base; people say Bixby has a right to develop their land, they do, but they do not have a right to do whatever they want with it; you people are giving away zoning, giving away residential golf, zoning is a serious thing in a local setting, it is the only thing to protect one's self except for attending hearings; when the motel goes in the people have to be present to talk about the ingress and egress, it has to be a certain way, that does not mean the people will win, but there is a right to talk about the traffic, there is a right to talk about the flood, the AM/PM mini-mart, the gas station on the corner, the kids will go by that every day; there are only two ways in and out of College Park East, only one is in our City, he too likes the curved street but Lampson is a dangerous street; the best thing for me to do is not to rollover and say that Bixby can do anything they want; the area is now I I I I I 5-5-97 residential golf, do not give that away lightly; they are changing that so that they can put the homes where it is best for them; Bixby has made a lot of money in this area over the years; the area is almost all developed so it is more difficult, Bixby can not get what they want quick enough, they have decided that there is a division in the College Park community, there are personal attacks, which are resented; the Councilperson is not speaking out until she feels the time is right yet Bixby has said nothing about not wanting rancor in the community or that this is not good here; what are we afraid of, if they sell the property, let them, the people will attend the same hearings and deal with whomever owns the land, everything will have to go through the process; feel there is a disrespect for the process, the community, and the people; the Hellman property was mentioned, that was a fight and even lawsuits, the developer had to back off, now they are behaving in a civil manner, that is what is believed needs to happen; it is not a good thing for the community to be divided by this, in fact to be divided is the best thing that could happen for Bixby; if Bixby is not serious about selling why would they get Cushman and Wakefield involved; consultant and attorney costs are all deductible; we have a right to talk about the motel, the traffic, how it is going to be laid out; I do not want a motel or a care facility, it is a difficult situation and the people should not be divided by that; if Bixby were a civic minded company they could walk away from this, they are not, they are in it to make money, that is okay; the thing about the noise patterns and the end of the base, maybe that just happened to occur because of the change from jets, but it is awfully coincidental, I am suspicious; the base can not be revested back to Bixby, but let's look at the Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, the government said no one was entitled to it, the government tried to give it to their agencies, they did not want it, tried the City, they did not want it, then it went to developers for development; maybe the base will not close, but I will be suspicious, and if there is just one crash that base will go down, then the base will be developed; believe the point is for people to be faithful to each other, if divided this is where the problems begin; finding it to be more difficult to compromise with Bixby; I do not want commercial but that does not mean I want their plan, I voted for residential and open space in the surveys as well, it insults me to have it said that I am in the ninety percent that must want their plan or I must want commercial; it is now said that the golf course is at risk and may be closed, that is scare tactics; I will be there in the end, knowing I tried to stop it or make it better, it is worth the fight. * Mr. Joe Siefried, eleven year resident. It needs to be made clear that Bixby is in the business of making money, they have an obligation to their stockholders to make as much profit as possible; if there is something the citizens want and it happens to fit into their plan where they make the most money, they will put it in, if it doesn't, they won't; tired of rumors of one impending sale after another; has there been any open escrows on the properties by Bixby; none of the rumors seem to materialize, it is part of an on-going plan to coerce the residents to give in to what Bixby wants and makes 5-5-97 the most profit, the building of houses and condominiums; one thing not mentioned is the schools, we have a school administration and board that feel the only way to educate the children is to pack them in; attended school board meeting regarding the proposal to build OCHSA high school where at least ninety percent of the public said that OCHSA has outgrown the district, if it wants to get bigger it has to go someplace else, or stay within the parameters; the board voted unanimously to build a new high school; it is hoped the Council listens to input better than that governing body; we do get money for schools if homes are built, more houses have a tremendous impact on the children and their education in this district; the district currently has twenty-five percent inter-district transfers, actively soliciting students to come to Weaver to fill it up because it is year around; the new school is proposed to be between McAuliff and Los Alamitos Elementary, yet there is not enough land to build the school unless the railroad right-of-way is sold to them; it is believed the personal attacks and name calling only makes things worse and clearly shows the character of those making the statements, they have no character, the boisterous minority who did not get their way through the public election, now believe that by name calling, innuendo, and false rumors they can have their way, that they will now prevail. I * Ms. Eulalee Siler, twenty-six year resident. The noise contours shown this evening are twenty years old, reflect the jet plane patterns when the base was a Navy facility; the contours are not reflective of the noise over College Park East today nor the noise levels for the past twenty years; when the jets left the Station it became the AFRC, primarily for helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft, ninety-seven percent helicopters, yet for twenty years the old contours remain in EIR's and records in the City; after eighteen years the noise profiles were changed, they go over College Park East, and not because Bixby asked the AFRC to change them, rather, that is where the helicopters and fixed wing aircraft fly; the diagrams shown are not applicable; College Park has a drainage problem because of the streets and storm drains in that area, has nothing to do with the Bixby property, drainage systems are rated according to the number of 'years storm' that each section of storm drain can handle; College Park East is rated at ten years for both streets and storm drains; when water goes from College Park under Lampson Avenue to the Bixby property it is rated at twenty-five years, when it goes from the golf course underneath Lampson and the freeway to the Weapons Station it goes to a one hundred year system, from there it flows to Leisure World and another hundred year system, then pumped into the San Gabriel River; if the flooding problem in College Park were to be improved it would require adding more drains and revise the drop from one end of the tract to the other; if Bixby were to build the homes, eighty percent of the drainage will go to Seal Beach Boulevard, only twenty percent will go into the lake on the golf course, those lakes will be increased by thirty percent over what they are now; during the 1994/95 storm there was no flooding on the Bixby property, yet there was flooding in College Park East, the problem is inadequate drainage in College Park, and no matter how I I I I I 5-5-97 many lakes are on the Bixby property the water will go down no faster; if commercial is placed on the Bixby property there will be ten times more people than with residential, and liability in the event a plane crashes on the commercial development. * Mr. Dan Sinks, College Park East. Thank you Mayor and Council for having this meeting; frustrated for the past year with the lack of official information from Councilperson with regard to plans for the Bixby development; would like to have a recreation center in College Park East; would not like to have an inexpensive motel on Lampson; question regarding the process for a development such as this, do not understand when a conditional use permit is required; have heard a lot of statements that Bixby can do nothing on commercial property until the citizens approve it or the Council votes on it, if property is zoned commercial, can commercial be developed on it without any public input or process. * Ms. Anna Devore, Old Ranch Townhomes. Have heard many impressive, intelligent comments at this meeting; implore that the people who draft the fliers not be so inflammatory, try to stick to the facts, feel have been badly manipulated; this could be a first step in trying to find a solution in an intelligent way; work together and stop insulting each other. Mr. Nick Rini, Seal Beach. Suggest that you do not allow anyone to usurp the power and process of government to deal with issues of land development; do not let any interest group circumvent the process that government has put in place; Bixby put forth a plan in writing that had to go through the process of government, assurance that the citizens rights and interests would be heard; that went through the Environmental Commission and the Planning Commission, Bixby then cut their plan short when they thought they did not have the vote of the Council; that is known as government; there is presently no plan before the City or the Council; if you negotiate with a company when they have not put forth anything in writing, you put the City and the electorate at a disadvantage in assuring that you will protect their rights; of interest was a lawyer who spoke of negotiating with Bixby as part of an interest group, Bixby had guaranteed some things, and that those were binding agreements with Bixby, that can not be as agreements dealing with real estate must be in writing"or they are worthless, they are worthless also because there was no consideration exchanged, for a binding contract there must be consideration, he had no authority to give consideration on behalf of the City, would never be held up in court; what is being promoted here is to circumvent the rules and procedures of law again, listen to private interest groups, or allow Bixby through private citizens to represent their plan; understanding is that no plans have been put forth by Bixby as to how they will develop the land; if negotiations are entered into without any written proposals, liability is being extended on behalf of the City; Bixby has made no guarantees because they do not have to; Bixby has put nothing forward in writing to the Council, therefore legally you can not decide anything or you would be putting yourself and the City at a great * 5-5-97 disadvantage; an attorney spoke of a committee and disregarded the Environmental and Planning Commission concerns with regard to the issues that Bixby could not correct such as the drainage and flooding problems, traffic conditions, question is how he could do that without factl decisions should be based on written proposals where all of the facts and evidence is presented so that there can be a reasonable evaluation, not based on word of mouth through some informal Bixby representative 1 critically look at the pluses and minuses of proposalsl a decision is being based on a fear factor 1 it is said that people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat the condemnations of historYl suggested that private interest groups not be allowed to give away something that they have no authority to do; only the elected officials have that authority, the officials are accountable to the citizens, the citizens know the backgrounds and representations of their officialsl the people who come and present their proposals of what Bixby wants, it is not known what their agendas are, they are not elected officials, not accountable to anyone 1 do not throwaway all of the government procedures that have been put in place to help protect the citizens rights. I * Ms. Carla Watson, Catalina Avenue, 30 year plus resident. Thank you to all of the speakersl last speaker probably put a finger on the probleml as co- leader of the anti-Mola group, said other private groups tried to develop the property instead of the City; thanked the eighty-five percent of College Park East people who voted against the Mola projectl literature at that time said a vote against Mola was a vote against Bixby; it was found there was a need to unite on issues; that can be done, it is difficult when one is so wedded to a plan that there is no give and take; as an observer, that is seen in this case, it is personally not known what is the right thing to do, that is up to those in College Park East, for whatever decision there will be support; commended all who spoke positively as it is not known when down the line people will be political bedfellows again; suggested that leadership needs to be looked at, are they trying to bring a solution, trying to meet common ground; there are new people in the community that need to be listened to; scolded those who continually demean their elected representative; tell the truth, if there is something in literature that is not truthful, that incites people, an example would be the letter received from Bixby today with regard to the golf club, assuring that the golf course would not be plowed under, that likely in response to rumors that something was going to happen to the golf course. I I * MS. Barbara Ybaben, 27 year College Park resident. We are for residential and against commercial; why is the Council against residential in our area and not in yours 1 reported a Councilmember called one of their representatives, asked that their main speaker not speak tonight, then said there will never be homes on the golf course; why is this already said and done and this night is for naught. 5-5-97 I To questions relating to the approval processes, what can be granted automatically, by conditional use permit, etc., the City Attorney explained that most people are aware that the Bixby property is zoned differently on different parcels, C-2 south of Lampson and along Seal Beach Boulevard, hotels and motels for the C-2 zone require a conditional use permit, the process for the CUP would be the same as the Bixby plan went through last year, there is first an environmental review, then to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and if appealed it goes to the City Council. The standard for review is whether the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. He confirmed that there are some uses that are automatically permitted in a C-2 zone, the only proposal submitted to the City was the mixed use plan that was going through the process, then withdrawn by Bixby. He explained there is an application for a subdivision map, however that does not address uses, a subdivision of land that will be heard by the Planning Commission in the near future. Another proposal was for an Arco AM/PM mini market, that was returned to the applicant because the Code does not permit such use at the present time. He clarified that there are no applications for a particular use at this time, a hotel or motel use would require a CUP as would certain other uses, should a commercial use not requiring a CUP be received the community will be made aware. With regard to a negative declaration in lieu of an environmental impact report, the City Attorney explained that all CUp's go through a process similar to that of a development proposal, an initial study is performed, staff determines if there may be a significant impact, if there are significant impacts identified then the EIR process is followed, noted that there was an EIR prepared for the mixed use plan, there are some uses that will not have a significant environmental impact and that is when a negative declaration is issued~ a declaration prepared by staff and adopted by the Planning Commission. With respect to development that would not be required to go through that process and be allowed by an over-the-counter permit, the City Attorney said it would be necessary to review the uses permitted for the C-l zone, as those uses permitted in the C- 2 includes those for the C-l zone, additional uses such as automobile and boat sales, gymnasiums, furniture repair, fishing tackle shops, retail meat storage/lockers. Councilmember Hastings clarified that those uses can be built with an over-the-counter approval and there is virtually nothing that the City can do if they have complied with all of the regulations and restrictions that the.City has in place. The City Attorney reported that over-the-counter approvals in the C-l zone would include restaurants, grocery stores, furniture stores, general retail businesses, a number of other uses, restaurants would be permitted without a CUP unless they propose the sale of alcohol, any sale of beer or wine requires a CUP. I I With regard to the questions posed by the speakers, 'why should College Park East get more commercial instead of residential,' Mayor Forsythe responded that that was an unanswerable question at this point in time~ inquiry was made as to the reversion documents, the Mayor indicated her desire to obtain copies of those documents as well~ response was just given to the inquiry as to uses for the Bixby property that do not require certain permits~ 'if golf course homes are out of the question and the Hellman land was determined to be unsafe some years ago, why is that property getting homes,' the City Attorney stated that first of all nothing has been approved on the Hellman property, that application 5-5-97 is going through the process, the EQCB considering the EIR on the Hellman property this week, however confirmed that their application is to build sixty-six homes, the understanding being that they will be at least fifty feet from the fault line as required by the Alquist Priola Act. The Mayor added that as the Hellman proposal goes through the process, if there are problems it will not receive approval, the City Attorney noted there will be at least three public hearings on that proposal, if there are concerns they should be brought forth to the EQCB, Planning Commission, and City Council. 'If the City rezones the property from present zoning to residential and if a plane crashes into the homes, is the City liable', the City Attorney responded that this has been a perennial question, raised with the Mola project and most all others, the Government Code provides a number of immunities to cities in that they can not be held liable for approving development plans, unfortunately people sometimes bring suit against a city no matter what the chances of success are, in this case it can be assumed one would go to the U. S. government first, whomever owns the aircraft, and it is possible the City could be listed as one of the defendants, yet based upon the immunities in the State Codes, the City would not be held liable for issuing building permits. 'Are there any open escrows of Bixby,' the City Manager responded that the City is not privy to private documents between a company and another party, however what the City has been told is that Bixby has entered into contractual agreements, the specifics of those have not been made known to the City, however it was said there are contingencies that are binding between the Bixby Company and other corporations whereby if contractual obligations are met then Bixby is obligated to certain things, other than that there are no known escrows, merely agreements as a prelude to an escrow opening. 'How is a CUP obtained,' that was answered, requires going through the public hearing process which provides the opportunity to voice opinions. It was confirmed that no plans have been submitted at this point. To the question of Council as to whether they support residential or commercial, Mayor Forsythe responded that the Council can not answer that inquiry, when there is a plan submitted that will be the opportunity for that decision, Hellman, which has been brought up, that too must go through the hearing process, the documentation, environmental studies, etc., a great deal is dependent upon the public input, as was the case with the information provided during the Mola process, through the public hearings it is determined what goes on a property. As to the criteria for denial of a CUP, the City Attorney explained that the standard in the Code is whether a proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses, the community in general, and the General Plan, the way the Code reads the Planning Commission must make that affirmative finding, if that finding can not be made, the project can not be approved. A member of the audience asked that the Council request a show of hands of those present as to who is in favor of golf course homes or the commercial plan. Mayor Forsythe suggested that individuals are defeating their own purpose by being unwilling to reach some compromises, yet everyone present has a goal to do the best for their neighborhood and Seal Beach. Her concern is whether there is ever going to be a consensus, this meeting has brought out concerns and priorities, there is a consensus with that, there are common links that can be worked on, to stay on opposite sides will not work however maybe now people can sit down together. Mayor Forsythe invited interested persons to call the Councilmembers, noted I I I 5-5-97 / 5-12-97 I that considerable information has been received, there are many things in common, many are saying the same thing, and asked that the public continue to help the City. The Mayor expressed pride for the manner in which attendees conducted themselves at this session. The City Manager said he was not as convinced as some that gloom and doom is eminent for College Park East, there are some important choices to be made, there is a choice in the process, sitting back and waiting or sitting down for a give and take exchange to formulate something better, however if the community can not get to the point of supporting the City in that type of effort, then it will be wait and go through the process. A lady in the audience said if the Council has not made up their minds as to what they support, why did she hear that the City Manager and two Council members said there will never be golf course homes in College Park East. Mayor Forsythe said she had not heard that, and it is likely another rumor. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting to Monday, May 12th at 6:30 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Attest: Clerk I Approved: Seal Beach, California May 12, 1997 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings I Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk