Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1998-11-09 11-9-98 Seal Beach, California November 9, 1998 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:31 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Brown Councilmembers Boyd, C~npbell, Doane, Yost Absent: None Also present: Mr. Till, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA The City Attorney requested that two items be added to the Closed Session, the items came up after the posting of the agenda and may require immediate action. Boyd moved, second by Yost, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried CLOSED SESSION Mayor Brown announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss the items listed on the agenda and those added to the agenda by the City Attorney. The City Attorney announced that pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and (b) the two items added to the agenda are two matters of pending litigation, Majcherek versus City of Seal Beach, and pursuant to subsection (b)(2), a point has been reached in the opinion of the City Council, on the advice of its legal counsel based upon facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation. By unanimous consent, the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported that the Council had discussed the items identified previously, direction was given to the City Attorney, and no other action was taken. I ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. clerk Approved: I Attest: 11-9-98 Seal Beach, California November 9, 1998 I The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brown Councilmembers Boyd, Campbell, Doane, Yost 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 Ms. Beard, Recreation and Parks Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilman Boyd requested that Item "K", a matter relating to the Rivers End Cafe, be continued until the next meeting, and Councilman Doane requested that the minutes, Item "I" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action as there were members of the Council not present at certain meetings. Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the order of the agenda as revised. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried PRESENTATIONS RESOLUTION NUMBER 4658 - RECOGNIZING DON DAVIS - VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER Mayor Brown read Resolution Number 4658 in full entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOGNIZING DON DAVIS FOR 30 YEARS AS A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER." Boyd moved, second by Yost, to adopt Resolution Number 4658 as presented. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I Councilmembers Boyd and Yost presented the Resolution to Mr. Davis with 'commendations fo~ his thirty years of service as a paid call firefighter. Mr. Davis expressed appreciation for the recognition, and for having had the opportunity to live in and serve Seal Beach. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Fire Authority and on behalf thereof, Councilman Boyd also presented Mr. Davis with a badge in recognition of his services under that agency. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Barry Hartwick, Crestview Avenue, stated his concerns are with the upcoming parking regulations and metered parking, specifically what had been voted on. The City Manager responded that the Council action was to authorize staff to 11-9-98 move forward with the parking program that would affect the merchant stickers and where they can park with those stickers, this prior to the actual purchase of the meters, that part of the Main Street Improvement Plan. Mr. Hartwick noted that the minutes reflect that the merchant parking would move from non-metered to metered parking areas, yet to date there are no metered lots, he noted also that the I problem seems to be moving merchants and employees off of Main Street and out of the lots, and it appears that the proposal, aside from the metered parking, would do the same with or without the meters, it is also said that the Manager met with the merchants, talked with the employees and business owners, yet in talking with several people, particularly those in the vicinity of Ocean, they knew nothing about metered parking. He pointed out that this has always been a small, friendly community, not a Belmont Shore or Laguna Beach, helpful to the merchants, and in his opinion this is counter productive to those goals, will likely have a direct impact on the traffic flow on Main Street, it is unlikely that people are going to use metered parking lots as opposed to free parking, which means more people will be circling Main Street, parking on side streets, and not using metered parking. This proposal could possibly benefit Main Street development and if it is the plan to raise revenues in order to beautify Main Street, then in his opinion an alternative should be discussed as opposed to putting meters in seventy-five space parking lots. Based upon projections as of today as to what those metered lots would produce per year, he had been told $65,000 and upward, he spoke with the City of Long Beach with regard to Belmont Shore, their metered parking produces about $28,000 per month for I approximately seven hundred forty meters, that is somewhere under $700 per meter, Seal Beach is projecting to do over $900 per meter, which he said he did not believe will be the case. Mr. Hartwick said his belief is that Main Street is desired to be a more attractive and friendly area, and if the lots adjacent to Main are metered his feeling is that then there will an effort to meter Street, some members of the Council have stated they are against that, as he believes are most of the merchants and their employees. with regard to the steps taken thus far it is felt the biggest problem is enforcement, there is no citing of the merchants seen parked in the lots every day even though they are two hour maximum parking, therefore policing is more important, metered parking is merely a revenue generator for the City, needed, but there are better alternatives. Mr. Hartwick asked again if the motion of the Council in fact approved metered parking. Mayor Brown suggested that Mr. Hartwick contact his Council representative, that they then make arrangements for a meeting with the City Manager. Mr. Stan Anderson, Balboa Drive, restaurant owner, past president of the Business Association, said parking is a concern that he too wanted to speak. Mr. Anderson noted that there is a parking management problem in Seal Beach, a study showed that the Ocean parking I lots were not being fully utilized, there had been discussion as to how one gets people to use them, then the parking fees for the beach lots were raised and the people started using street parking, a suggestion had been metered parking, not meters, through discussion with a Council person he was informed that had been voted on four years ago, the question was then why it was not in place, the response was that it had something to do with the City Manager. Mr. Anderson pointed out that it is the City Council, not the City Manager, that runs this community, it was found that the merchants and people do not like meters, with metered lots 11-9-98 I they will utilize street parking even more, one of the suggestions, and one that the Zucker plan suggested, was management of the parking, utilization of the beach parking lots, designate thirty minute parking for Main Street, no one wanted that either, parking meters were objected to and deleted by the Council. As to how to encourage parking in the beach lots, those lots need to be made friendly for visitors to this town, bathrooms that are friendly, the pier restrooms will cost $200,000, the drainage is bad, pumps will be needed, Mr. Anderson suggested that someone look at Huntington and Newport who have utilized their beach parking and restroom facilities well. He offered that everybody on Main Street wants freebies, the City has been paying for things to their benefit long enough, there are concerns with Main Street that need to be addressed, suggested that monies be taken from the General Fund and In-Lieu Parking to upgrade the beach lots, the sidewalks need to be repaired, since the lifts were ground many people have fallen on Main Street, if the beach lots are metered that money should be directed to Main Street repairs and improvements, the pier needs repairs as well. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that Central Avenue has been a problem and concern yet would rather not spend $50,000 to divert traffic to other streets, Coastline too needs repair and refurbishing, there are now grass parkways on Bolsa to which he inquired as to what that expenditure was, as to lighting said the parklike areas at Electric and Main are dangerous, there is no lighting, the same holds true with the greenbelt, there needs to be lighting on 12th Street, these issues have been going on a long time, the comments may sound negative yet they need to be done, there needs to be some answers. Mr. Anderson asked who is in charge of where the peoples money is being spent so that the public can be supportive of Council decisions, the people need to know that the Council cares and that their problems are being taken care of. He mentioned that he could not remain for the Bixby hearing, that he had supported the Bixby mixed use plan in the past, expressed his opinion that the Rossmoor Center needs to be pushed into the 21st century, they have had concerns with the Bixby development over time, had preferred the mixed use, noted that there is considerable space in the parking area that is going to be addressed sometime soon with new buildings, suggesting that the mixed use plan should have been an easy decision. Mr. Walt Miller, Seal Beach Boulevard, noted the concern of the City with traffic quieting at 4th and Central, said when traffic quieting is discussed that needs to include Ocean Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, he has been on the Boulevard for twenty-five years, there are women with children in strollers jogging in the bike lane, there is forty mile an hour traffic, roller blades, the same on Ocean, nothing is being done about it, there is a pre-school on the Boulevard that has existed since about 1982, the owner of the school applauded the traffic quieting on 4th and Central yet said nothing about her concerns with about forty children in her school, there is not even a crosswalk in the middle of the Boulevard and if one wanted to slow traffic at minimum cost buttons could be installed, roundabouts are not needed, put up signs to slow traffic to twenty-five miles an hour as was done near McGaugh, and it is felt that when the City grants a business license to the pre-school, if anyone is ever injured there and the City has ignored the problems, that could be serious. He said he believes there are ways to get the runners off the streets, this is an area that has been ignored for twenty- five years, this has to be addressed now that the traffic quieting theme is underway, maybe less money should be spent I I 11-9-98 elsewhere and do a better job, look at the traffic bumps in Newport and what they do. This issue needs to be given consideration as there are people on the Boulevard eighteen hours a day, Ocean Avenue too. Mr. John Stamps, Coastline Drive, said he frequents the pier, he likes the new trash receptacles, yet questioned why they are advertising a newspaper for the length of the beach, they do not look good. The Mayor suggested that Mr. Stamps contact his Council representative. Councilman Yost noted that Mr. Clewley had questioned why this meeting included the Bixby hearing given the denial by the Planning Commission and an appeal had not been filed, unlike the process for a CUP or Zone Text Amendment, Mr. Clewley was informed that the Planning Commission acts as an advisory body to the City Council, possibly additional legal explanation is necessary. Mr. Reg Clewley said his understanding is that an appeal has now been filed to the Planning Commission denial of the Old Ranch Towne Centre, if that is the case said this meeting has not been properly noticed. He recalled that at the Hellman hearings the Council passed a resolution stating that at all levels of government the proposal had been passed unanimously, at that time he had argued that the Environmental Board and the Archaeological Committee had not passed it unanimously, the opinion of the Attorney had been that those are only advisory bodies and it was the Council and Planning Commission that have approval authority. Mr. Clewley recalled that in January of this year the City Council denied Zone Text Amendment 96-1, requested direction from staff, the staff anticipated resubmittal to Council within two meetings, the matter was then agendized for the Commission, later withdrawn from that agenda, the explanation was that there had not been a replacement for the Planning Aide, however the Aide had previously said he had nothing to do with this issue. Mr. Clewley requested that the Council direct that the matter of an illegally constructed rear yard deck on Crestview be placed on the next Council agenda, it is time that this matter be addressed. Mr. Bill Ayres, Central Avenue, referred to the recent discussions relating to traffic on Central Avenue and other streets in the area, the specific problem is speeding cars, a roundabout at 4th Street will not solve the problem from Main to 5th Street. He said persons he has spoken with have found the traffic survey to be somewhat humorous by citing thirty miles an hour as the average speed in that that is probably the minimum speed, to him the problem relates specifically to non-enforcement of traffic regulations, the posted speed is twenty-five miles an hour, and in his opinion if the Police Department would start issuing citations, people will be more cautious and traffic speeds will go down. There being no further comments, Mayor Brown declared Oral Communications closed. I I CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "I" Boyd moved, second by Campbell, to approve the recommended for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item "I", 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 reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I 11-9-98 C. Approved regular demands numbered 21272 through 21399 in the amount of $471,654.78, payroll demands numbered 1530 through 1689 in the amount of $147,534.16, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. I D. Received and filed the report from staff relating to the receipt of the Final Removal Site Evaluation Work Plan, Installation Restoration Sites 4, 5, and 6, Weapons Support Facility, and instructed staff to forward same to the Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. E. Received and filed the staff report relating to the receipt of City of Huntington Beach report regarding Bolsa Chica Annexation Study - Questions/Comments, Response to Question No. 45, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. F. I G. H. I AYES: NOES: Adopted Resolution Number 4659 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TURN POCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4659 was waived. Bids were received until October 28, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. for the Marble Cove Sewer Line Extension, Project Number 817, at which time they were publicly opened by the City Clerk as follows: BNB Engineering, Inc. The Allison Company Savala Construction Co. Atlas-Allied, Inc. $23,000.00 $29,942.50 $31,824.00 $45,700.00 Awarded the bid for Project Number 817, the Marble Cove Sewer Line Extension, to BNB Engineering, the lowest responsible bidder, at a cost of $23,000.00, and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Authorized an amendment to the existing professional engineering services contract with J. Mueller International to perform a structural analysis of the Municipal pier at a cost not to exceed $12,000. Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "I" - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Brown moved, second by Boyd, to approve the minutes of the September 3rd regular adjourned meeting. 11-9-98 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Yost None Doane Motion carried Brown moved, second by Boyd, to approve the minutes of the September 28th regular adjourned and regular meetings, and the October 26th regular meeting. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost None Motion carried I Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the minutes of the October 12th regular meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Boyd, Campbell, Doane None Brown, Yost Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - BIXBY OLD RANCH TOWNE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FINAL EIR - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-1 - LAND USE/ OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION/RECREATION/BICYCLE ROUTE/HOUSING/ CIRCULATION/NOISE ELEMENTS - ZONE CHANGE 98-1 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-165 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15767 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Mayor Brown declared the public hearing open to consider the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Development Plan. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required, reported the receipt of petitions, primarily from the Rossmoor and Los Alamitos areas, containing a statement, the name and address of the signer, a copy of one sheet of said petition along with a list of all signers thereto and their addresses provided to the City Council, as well as seventy-eight individual letters and petition sheets with additional comments, for a total of one thousand three hundred thirty persons opposed to the project, and seven communications in support thereof. The City Manager commenced a background overview of occurrences that has led to the hearing relating to the Bixby property and the proposed development. He noted that many persons present have had some involvement with the Bixby property since about 1992 when the previous application was being devised, it has been about six years since discussions began to decide a land use for this property, over $1 million has been spent thus far on that planning process. In November, 1995, the day of the scheduled public hearing, the Bixby Company withdrew its mixed use/commercial application, in May, 1996 City Council elections were held, shortly thereafter Bixby initiated a planning process to develop the nearly twenty-three acres that is currently zoned C-2 commercial and grading plans were submitted to the City for the Marriott Senior Living Center, at that time proposed for the tennis club site. A month later discussions were commenced with Bixby to explore the possibility of another plan that would be more acceptable to the community and Bixby, at that time the discussions turned towards commercial development, and in July, 1996 an informal response was provided Bixby based upon the commercial use discussions that set basic parameters for development in that nothing should extend below St. Cloud Drive, described tenants that the City would consider desirable and undesirable, and some concerns relating to trees and traffic. Within a month the citizenry were not pleased with what they perceived to be secret meetings, at that point the discussions ceased, thereafter there were many who were concerned that development was imminent, specifically with regard to the tennis club site and that the opportunity to I I 11-9-98 I obtain that site would be lost if something were not done, which, at that time there was some discussion of swapping the zoning of the tennis club site and the Lampson Avenue/Seal Beach Boulevard property. In September of 1996 Councilmember Campbell appointed ten citizens, a balance of persons who had supported the previous Bixby plan and those that did not, there was a genuine effort of those persons who met for a period of about six months to identify some basic concepts that both sides could agree to, of which there were four early on, they were to preserve the tennis club, move any commercial development to the Seal Beach Boulevard area, secure the golf course so that it would not become a potential for a different use, and to achieve a final disposition of all of the Bixby land holdings, which would end discussion and debate as to what the plans of Bixby might be for future development, that agreed upon, the group also determined to submit something to Bixby for them to produce a development concept that would provide a mix of affordable housing, executive housing, commercial, and recreational uses, this was somewhat of a hybrid of the original plan and commercial concept, a plan that would basically have something for all. In February, 1997 Bixby responded with a plan that met some yet not all of the criteria set forth by the committee, an example would be a portion of the housing component that encroached somewhat into the area that had previously been leased by the Air Force, since all criteria could not be met, an end to those meetings came in March of 1997 as the group basically reached an impasse. As of April, 1997 the City Council consensus was that the plan on which the citizens group had reached impasse had failed to be a good, solid plan for the community, a plan conceived by committee that was not in total best interest, and likely not the best economically, then in May of 1997 the Council held a public forum in this Chambers to explain the process that had occurred over the months and to receive input from the community as to where any future plan should go. In June, 1997 the City requested Bixby to produce a new proposal, as they were proceeding with what was called the 'default' option under the existing General Plan and zoning, Bixby agreed however requested an expression of interest on the part of the City, that came about in form of a Memorandum of Understanding which merely declared the City's intent in the event Bixby submitted something that was at least agreeable on its face that was worth further discussion and consideration, that the City would process an application in a timely fashion and in turn Bixby was to agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with that process, as of June, 1997 the MOU was signed and in effect, the concept included the thirty-three acres of commercial, fifteen acre buffer, and did address the four consensus points of the citizens committee, in August Bixby submitted an application that fit those basic parameters, again, the only commitment of the City was to process an application that met those characteristics in a timely manner, this plan was before the Planning Commission in September of 1998 for its first hearing, their recommendation to the City Council was denial by a three to two vote, which now brings the plan before the City Council. The Manager said as the deliberations begin he felt it important to look at this as the City Council having a choice of this project or some modified version thereof that would be acceptable to the City and to Bixby, the responsibility of staff has been, should this plan be accepted, to make it as beneficial to the community as possible, with the understanding that the landowner and the Council must accept the terms thereof, it I I 11-9-98 would need to be viable in the marketplace, thus this project represents one option, another option would be to leave the existing zoning on the property, consistent with the General Plan, which is just less than twenty-three acres of C-2 commercial on two separate sites, noted that some time back it was indicated that Bixby was prepared to sell these parcels for development, that would be should the Council determine that the project as proposed or some modification thereof not be acceptable. The Manager stated he would be asking the Director of Development Services to make a presentation as to the ultimate actions to be taken, the EIR consultant will address that issue, that Major General Robert Brandt, Commander of the California Army National Guard, was in attendance to present their comments, the fiscal impact consultant will present their findings, the City Attorney will have an opinion as to the legal disposition, and the landowner will give a presentation with regard to a description of the project in general. I By unanimous consent, the Council invited Major General Brandt to address the Council at this time due to his conflict of commitments. General Brandt stated he resides is Folsom however was born and raised in Anaheim. The General offered that the Los Alamitos Army Airfield installation is important to the citizens of California and has been most important to several natural disasters including the Los Angeles earthquake, therefore their concern is with maintaining the viability of the installation while, at the same time, being a good neighbor with the communities that surround the Los Alamitos installation, its citizens and businesses. The General said he was present to clarify the position of the California Army National Guard and the State Military Department regarding their statement about land use on and around the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center which they operate under a license from the United States Army. He said they have no position either for or against the development proposed by the Bixby Ranch Company. In September, 1994, they published an Army Installation Air Compatibility Use Zone study for the Center, the study was circulated to the neighboring cities and the Orange County Land Use Commission, after receiving public comments, the study was approved by the Department of the Army and the National Guard Bureau. The study covered all aspects of current and planned operations and was conducted in accordance with Army regulations and standards approved by the Department of the Army, this study is their only statement about land use on and around the facility, surrounding communities may use it as they determine best, the study has not changed except for an updated sound study which was recently completed and released to the public and incorporated in the study. Councilman Yost inquired as to the relationship to the Airport Land Use Commission, the function of the airfield to that body. The General responded that the Installation Commander at Los Alamitos is responsible for assembling and development of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ), that study is then forwarded to the Airport Land Use Commission, they have hearings, they can or can not adopt it as part of the AILUP, to his knowledge it has been adopted. Councilman Boyd thanked the General for his attendance, with regard to the operation of the Air Station asked, in the best professional opinion of the General, did he see this project interfering with the operation of the Station as a commercial project and/or would a residential use be compatible with the Station. The General again stated that he is to protect the I I 11-9-98 I interests of the installation and the airfield and to assure that its right-of-way, its air routes in and out, are protected, under this plan they are protected. Councilman Boyd noted the prior residential plan, to which he asked if it would interfere with the operation plan of the Air Station. The General offered that the concern at the Los Alamitos Army Airfield has been the instrument approaches from the northeast, basically coming in over Cypress and extended further out, and the departure route which is a left turnout at the end of the runway which takes craft over the Naval weapons Station, that has been the primary flight route, remains the primary flight route, that area has in the past and is now compatible with the departures without endangering anything on the ground. As to Councilman Boyd's question as to the expected life span of the Air Station, the General responded from their perspective it is hoped it will be around for about another fifty years, as some people may not know, during the Los Angeles Olympics the AFRC was the primary security base, played heavily in the Los Angeles riots, was a key installation during the Los Angeles earthquake, the Office of Emergency Services headquarters were there, and there are extensive plans for when and if the big earthquake hits again, the installation is very important to them, to the citizens, they try to maintain a level of operations with regard to flights that does not impact too heavily on the surrounding communities, however it was an investment that the taxpayers made in 1942 that is inexpensive insurance today for all who live in Southern California. Councilmember Campbell made reference to the C-5 aircraft, said when they are loaded they can not make the turn over the Weapons Station as they would like therefore go over the bridge, that fact not really addressed to the degree she would like in the EIR, they can not make the turn because they are so big and so heavy, and inquired why that was not included in the AICUZ study. The General said they can fly the pattern established, although it is a big airplane the cargo they pick up at Los Alamitos is used in the space industry and is large and bulky yet is of little weight, the aircraft are not taking off anywhere near their maximum weight. He noted that one problem they face is turning the aircraft over to departure control who periodically direct the aircraft to go straight out, there is no control over that when there is a conflict with traffic, he himself has made it a point to fly on a C-5 carrying cargo to Andrews Air Force Base, said it is an experience, and the turn was made without problem. Councilmember Campbell said her concern is that they do fly over the site. Councilman Yost made reference to a September 18th letter from the Airport Land Use Commission, asking if the General was familiar with it or Mr. Fried the ALUC Executive Officer, the response was in the negative. Councilmember Boyd said one of the issues expressed by people that are concerned with any development in what was the former crash zone or clear zone, is that the clear zone was extended off the Base and for what purpose was it extended, for Navy jets or whatever, and then pulled back onto the Base. General Brandt responded that when the Department of Defense put together statistics to develop the AICUZ study, it was based upon accident data from the 60's until the early 70's, based on that the Department of Defense regulations specified a crash zone off the end of the runway of three thousand by three thousand with other safety zones that went beyond that, at the time the accident rate for most if not all of the Services was around twenty-seven to thirty accidents per hundred thousand flyouts, today they are one and a half, maybe two, in the Army there have been years I I 11-9-98 where there were zero, that is due to the improvements to the engines, the airplanes, etc., therefore as the AICUZ process developed it was based on accurate data for the situation at the time and the safety zones were reduced considerably, when the AICUZ was developed for Los Alamitos, which he started in 1983 and it took about eleven years to accomplish, they were able to reduce those crash zones down to meet the statistics and accident data based on the aircraft that fly in and out of Los Alamitos, there have not been any major accidents off the Installation, the only ones on the Installation have been helicopters doing practices and no serious injuries. Councilman Yost read an excerpt from the September 18th ALUC letter which said 'In addition, the Commission directed that the City be advised of the decision that the primary project represents a more compatible land use 'than did the previous mixed use project alternative, in the Commissions view, although the alternative project would be consistent with the ALUP, it represents land use development that would be less compatible with the immediate environs of the airport than the primary project consisting of commercial, institutional, and recreation uses', and asked if the General had any comments regarding same. The General said he did not have a comment, and noted that Col. Powell and Lt. Col. Tom Lasser are at the Installation and available to answer any questions that come up from time to time, and if they are needed to be present, they will be. The Mayor extended appreciation to Major General Brandt for his comments. The Director of Development Services explained that the item under consideration involves a number of General Plan Amendment requests, Zone Change requests, Subdivision maps, and a Development Agreement to implement the project proposed. The Director described the area adjacent to Lampson Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard, the northbound exit onto the 405 Freeway where there is an approximate 5.5 acre parcel fronting Seal Beach Boulevard at the west end of the property that is zoned C-2, the remaining easterly portion of about 8 acres is currently zoned Recreational Golf and is utilized for two holes of the golf course, the 5.5 acre parcel is currently vacant, the corner of that location was previously an automobile service station that was demolished a number of years ago. He said the second area of existing commercial zoning on the project is the tennis club facility at Lampson and Basswood, the property is developed as a recreational use yet the zoning is C-2 commercial, it is 6.47 acres in size, the third area of commercial zoning is a triangular piece at the north of the property, approximately 10 acres, vacant at this point in time, the request of the applicant is to reconfigure those commercial designations, combining a major portion thereof into the proposed 25 acre shopping center along Seal Beach Boulevard, the tennis club facility would be changed from commercial zoning to a public land use zone and the facility would be dedicated to the City in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement, as to the 5.5 acre parcel at Lampson/Seal Beach Boulevard the proposal is to create an 8 acre commercial property bounded on the perimeter by a greenbelt area that would encompass 5.5 acres of the site, the remaining acreage would be for the Senior Care Facility, hotel, and restaurant use as proposed by the application. The third component of the project is the 25 acre shopping center along Seal Beach Boulevard, reference points would be St. Cloud and Rossmoor Center Way at the north end of the site, then north of the 25 acre commercial site is a proposed 15 acre site which has been set forth in the application for future church use, I I I 11-9-98 I proposed to change the land use designation of that area from a combination of commercial and recreation/golf uses to public land use. The existing golf course would be reconfigured to comprise 158 acres of the site, the current golf course being 117 acres, thus the golf course becomes larger, the majority of that basically comes from the previously leased area, that area had not been part of the golf course development, it had been pushed closer to Seal Beach Boulevard, the proposal is to move the golf course back, rearrange it, relocate the existing driving range which is now along Lampson Avenue and east of Basswood, locate it west of the existing Country Club facility as a public, two- ended driving range adjacent to the Country Club, having access from Lampson Avenue. This is the basic proposal as requested by the applicant. The Director noted that this project has gone through an extensive review process from both the environmental and land use standpoints, the Environmental Quality Control Board has reviewed the draft EIR, the Final EIR, the recommendation from the EQCB is that the EIR should be considered adequate subject to certain items being addressed by the EIR consultant, those items provided to the Council in a report prepared by the consultant responding to the concerns of the EQCB, the Council can review and make a determination as to whether or not that is appropriate documentation. He noted that the Archaeological Advisory Committee has also looked at the proposal and reviewed the mitigation measures for coastal resources, they suggested a change to one of the measures, the proposed language of that change has been incorporated into the mitigation program of the Final EIR. The Director reported that the Planning Commission has reviewed the project, recommended that it be denied on a three to two vote, this date the Council was provided a supplemental staff report with the draft of their minutes of last Wednesday, a Commission resolution recommending that the EIR is adequate and that it be certified by the Council as well as a resolution recommending denial of the project, and copies of the handouts by the applicant during his rebuttal comments. He noted also that the fourth body that has reviewed the project is the Airport Land Use Commission, they are required by law to provide a recommendation to cities for any projects that involve an area within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan, all of the Bixby property is within that Plan, upon review the ALUC has submitted a letter to the City indicating that this plan is consistent subject to certain conditions being met, those items were already addressed in the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR. The Director pointed out that the Council has been provided considerable information and documentation, four volumes of the EIR document, reports from the Planning Commission, the Environmental Quality Control Board, Archaeological Advisory Committee, and Airport Land Use Commission, staff is available to respond to questions regarding those reviews, the EIR consultant is present along with the sub-consultants. He did however remind the Council that the EIR document is a separate issue from the project, the EIR is an information document, the recommendation of the Planning Commission to certify the EIR in that it provides adequate information to make an informed decision on the project, the EIR does not force a decision one way or another on the project, a decision on the EIR does not bind the Council to a decision on the General Plan Amendments, etc., the EIR can be certified and then a decision can be made on the project as is felt to be appropriate, and noted that the staff report recommends approval of the project as proposed with any I I 11-9-98 modifications by the Council thought to be appropriate based upon the public testimony, the reason for that recommendation is that it is felt the project is beneficial to the overall development of the City of Seal Beach, providing a way for other activities to occur in the area that would not occur otherwise, the potential for mitigating all of the environmental impacts to a level of insignificance with the exception of those identified in the EIR. I As to the environmental consultant, the Director explained that the firm is selected by the City in response to a RFQ process for environmental impact report services to the City, this is one of two firms selected by the City, and highly qualified. Ms. Andi Culbertson introduced herself as president of Culbertson, Adams and Associates, the City's environmental consultant for this project, stated she has practiced the California Environmental Quality Act for twenty-five years, licensed to practice law in the State of California, and has prepared or represented over two hundred fifty environmental impact reports to date on all manner of projects, all sizes, shapes and dispositions. Ms. Culbertson said she had been asked to provide an overview of two areas of this project, to generally describe the process of an EIR and to acquaint everyone with the status of the DEIR at this point, that point thought to have been well made by the Director of Development Services, also to review the major issues that were raised during the EIR process and explain in brief the response given by their firm to the City on the City's behalf. The State reporting la~is are known as the California Environmental Quality Act, it is a reporting law, a disclosure law, an EIR is not an action forcing document, it is a document that is meant to educate the public and decision makers as to the possible environmental consequences of a project, what they can do about it, and project alternatives that might resolve enviroJunental impact, it is not designed nor does State allow it to be an objective document, a subjective document, or take part in any sort of opinion on the project itself, it is designed to be an objective and analytical document, and it is believed the document prepared by their firm is such a document. Since the EIR and CEQA law especially is aimed at evaluating the physical environmental impacts of a project EIR's do not usually deal with policy decisions that are generally the purview of the Councilor economic decisions, not to say those are not important, they are simply not embraced by this particular State law. All information in an EIR and all decisions made concerning an EIR has to be supported by substantial evidence, substantial evidence is not conjecture or opinion or feelings, it is hard evidence, experts can sometimes disagree but that is the nature of the process, that is a reason that many technical experts for EIR's assist in preparation of an objective and informative document. Just because an EIR finds a significant physical adverse environmental impact that does not mean the City Council can not proceed with the project if there is good reason, in the event that the desire is to proceed with the project with significant adverse environmental impacts a statement of overriding considerations, the Council's justification of why it is more important to proceed with the project than resolve the impacts, is required. EIR's naturally generate a great deal of controversy, this EIR is based on excellent and reliable data, prepared by consultants who are experts in their field, nonetheless members of the public have disagreed with some of the data, those criticisms have been reviewed and have been found to be without foundation, this is I I 11-9-98 I particularly true with the issues of traffic and aviation safety. Although economics have been a frequent topic another consultant will address that issue as an EIR is designed for the environment and not to evaluate cost/ benefit type studies. Ms. Culbertson said there were five to six major issues that came up recurrently during the review, first was that traffic and its attendant secondary affects such as noise and air quality were worsened by the proposed project, second was whether safety issues are more significant than presented in the planning document prepared by the military and the Airport Land Use Commission for the Los Alamitos Base, the third issue that was consistently raised was whether the eucalyptus trees and other trees being removed would significantly alter the landscape of the area particularly in an unacceptable fashion, the fourth issue was whether the assisted living facility should be located so close to the freeway for air quality reasons, and finally, whether the new Center was viable or would compete adversely with the Rossmoor Center. with respect to the trees she reported that since the EIR was published the situation regarding the trees has greatly improved, originally twelve hundred lineal feet of trees were to be removed for this project, however during meetings with the EQCB the project was modified to include a forty foot parkway with limited removal of the trees, as a result, and until precise plans are completed an actual number can not be given, yet it is estimated conservatively that seventy percent of the trees will be retained, due to health issues some will need to be pruned for their safety and health and vitality, thus now there will be at least seventy percent of the trees that will be maintained in a lineal fashion due to the forty foot parkway. As to the assisted living/nursing home facility, those buildings are located in a portion of the property which is in the air quality shadow of two major facilities, Seal Beach Boulevard and the San Diego Freeway, there is a carbon monoxide level that is slightly above the minimum eight hour federal standard, this is the result of modeling, a forecasting methodology which is usually corrected by actual monitoring, the buildings that are used for assisted living, alzheimers, and nursing facility have no external recreation, they are internal buildings, because of the general nature of modeling and the more precise nature of monitoring it is their professional opinion that once monitoring is required by the City and implemented for this project it will be found that this is below the standards, if there are unmitigatable impacts however once the monitoring results are done then there will be additional mitigation for air quality control within these facilities. To the question as to whether the Center is viable or competes with the Rossmoor Center, Ms. Culbertson said that is not a CEQA question, rather, a policy and economics question, the data on file at the City that they have reviewed has estimated that there is more than enough purchasing power in the area to support both Centers including an improvement of the Rossmoor Center, therefore it is not believed there will be any direct effect of this Center from the physical environment on the basis of that data. With regard to traffic, Ms. Culbertson said the dialogue regarding traffic has been robust, however they stand by their data, validated through this process, in stating that this project will not reduce levels of service on any roadway system in the City of Seal Beach in and of itself. Initially there was a controversy over what methodology they had used, it is believed that has been resolved now with the explanation that they gave, basically there is an Institute of Transportation I I 11-9-98 Engineers methodology and a San Diego Regional Government methodology, at one of the EQCB meetings, because there had been a question by some of the commentors, they did a side by side analysis using both methodologies and all of the steps, when you do all of the steps you are then able to see what the comparison is, the methodologies saw one hundred twenty trips difference, for a project that results in thirteen I thousand nine hundred that is virtually negligible. This is a highly urban area that is affected by other areas over which the City has no control, cities over which there is no control in regional growth, therefore they examined not only the existing conditions plus the project but also what will happen whether the City approves this project or not. One of the values of this project in an environmental sense is that it is very expensive to bring about appropriate road improvements, the U. S. and California Supreme Courts and others, have recently instructed that care be exercised in making sure there is an appropriate relationship in an appropriate proportion between the exactions that are made for improvements and the burden that the project creates, to which Ms. Culbertson said what she is happy to tell the City is that due to the negotiation on the Memorandum of Understanding and resultant Development Agreement that the roadway improvements being brought about by this project, as well as the cash fees, not only meet the needs of this project to not create a burden in the area, but exceed it, essentially a windfall of traffic service that is brought about by the improvements of this project, one of the things that she, as a professional, feels is significant about this project is the layout of the land uses, the current General Plan has approximately 22 to 25 acres of commercial but at I three separate locations and it is not continuous along Seal Beach Boulevard where most of the improvements are necessary, this project allows the unity of the acreage in such a manner as the improvements can be legitimately required by the Council, but also the improvements are such that they exceed, not only in traffic but in drainage, what the project itself would be justified in requiring. As a result, Table 23 of the EIR amply demonstrates this, you look at the existing service levels, you add the project, add the improvements, in all cases service levels are either equal to or below what would otherwise occur without the project, thus there is improvement, there are fixes that will need to be better modified with signalization which comes about with this project too at St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard and the signal phasing can be improved in that area to greatly ease the left turn movement from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard. Ms. Culbertson said there are two intersections that are impacted in an adverse way, they are outside the City of Seal Beach in the City of Los Alamitos, these two intersections along Katella Avenue are already operating at well over service level F, the failing mark for an intersection, is level F unusual in an urban area, the answer is not unusual at all, these intersections are not operating currently at I gridlock or anything close to it. The Orange County Transportation Authority, working in conjunction with the City of Los Alamitos and other cities, is preparing the Smart Street Program, previously called Super Street, for Katella Avenue which will greatly improve traffic flow, nonetheless, even with the Smart Street program the intersections affected will only be reduced to a level of service E, this is because of a decision that, as they have been informed of by the Orange County Transportation Authority, that the City of Los Alamitos has elected not to perform further improvements to bring these service levels down to a level of service D, 11-9-98 I which is the acceptable service level in an urban area universally, therefore it is not within the City of Seal Beach's power to further assess these intersections in a positive manner because the City jurisdiction in which these intersections are located do not wish to condemn the business and whatnot that would be necessary to improve the intersection, the same decision Seal Beach would have if the City of Los Alamitos had a project and Seal Beach chose not to condemn a corner or two of this City to accommodate traffic flow, you make a decision to accept the traffic service level as it stands. She noted that CEQA anticipates this and allows a City Council in that position to acknowledge the adverse affects, identify the mitigation, and indicate that that mitigation lies outside of the City's control but can and should be adopted by the agency that has jurisdiction, that is what has been concluded in the EIR. Ms. Culbertson said she would have discussed aviation matters however the City has already heard from General Brandt, and she was pleased that he had the opportunity to address the City for the purpose of being the individual who could tell about the AICUZ study, however she could briefly describe the route that the AICUZ study takes with regard to the decision before the Council. with regard to traffic as it relates to this project, Councilman Boyd described taking a street that has three lanes each way now, the reference to north of Lampson to Bradbury and looking at the Table 23, it is said that the bridge, where most of the mitigation money goes toward, is a service level F and the hope is to mitigate some of the traffic impacts on that street, then if the street is not going to be widened to increase the volume of traffic beyond three lanes, how are the traffic impacts going to be mitigated. Ms. Culbertson requested to respond briefly, if further elaboration is necessary the traffic engineers may respond as well, noted that she had taken the improvement diagrams and had them color coded so that it was clearer as to where the improvements were occurring and how they were different. She explained that when a road is three lanes in each direction but one of the lanes is dedicated to a turning movement and instead of being used solely for a turning movement it gives an opportunity for conflict and slowdown as the straight through traffic mixes with the turning movement, and although there would be three through lanes in each direction on the bridge, first achieved by striping and next by widening, essentially what one is trying to do is increase the efficiency of the road and remove some of the traffic conflicts that would occur from turning, bicycles, median conflicts, turns across the roadway, that is where the improvements come, there are additional lanes being added as turn lanes to separate the turning movement from the straight through movement and that movement is then free to travel without the interference of someone slowing down to turn or wondering if they are going to turn and then make another decision. She explained that north of Lampson there is the sidewalk and east side on-street bikelane, there is the widening of the Seal Beach overcrossing to provide a third northbound and southbound through-lane plus a northbound auxiliary lane, sidewalks on the bridge, center median which helps the turning movement, and dual left turn lanes for southbound traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard at the southbound 405 ramp, again removing the conflicts. Councilman Boyd clarified that his question was not to the overpass, rather Seal Beach Boulevard from Lampson Avenue to Bradbury. Ms. Culbertson said to St. Cloud there is an added third northbound and southbound lane. Councilmember Campbell stated that is a concern, when Seal Beach Boulevard is I I 11-9-98 widened, widened to the east, between Lampson and the Home Savings Bank, there is a concern that there are going to be trees lost. Ms. Culbertson said when one gets into roadway geometrics she would prefer that the traffic engineer address the questions as she is not a traffic engineer, roadway geometrics in terms of eliminating traffic conflicts are very important, and it is true you lose trees by widening the I road. Councilman Boyd said the concern is that the City has told people that trees would not be lost and the street would not be widened physically but there would be more lanes. Ms. Culbertson clarified that trees will be lost, that is stated in the EIR, seventy percent would be retained, however she would like to point out that suppose this project is not built, if Table 23 is examined it will show that regional growth of the area will demand these improvements, the difference is that the City or someone else would be paying for them and the trees would be removed in any event, this has a lot to do with where the center line of the road is and how much adjustment there is on either side, you can not make a large swing to one side or another on a roadway segment that is narrow in an urban area. Ms. Culbertson offered that with the widening of Seal Beach Boulevard a portion will be to construct the sidewalk and bike lanes, as you go further north it is widened for the same purpose plus a third northbound and southbound lane, that is at the southerly part of the shopping center, the balance of the trees are in the shopping center, that is where the principal retention is. As to the widening of the road, this was studied a great deal, if this were not being considered tonight there would still be a need to widen this road, it would fallout of compliance, it is doubtful that any public agency would fund I the widening of the bridge without the widening of the road, there are only so many ways to widen the road, in fact a person at the EQCB commented that the trees are going to be lost in any event, it is merely who is doing the improvement or under what circumstances the improvements are implemented. With reference to the statement that trees are going to be lost, Councilman Yost noted page twenty-three of EIR Volume III that talks about saving of eighty percent of the trees with widening by a lane and adding a turn lane, questioning how the eighty percent is now seventy percent. Ms. Culbertson said from a personal and professional standpoint it is believed that eighty percent will be saved, however at the time that response to comment was Inade they did not have the detailed, final site design, for example, when entrance approaches are done to a shopping center a traffic engineer has to do a site distance study and the center has to be designed from an engineering standpoint, there are no final design plans at this point, there can not be a sign, tree, or whatever that will interfere with the ability of sight of people going in and coming out, therefore her thought was that it would be more conservative to say seventy percent even though when she replied in good faith she felt that eighty percent was correct, as the site plan matures there is I caution with sight distances, it is felt it will finally be somewhere between seventy and eighty percent because of the entryway site distance issue. Councilman Yost reconfirmed that it would be eighty percent of the trees saved and the street widened at the same time, to that Ms. Culbertson confirmed that in front of the shopping center, from St. Cloud north, that is true. Again with reference to aviation, Ms. Culbertson stated that the AICUZ is a study that is required by federal law of all military bases, it has a methodology, a particular procedure under which it is prepared, the aim of the AICUZ is for the military to tell 11-9-98 I the people, those surrounding a military base, what land uses they believe will be compatible with their speculated operation based upon the type of aircraft, how they fly, etc. In California the land uses around military bases is not required to be regulated by the Airport Land Use Commission, the ALUC is required to prepare a plan around civilian airports but not military yet they may do so, and if they do they are held to the Aeronautics Act which requires, in part, that they take into account not only noise but safety issues, stated that her firm worked very closely with the Airport Land Use Commission and their staff and had the good fortune to have one of the staff members be the person who originally prepared the Airport Land Use Commission Plan, known as the AELUP, and noted that there has never been a crash zone shown in the AELUP on this property, the reason, the first AELUP was prepared in 1975 and conditions at the Base had already changed, therefore the Airport Land Use Commission referenced letter of September 18th, that is their recommendation to the City, their finding of whether the project as proposed is consistent, they also went on to comment on a project they had voted on previously, and found consistent, a residential mixed use project, they did however favor this project, that was not a denial but it was a clear indication, as is stated in their letter and also in their minutes, that they preferred a commercial project, the reason for that is not determined on safety or noise, but just a common sense observation that residential near airports usually results in a lot of complaints and nuisance, and as has been seen in Orange County sometimes it results in closing an airport, and although this is a military airport and General Brandt has testified as to its importance in the community, the Airport Land Use Commission was of the opinion that the commercial center project met their standards for consistency. In addition, their firm did not stop there, they continued to look at data concerning this airport and its operation, and there is a dramatic difference, as General Brandt testified, between the operation of this airport when it was under the Department of the Navy and now, when under the Navy it flew very high performance aircraft and there were some crashes, some on the base, aborted takeoffs, and things of that nature. General Brandt is absolutely right in stating that when the C-5 takes off out of that Base, departure control sometimes will not let the C-5 turn left because of traffic either preparing for an instrument approach to Long Beach or for some other reason, yet its operational characteristics are capable of making that left turn and most often do. In response to comment with regard to how often the C-5 flies out of that airport, in 1996 it was nineteen times, that is one percent of the operations for fixed wing at that facility, last year there were twelve, two were Air Force One, and based on her research she concurs with General Brandt in that the C-5's are lightly loaded, they are not at max weight when it departs because of the nature of the cargo, it is capable of much more yet the cargo is large and needs the C-5 to carry it. She mentioned having looked at the accident history of the Base since operated as an Army facility, reported there has not been an accident at the AFRC Base since under Army control, a very telling statistic considering the number of years that there have been flights out of that Base, the vast majority of the flights are rotary wing, in fact there was some debate about the number of operations, an operation at an airfield is not just an airplane arriving or departing, it is a lift, a race track pattern of touch and go, or at one time, as reported in the Wiley report, operations were reported as the air traffic I I 11-9-98 controller talked to planes overhead, transitioning them through the air space. Ms. Culbertson said they are not at all concerned about the safety, they believe that the data amply demonstrates that the development as proposed is safe, does not interfere with the military flight routes, does not present unnecessary or unacceptable noise, and protects the military flight routes, they also do not believe that the type of aircraft that is flown out are particularly hazardous, again, the departure control is the handler for the after takeoff routing of aircraft, they can direct where it goes if it doesn't make the left turn, which is something that could be taken up with the FAA if desired. She noted that there are very few environmental impacts that could not be resolved by mitigation, they added or revised fifteen mitigation measures because, frankly, there were public comments that suggested good ideas, the project has also been altered, for the forty foot parkway and the trees as an example, therefore they believe that the EIR presents substantial evidence that the impacts of the project are largely insignificant and to the extent they are not, they are things that are either outside the control of the City of Seal Beach or are things of natural incidents with a project like this and are not resolved by any alternative short of a no project. With regard to traffic mitigation, Ms. Culbertson again mentioned Constitutional limitations on exactions, stated that the traffic for the General Plan as it exists and this project is comparable, in fact a little bit higher for the existing General Plan than this project produces. Councilman Yost requested some further elaboration in that it has been said that the default plan that could currently be developed with over-the-counter permits and CUp's generates more traffic than the plan as proposed. Ms. Culbertson stated her intent to address her comments to the General Plan and zoning since that is what they had at their disposal to make their analysis in the EIR, she generally relies on that because that is the maximum that could be allowed on the property, that is its real intensity, they have evaluated the existing General Plan, that Plan would generate approximately 14,247 daily trips, 13,900 is the proposed project, the question is why is this, the reason is, as explained on the methodology, once one takes the number off the table, there are so many square feet for this kind of project, multiply that by the multiplier indicated, when there is a small commercial site it is not really capable of internalizing its trips, someone going to the dry cleaner, going to the grocery store or whatever, so you have the same trips internal to the site and there is a discount for that under both traffic methodologies, actually the larger the center the fewer trips per square foot will be produced, making one trip to one place to do several different things rather than different trips to different places or different trips for different reasons,.that is the way it works out through traffic engineering. I I Mr. Dan Miller introduced himself as a principal with the Rosenow Spevacek Group who was retained by the City to conduct the fiscal impact analysis of this project. Mr. Miller stated they had looked at fiscal analysis of the reoccurring revenues and reoccurring expenditures associated with four development scenarios, one of which is presented this evening, basically the commercial and golf course plan with the hotel, senior assisted living and the church property, three other scenarios were reviewed that included two residential, ninety-eight single family units, and one hundred twenty-five multi-family units, the third was taking I 11-9-98 I the church property and placing residential on that site, then a fourth scenario that was more intensive commercial, with higher hotel and greater commercial uses. He said all four scenarios basically, over the twelve year buildout period, showed a surplus to the City ranging from $3.3 million over that period of time, which was the greater residential use, to the higher commercial uses of $20.2 million for the same twelve year period, all four showed a surplus to the operating revenue of the City. He noted that the fiscal analysis was completed in February of this year, is basically 1997/98 data so there could be some changes based on using more current budget data yet that is not thought to be material, reported that all of the various revenue sources were looked at that the City may receive from each of the scenarios, property taxes, property tax transfers, franchise fees, utility taxes, sales taxes, fines and forfeitures, motor vehicle fees, all of which vary depending on whether there is residential or commercial, also the various operating expenditures such as law enforcement, fire protection, community services, community development, general administration, public works, road maintenance, emphasized again that they looked at reoccurring which means they did not look at major infrastructure improvements or development fees that would pay for that infrastructure, nor did they look at the land use processing fees or building fees because those would basically offset costs. Mr. Miller said one of the issues that has come up in looking at the different scenarios as to why the differences in terms of surpluses to the range, that is primarily based upon the sales tax that comes from commercial, also the transient occupancy tax. He said what they primarily do is not look at an area and use an average of a mall or retail center, rather, they take each of the boxes and look at the particular type of use and estimate the taxable sales per square foot based on that type of use, they do not use an overall average of a retail center, again, they used information of that time that was relative to a home improvement center and restaurants and drug stores and other miscellaneous uses, took the square footage for each of those uses and basically developed a sales tax estimate from that, each of the two commercial scenarios were put together in that way, therefore the primary differences in the surpluses is that there is a generation of a lot more sales tax, more utility taxes, franchise fees, etc. than the residential, there are also some differences on the expenditure side in each of the scenarios. Another area that was looked at, because it was an issue, was the impact of commercial upon the Rossmoor Center across the street, the businesses in that Center were looked at in terms of compatibility and similarity of types to the proposed Center, it was found there is about fifteen percent that may have some impact, yet the big difference is that the businesses in the Rossmoor Center are more locally driven, the stores and businesses there tend to attract local people in the area, the new Center would tend to be more destination commercial, persons coming from further out and bring their business to this particular area, also, bring people in that could benefit the Rossmoor Center, again, that depends on the type of use, home improvement, Home Base, Walmart, those types tend to bring people from larger areas, that has been their experience in other communities, a Home Depot as an example has generated anywhere from $400 to $800 a square foot depending upon the sales, in this Center the estimate is about $345 per square foot, trying to be conservative, again, it depends on what facility actually comes in, and it is known that the City and I I 11-9-98 developer have talked about specific leases that could enhance even more, bottom line is that it depends on what the commercial uses are. Mayor Brown noted the hour with this hearing continuing until about 12:00 midnight and a potential continuance until next Tuesday. It was the consensus of the Council to declare a I recess at 8:50 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. Mr. Ron Bradshaw, introduced himself as representing the Bixby Ranch Company, the owner of the property under discussion at the Old Ranch Golf Course area. Mr. Bradshaw noted the overview by the City Manager as to the planning effort and consideration of the plan before the Council, and the Director of Development Services addressed the specific uses contemplated in the plan and application. He said it seems to be a considerable time since this plan was first submitted to the City in 1997, within that time frame it has been an evolving plan, there have been changes during the process, some of those were mentioned by the environmental consultant, this is a plan that has had positive direction, considerable work and effort. Because of the long term under which this project has been planned and the complex issues that were to be addressed, Bixby fortified its team to bring in consultants and professionals that could help bring about a plan that is thought to be viable and a win for both the city and Bixby Ranch. He pointed out that the original concept started when the Marriott Corporation took a contract on four of the seven acres of the Old Ranch Tennis Club, there was a pending application for a hotel on two acres of I the corner of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, in addition to that there was a one acre Arco site that operated as a service station and they were looking to seek that use again, at that point the City Manager asked that Bixby come up with a plan that followed more closely that outlined in the MOU, a plan that would direct development into proper land location, facilitate an objective for the City, a fiscally responsible plan, and have the ability to mitigate the impacts that it would bring to bare. He said he felt it was important to let the Council know from a background side that Bixby has listened to five months of public testimony regarding what the project is and is not, it is thought there are some miscommunications and possibly misunderstandings as to some of the key components of the pJ~oject, those will be heard this evening. He advised that Bixby has always worked very closely with the Armed Forces Reserve Center at Los Alamitos, they have never taken a project that has been generated internally, nor have they taken a project that has not had discussions with the City or community groups to the AFRC to make sure that Bixby was going to be a good neighbor, that a project would not jeopardize their mission, or their ability to carry out their operation at Los Alamitos. The two projects on this site that have gone through the Airport I Land Use Commission have been approved as compatible land uses, this project was taken to the ALUC in September of this year and was approved, in addition, to the FAA Part 77 requirement, applications have been filed, all five of those have been returned and accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration and the California National Guard, the AFRC operators, as heard from General Brandl; at this meeting, at least from a land use standpoint, although they are not an advocate of the project, this is believed a compatible land use, and again, the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County has also approved the project. He offered that the 11-9-98 I Council will also hear that the project, if developed, will exacerbate the drainage issue in North Seal Beach, therefore it is important to know that the project and the golf course itself act as a flood control basin, and the new project will exceed the requirements of holding capacity by ten to fifteen percent which is beyond what would be required by Orange County. In addition to that, the storm drain water on the north end of the project, which now drains into Seal Beach Boulevard, will totally be contained on-site and flow to this flood retention basin, therefore any water that is generated on-site will be retained on-site, it will not go onto any public roadways. In addition to the drainage issue there are things that the project will incorporate into its final design that goes beyond the requirements of the mitigation called for in the Environmental Impact Report, the City has asked Bixby to include three storm drain boxes along Lampson Avenue from Seal Beach Boulevard to the Basswood, also, through the Development Agreement, Bixby is to make a contribution to the first phase of the storm drain planning for the entire of College Park East, while Bixby is not involved in that engineering, Bixby has agreed to be a participant in whatever the first phase may be to facilitate that project. The traffic issues are again somewhat misleading and confused, if one looks at the three lanes that Councilman Boyd made reference to, Seal Beach Boulevard gets widened for a short distance from Lampson to St. Cloud, that is because there is an area that is actually two lanes, beyond that both north and south there are three lanes in each direction, that is why the mitigation dollars are seen going primarily to the area between Lampson and Beverly Manor as that is where there are some configuration changes. In addition to the mitigation required under the Plan, Bixby has also included all of the traffic signal modifications and additions that are project specific, those monies are typically taken from the mitigation dollars that are impact fees, yet this project will pay directly for those traffic improvements, which then allows the greater amount of mitigation dollars to go to the 405 Freeway overpass at Seal Beach Boulevard, as shown by the traffic study, that is where most of the impacts lie and will be mitigated. He noted that one of the things that has developed during the process as it has evolved is the concern with on-street bike traffic, the project as proposed has a twelve foot wide off-street bike path and sidewalk to be on the south side of Lampson Avenue from the community center to the intersection at Seal Beach Boulevard then north to the shopping center, that will allow anyone to make the trip by bicycle or walking, off-street, as the existing path along Lampson is rather tight. The landscape design has been another area of considerable discussion and not a lot of understanding, even today it is heard that the eucalyptus trees will be lost as will the windrow, where actually at least seventy percent of those trees will be maintained, the seventy to eighty percent is a range, Bixby had each of the trees of six inches in diameter and above surveyed and marked, both on the City side of the fence and on the Bixby property, and besides just the health issue of the trees and making sure that there is going to be a tree grove that is going to continue to prosper and maintain itself, there are access issues as well, there needs to be a good line of sight so that cars coming in and going out of this retail center are provided a good safety line along the trees, too, the trees are a very positive thing, when one thinks of a forty foot setback in front of the shopping center and within that there is the twelve foot meandering path, it will be a pleasant walk, in addition, I I 11-9-98 there are very few plans in this part of Orange County where a center is screened by a grove of mature trees, and requested that one look at this elevation as compared to the requirements on the Rossmoor Center where there is nothing to look at except asphalt. Although the trees were not brought up early in the Plan it was heard as a major issue during the EIR review process, and the change has been incorporated into I the Plan. Mr. Bradshaw said since submittal of the application, there has always been the five and a half acres around the commercial site at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, that will provide about a one hundred fifty foot setback at that corner of landscape, not only trees but a grass area that will go the length and be a gateway into the College Park East area, a nice frontage for Seal Beach Boulevard, an exceptional landscaping component, thus landscaping on five and a half acres and eight acres of development. Mr. Bradshaw said the design of the center was meant to fit Seal Beach, rather than being the typical neighborhood center that would be built of stucco and perhaps tile roofs, an architect was hired who has given a good deal of thought to trying to incorporate many of the elements that one might find in a coastal community like Seal Beach and they have come up with a look deemed to be 'California Coastal', muted colors such as grays and blues on wood siding, pitched roofs, and be articula1;ed in a way that the larger buildings would be broken up in mass so that one would not be looking at a large storefront, the project itself is broken into two components, the larger, anchor tenants, in the back, the front would be the more village type, specialty users where one can have a cup of coffee or read the paper possibly in areas outside, the rear of those buildings I actually face the Boulevard, the areas that face inside prevent the access of the traffic from the Boulevard and provides a pleasant area to have an almost quasi-downtown village component to this shopping center. The hardscape will be more articulated featuring hardscape and landscaping as more intimate, there will be parking in front of the larger users and every island is complete with interior landscaping, the trees will be of a size that will have a nice canopy, and the access has been controlled to a nominal number of points. Mr. Bradshaw noted a question of the Mayor as to the tenants, said there has been considerable speculation, and called forward Mr. Mike Jensen who he described as being in charge of bringing in key tenants. Mr. Mike Jensen reported his affiliation with Pacific Retail Partners, and requested to present the methodology of evaluating and working with retailers of Southern California. He noted there are retailers that have expressed interest in the project, there are anchors to the rear, they are working with a home center that is doing a tremendous sales volume and penetrating a narrower market, said a home center today can exist on forty thousand people in a trade area, there are a hundred and thirteen thousand people in a three mile radius I of this project site. He said the retailer is Lowes Home Center, a quality operator, pointed out that Home Depot is the predominant home center in Southern California today, they are somewhat afraid of having Lowes come into this market, and are trying to keep them out by augmenting a new upscale concept called the Expo Design Center, an attempt to match the quality that Lowes portrays across the United States. Another anchor is a grocery component as there is no quality grocer, with the exception of the Ralph's store recently built in the Marina Pacifica, within a two mile radius, this will be a grocer that offers a good quality 11-9-98 I product, at this point they are talking with three. Question was raised if Mr. Jensen did not consider Luckys or Vons as good grocers, to which Mr. Jensen responded that they do not exist today in this prototype, their stores are twenty-five to thirty-five thousand square feet, if either were asked if they would like to enlarge to fifty-five thousand square feet so they could offer a quality store, the answer would be yes, they are good operators, just not the new prototype. Mr. Jensen said the third anchor would be soft goods, they are attempting to attract a domestics and linen concept, similar to a Linens and Things, looking to acquire a twenty-five to thirty thousand square foot space in the rear portion of the center, two sub-anchors, one a card and party business having more than one hundred twenty stores throughout the States that has expressed interest, and there are four drug store companies that have indicated interest in developing a new prototypical store, as to the out-pads, they are pursuing quality, high end users, bookstores, restaurants, coffee houses, a bakery, childrens, womens, and mens clothing. Mr. Jensen said they have tried to match the concerns of the City as far as quality retailers coming to the project and they believe they have amplified that by their marketing efforts to date. I Mr. Stephen Gale stated he is the director of real estate acquisition for Lowes, and offered that the best way to describe what Lowes is is to describe what it is not, they are not a home improvement warehouse, not an operator of a retail store with narrow, dark aisles, not an operator that has merchandise stacked that is hard to navigate, does not stack product and merchandise in their parking lot or up against the building, and they do not focus their business on the contractor trade. Lowes is a home center retailer, they focus on the female customer, fifty percent of their shoppers are female, there are wide, light, bright aisles, they are not a regional retailer, their trade area is basically three miles, and there is sufficient population in the Seal Beach trade area to support their operation. Lowes is a fifty year old, twelve billion dollar company headquartered in North Carolina, operating in excess of five hundred stores nationwide, this company has made a $1.5 billion commitment to expand into the western regions of the United States, focusing on Southern California, Seal Beach would be one of the first flag ship Lowes stores in this region, they are a Fortune 500 company, and considered to be one of the top one hundred companies to work for. Lowes Stores basically sell home improvement items including home appliances, carpet, cabinetry, home interior, electronics, furniture, designer services with extensive kitchen and bath displays, as well as a garden center, they are the third largest white goods retailer in the country, that is washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc. Councilman Boyd asked what attracted Lowes to this center, the response of Mr. Gale was the location as far as home improvement type operations, on the fringe of the Seal Beach trade area, this is looked at as an upscale, densely populated community, has good access within the three mile radius to support their location, and this project will be a big step in modernizing retail areas. To questions posed by Councilman Boyd, Mr. Gale confirmed that he is a representative of Lowes, was not present to represent Bixby, and as to Lowes coming into this site as the only retailer would they have been able to do so, Mr. Gale explained that co-tenancy is an important element of success of the retail product, Lowes is also successful as a stand alone, yet co-tenancy broadens retail opportunities. I 11-9-98 Mr. Bradshaw said the reasons it is believed this project should be approved falls into a number of categories, first, it represents a final land use plan fOl~ this Bixby property, the last opportunity for Bixby, the landowner, and the City to work together to achieve a project that is both fiscally responsible and functional from the standpoint of land use, the project in fact does meet both of those requirements, the I project puts the land uses in the right place, will be a good recurring source of income for the City today and into the future. He noted the project had some basic components that it had to follow in order to be considered, the project continues to mitigate beyond its impact, particularly in the area of traffic improvements, without this project, such improvements may very well go wanting for a long period of time, also appropriate mitigation for even the current conditions that exist today. The eucalyptus tree grove is maintained and expanded upon, the replacement of trees is four to one for the eucalyptus and will prove to be much better open space than what exists today. He said important too are things that do not show up on 1~he project such as a North Community Center with $100,000 to improve it to a state that it can be used by the City for its purposes, a North Seal Beach police substation, a permanent home for the community television service, to the dl~ainage issue in College Park East, while the impacts on Lampson Avenue and the first phase of storm drain improvements in College Park East are not caused by this project it will be a project sponsor and help mitigate some of the drainage issues. Mr. Bradshaw said he has heard comments that this project will not enhance property values rather drive them down, to which he stated that with an enhanced golf course, with a shopping I center on the east side of the Boulevard, with the prospect of a revitalized Rossmoor Shopping Center that could come about with overflow tenants that may come from this project and provide them with an incentive to move forward with a reconfiguration, the impact could be dramatic, all of those would accrue to increase property values, not a loss of property value. He stated this project is about good land planning, City staff has been cooperative, there has been hard work to come up with the plan, even though evolving, coming together nicely, the alternative to this plan is not about revisiting a mixed use plan that was withdrawn three years ago, this plan is about the land use that is before the Councilor the default plan that would go in the absence of a positive decision on this project. He pointed out that Bixby has held off for the past nine years on the default plan because of being involved in some form of negotiations with the local community or the City, at this point the Marriott Corporation has a contract for four acres at the tennis club site, there have been discussions with their representatives and Marriott is not about to wait for another period of several months for a decision as to where they are going to locate, they will need to come before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit, they are prepared to do that, I and Bixby is prepared to move forward with the additional C-2 acreage. For those who have said that from the day they moved into their house they never expected anything to be built on the Bixby land, it is possible that if the City had it to do over again they may not put the C-2 zoning where it is found today and Bixby would have preferred it to be configured more as it is in this application. Mr. Bradshaw requested a positive action by the Council. Mayor Brown recognized the number of persons present from Rossmoor and Los Alamitos, suggested comments be made by four 11-9-98 or five from each area and alternated, he requested that comments not be repetitive, noted the time limit of five minutes, and announced that the hearing will be continued until the following Tuesday. It was requested also that the speakers not rebut the comments of another, rather, wait for a second turn to speak. I Mr. Irwin Anisman, President of the Rossmoor Homeowners Association, said he wished to summarize their massive opposition to this project. To the environmental issues the most significant is traffic, in spite of what has been heard, the volume of traffic on the Boulevard will increase, the level of service at the intersections will decrease, there will be circulation problems, and of great importance is the cut through traffic, which there is now, however will b~ increased due to this project. To the land use issues asked if this is the best use of this land, is it in the best interest of the residents of the surrounding community, the Planning Commission heard the arguments and they voted that it is not in the best interest, why is it not, there is a character of the land of a community, it has to be asked if this is in character with the community, to which he described a scenario of the quaint Main Street shops being destroyed for a large retail center as not creating the type of village ambiance desired, the same would hold true for the ocean front, the pier, the Edison and Hellman property, the ambiance needs to fit the property. He said they feel the same about this property, to preserve the ambiance of their community as well. Mr. Anisman offered that their community has been a good neighbor to Seal Beach for over forty years, a lot of common interests are shared, the schools, special events, athletic activities, somewhat like an extended community with a good relationship, and it is felt the Bixby project will threaten this relationship. Mr. Anisman pleaded that this project not be forced against the massive opposition that has and will be expressed, it is felt this will affect their quality of life and property values, this may be the most important decision of public life of the Council, and it is hoped the right decision is made. Mr. Matt Stein, Christy Lane, Rossmoor, stated he was against the Bixby Big Box Retail Center. First, Bixby is requesting a zone change for a destination location retail center, another such retail center is not needed, there are presently at least nine within a four to six mile radius, there is some discussion as to whether the proposed project is a Big Box Retail Center or a Community Center, to that the fiscal impact analysis makes it a destination location attracting consumers from a wide area, there was no mention of being a 'community center' in fact there seems to be a conscientious effort to differentiate from a 'community center.' Mr. Stein said in his opinion a store of 163,268 square feet is a big box, not a community store, he telephoned and learned today that the average size Home Depot store is 105,000 square feet, the proposed Lowes is fifty percent larger, and a search of the internet announced the merger of Lowes with Snap On, J. H. Williams Division, with a plan to market professional quality mechanics tools exclusively at Lowes and in competition with Home Depot and Sears brands. Mr. Stein claimed that the fiscal analysis is flawed in its assumption that the project will have no competition in the area, again making reference to the nine centers within four to six miles in Westminster, Long Beach, Hawaiian Gardens, Stanton, Cypress, and Los Alamitos, the project is anticipated to draw from Seal Beach and fourteen surrounding cities, and to that he questioned what is going to be offered at the Bixby Center I I 11-9-98 that is not already offered closer to the residents of those cities that they intend to draw from, thus to assume that there will be no competition and assume that the City will get a hundred percent of the sales tax revenue from those cities is short sighted. As a resident of Rossmoor where he and his wife own their home and enjoy the small community atmosphere and open space, to allow the developer the drastic zone change requested is unprecedented and wrong. Mr. Stein mentioned also that there is no need for more commercial, rather, there should be an effort to work with the Rossmoor Center, questioned why the rush for this project, and said it seems to be only the applicant and staff that favor this project. In conclusion he said there is no need for another Big Box Retail Center in the area, there are enough, there is no rush except by the developer, the developer may ask for however does not have the right to zone changes, asked that those changes not be granted as they will destroy the community atmosphere and open space, and that the concerns of the public be listened to and not ignored. Mr. Stein mentioned the long time friendship of ]~ossmoor and Seal Beach, again requesting that the zone changes not be approved. Ms. Patty Alexander, Tigertail, Rossmoor, stated her opposition to this development, the primary reason being that she does not want St. Cloud Drive turned into a four-way stop, said most bedroom communities do not have through traffic into a shopping center, she had looked at the layout of the El Dorado Park development, they have nothing coming out of their area that is not perpendicular with something else, that is similar to the golf course area butting St. Cloud, which protects the people residing in the bedroom community. There is great concern with through traffic coming into Rossmoor as St. Cloud will be impacted particularly in the mornings and evenings, especially if the center draws the number of people anticipated, the developer will be making money, the homeowners will suffer, they look to draw from Rossmoor to spend money there, even though there are some who have committed to spending nothing there, that brings forth the need to draw people f]~om outside which in turn means more traffic. She said there are presently problems with the Vons Center and Rossmoor with regard to crime, it is slowly increasing, at Vons Center those who own' stores are locking them by 6:00 o'clock because of strange happenings and people appearances, it is starting to occur at Rossmoor as well, therefore one more large shopping center will just bring in more undesirable people, that the primary concern of Rossmoor and College Park East. Ms. Alexander offered that Rossmoor and Seal Beach have been good neighbors, it has been said that Seal Beach has financial problems, the voters of Rossmoor approved and accepted the responsibility for the Rossmoor wall from Seal Beach and Los Alamitos, if Rossmoor can do that it would be nice if Seal Beach would in turn listen to the Rossmoor residents. Ms. Yvonne Price, Rossmoor, stated she worked previously for the Community Redevelopment Agency Planning Department for the City of Los Angeles, that prior to currently working for the MTA, and said she has some idea of what is being discussed with regard to planning as well as traffic. She said the idea of a shopping center, which is lovely to look at, nicely presented, time taken to catch the beachlike atmosphere and mindset of the community, however as in real estate it is believed that everyone knows that of greatest importance is location, this is no exception, it is a prime location, it is zoned in such a way for Bixby to take advantage of some financial options, however given the nlunber of letters received by the City, over a thousand, that is a loud voice I I I 11-9-98 I around the area that is saying no, they do not want this, it is hard work and time consuming for the Council and community groups to work out a plan that will satisfy everyone, costly for the development group, yet again, the opposition from the surrounding community can not be ignored. The traffic on Montecito will do nothing but get worse as vehicles cut through Rossmoor to avoid the unsynchronized traffic lighting on Seal Beach Boulevard, the streets will not be safe, the center is going to draw shoppers from all surrounding areas, as well as a negative element, crime will only increase in this kind of established area. Ms. Price questioned what happened to the quiet, bedroom community that she bought into for her children and all others, with this development there are going to be changes and they are not going to be for the good, in fact those who submitted their opinion are saying that the changes anticipated are negative, and it is hoped that another way can be found. I Mr. Paul Rodman, Cherry Street, Los Alamitos, expressed fear that this inertia has gotten to the point of where the Bixby Company has presented this plan in concert with the City officials of Seal Beach, that this is almost a foregone conclusion, and asked if anyone is for this proposal. His question, why this proposal has gotten to this point with all of the people so against it, as an outsider he can not believe that the Council is looking to put a positive spin on this proposal. Mr. Jack Philips, Los Alamitos, said he does not believe he is an outsider, a resident of the Highlands for twenty years, he understands why the City is doing this, why this development is going on, it is called development, to many people that is progress, there have been objections to it, what it comes down to is people do not want this in their neighborhood, no one does, so there has to be progress, supposedly it is a good thing, it is puzzling though as to why it is a good thing, is there a need to duplicate all of the commercial development that is around the area already, the need to put more box stores across the street from an already dying Center in Seal Beach, asked if he needs to endure diesel trucks delivering goods to a high end home center just across his fence. Mr. Philips said he views this with great sadness, this is called progress, this is what the country thinks it is wonderful, he is a neighbor yet he will never shop in that center. Mr. Mel KOlumbic, twenty-six year College Park East resident, said he has been on the subject of Bixby for about eight years, then made reference to the signature gathering and recall election of his Councilperson who received many votes, the people spoke, the Council is elected by and should listen to the people. He said he did understand the mixed use plan, it is not residential, if they got the Council to change the zoning then they could build it, yet they can build whatever the property is zoned for without the City, his goal is quality of life and he will fight for it. Mr. Bill McDannel, twenty-eight year College Park East resident, asked that the Council not vote for this plan, the mixed use plan, or any plan, leave the zoning as it is, he would rather see the twenty-two acres of existing C-2 property developed as such as opposed to the fifty-four acres proposed in the plan. At the corner of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard there is five and a half acres zoned commercial, Bixby wants to rezone another eight for a total of fourteen, his preference would be five and a half acres of development as opposed to fourteen, Bixby has another nine acres on Seal Beach Boulevard, they want to rezone another thirty-one acres for a total of forty, preference would be nine acres of development rather than forty, if the tennis I 11-9-98 courts are lost that is a small price to pay to keep the development and traffic down, Bixby is not going to put anything detrimental across from their country club, also, the property is under the flight path, therefore restricted. Mr. McDannel said when he and his neighbors chose to move to College Park some twenty-five years ago one of the main reasons was the openness and the eucalyptus trees, it was I believed that the City would maintain that quality of environment indefinitely, and to that he requested that the residents not be let down and that the plan not be approved. Mr. Steve Meltzer said he resides on Old Ranch Road across from where the Marriott Senior Care Facility is proposed to be built, as a resident and living across the street from that facility stated he vehemently objects to the development of the tennis club site, a commercial development is not thought to be something that is wanted there. Mr. Dave Scott, thirty year plus College Park East resident, stated his support for the plan under consideration. Mr. Scott said after watching two Planning Commission hearings and sitting through this meeting it becomes apparent that the majority of attendees at meetings such as this are people who oppose the plan, noting that it is much easier to criticize and be vocal about something you oppose rather than support a plan of liking, he is in awe of some of the arguments that people have and how many are anti everything, especially any type of development, growth, or commercial, and often wonders where they go to do their shopping, it seems to be a situation of just keeping it out of our neighborhood and make any problems, if there are any, someone elses problems. Mr. Scott noted that arguments have been made about traffic, the view of the golf course, the eucalyptU!1 trees, said he finds I holes in all of the arguments, the trees have not been such an issue at this meeting basically because the preservation of the trees has been explained quite ,gell, the bikeways, trailways, and the effort to keep everything as it is so that it is a presentable looking project. ~iith regard to traffic concerns associated with commercial there are various studies and an EIR that says there will be fourteen thousand trips a day, that number has been cut down to llome degree, as to comments regarding residential it is thought that that is not an optional plan any more, residential however would add more trips, traveling mostly during peak hours, where commercial would be more of a smoothing effect through the daily trips, there is question too as to where this traffic is going to come from, his feeling is that customers of this center will come primarily from College Park East, Rossmoor, and Los Alamitos, some opinions have been that people will come from as much as eight to ten miles away, yet there are six or eight other centers within six miles so why would people from Buena Park or Cerritos come here, his felling is that the draw will mainly be from this area. The fact that there will be new stores will not necessarily change the buying pattern of people living in this area, they will probably not make more trips to the store, in fact it may be easier for people, I anyone who resides in College Park East and wants to do any shopping usually exits Lampson to Seal Beach Boulevard and if they went one or two more blocks to the new center that would eliminate the traffic that is continuing onto the Boulevard through Rossmoor and to Katella, Rossmoor residents only need to come out of a side street and cross the Boulevard to get to the new center, and as has been seen the bottleneck of traffic is down adjacent to the freeway where the Boulevard goes to just two lanes, therefore people from College Park, Rossmoor, or Los Alamitos going towards Long Beach or Westminster need to make the transition to that part of the 11-9-98 I roadway, with new options on the Boulevard they do not have to go that way, and in his opinion it is nice to have things available that is within the immediate area were one lives and not necessitate a longer trip whenever one wants to do some shopping. Mr. Scott said he would favor a new look to the community, the developments that Bixby has done have been first class, the Seventh Street access has been an asset to everyone in the community. As to the Rossmoor Center that has not changed in thirty years, maybe the new center will stimulate some new growth and change to bring it up to par, then there would be two viable places to shop, as it is with private residences, when they are remodeled they in turn help the neighborhood, this will help remodel the community, a facelift would be a refreshing change. Mr. Robert Bee, twenty-one year resident of College Park residing on Guava, said he would not be making the comments he had intended as others before him have already done so quite eloquently. Mr. Bee offered that as he sat listening this evening he was somewhat impressed by the parade of paid experts, and would like to address some of what he sees as being flawed, for example the environmental expert said that the adverse impacts of this project could be mitigated, yet the tree removal data provided is pure guesswork, seventy percent or eighty percent, no one really knows, air pollution data is based on inexact modeling and predicted that it would be better than that, he predicts it will be worse, noise data, that is speculative, stating wait until the noise is heard then it will be known how bad it is. Traffic, this was classic, recognizing the contradictions, it was said the traffic will actually improve with the mitigations, the fiscal impact expert predicted that the project would pull people from outside this community, is that going to improve the traffic. Mr. Bee claimed this is guesswork and projections, people paid that do not really know, people are saying they have looked at this same data and do not like what they see, therefore the Council constituents are not nearly as impressed by this project as the paid experts, with more than six hours of Planning Commission input from residents and two elections, that is a lot of data to say how the people feel about the project, and the people are asking that they be listened to. Mr. Reg Clewley, Seal Beach, called attention to an ad from a local telephone book for the Cottonwood Christian Center, a church that he claimed is planned to be located on the Bixby project in a high volume traffic area that he said could be a dangerous condition, it can not be mitigated. He noted also a letter from a Mr. Fife to the Fair Political Practices Commission in 1997 in which reference was made to District Four that sits as an appendage on the north side of the I-405 that was annexed to the City in the 1960's to provide needed additional revenues, its function to serve as a source of revenue to the City, which he said has not changed in the minds of the politicians that oversee the affairs of the real Seal Beach, by placing the church on that land the City will lose needed revenues, then recommended that this item be removed from the agenda and returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration, and recommended alternative uses for the land designated for a church. I I Mayor Brown noted the intent is to conclude this meeting at 11:00 p.m., return next Tuesday to continue discussions to receive new information. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:32 p.m. with Mayor Brown calling the meeting to order. 11-9-98 Boyd moved, second by Yost, to extend the meeting until midnight. AYES: NOES: Boyd, Brown, Campbell, I>oane, Yost None Motion carried Mr. Philip Chapirson, resident of College Park East, Rossmoor prior to that, a total of forty years in the area, said he considers himself an individualist. Mr. Chapirson said he spoke against the commercial plan a week ago, has always favored homes or a mixed use plan, offered that he has come to this hearing with a heavy heart, ahlays hearing the comments of people that are against and against, to which he questioned when are they going to say ,..hat they are for. He commended the developer for putting fOJ~th a beautiful plan, it is precise, professional, noted his attendance at many Planning commission and Council meetings, the City passed a Memorandum of Understanding believed to be by unanimous vote, by that there was agreement to an enviJ~onmental hearing, evidently that it was a good plan, the desire was likely income, yet he had personally felt thai; homes would benefit his property. Mr. Chapirson noted with interest the comment of the Planning Commission Chairman that he had voted against homes and would vote against commercial too, to which he questioned what exactly the Chairman is for, what the Council is for as well. Mr. Chapirson stated he was going to act as an individualist, he believes this is a beautiful plan, the commercial plan is better than the default plan, to which he is very much opposed, and if he were the developer he would certainly develop something because he has that right, he owns the property and has the right to develop it, yet said he opposes the Marriott project because he lives close to that site, and if he were from Rossmoor he might likely be against the commercial plan, however there is a poor shopping Center at Rossmoor that is half full, Inaybe they will build a better Center. Mr. Chapirson stated the development of this project will mean more money, more sales tax, if that is what is wanted, therefore why doesn't the Council vote in favor of it. Mr. Mike Joseph, Clipper Way, stated he is a member of the Board of Governors of the Old Ranch Country Club, approximately five hundred thirty membl!rS most of whom live in the immediate area, and given this residency of several years, his concern is that without cooperation between the developer and the City there is uncertainty as what could be developed, that a concern greater than anything else, also, he walks the golf course three or four times a week and enjoys the eucalyptus trees as much as anyone, and if any of them have to be moved it is hope they will be placed on the new course. Mr. Joseph said he and many other members of the Club support this project. Mr. Joe Siefreid, College Park East, reminded the Council that they are the representatives of the residents, charged with carrying out the will of the constituents, that should be known from those that have spoken. He noted that what is proposed includes a couple of restaurants, starbucks, and other chain retailers, while across the street there is a restaurant that has been vacant for over two years, if such an establishment is attracted to this area because of demographics why have they not located in the Rossmoor Center, a speaker indic=ated support of the project because he did not want the Marriott located at the originally selected site, to which Mr. Siefreid said the Marriott can not locate unless the Planning Department and the Council grant a conditional use permit, if the zoning remains as it is there will be no Marriott, there is no requirement by law to grant a CUP. He suggested denial of I I I 11-9-98 I the project. Mr. Joe Siler, Birchwood Avenue, stated his opposition to the Bixby Towne Centre Plan. Mr. Siler recalled that at the Planning Commission approximately sixty people spoke, all of which were opposed to the plan, his position does not then mean that he likes the default plan, that is equally objectionable. In his opinion, some of the reasons the Towne Centre Plan is not good is traffic, a minimum of fourteen thousand cars a day, as an example, twenty-five acres of commercial generates the same traffic as three hundred acres of golf course homes, there is a misconception that at rush hour things suddenly become worse with a residential/golf course home project, that is not true, as it is one tenth the traffic at rush hour, therefore when one looks at traffic in relation to the Towne Centre it is seen that traffic is basically inconsistent with the residential area, Seal Beach likes to think of itself as a small town and atmosphere, that is the same thinking north of the freeway as it is south of the freeway. If another commercial center is allowed on the opposite side of the street with the relatively large Rossmoor Center already there, there will then be two centers, congestion, complete loss of view, and no remnants of that small town atmosphere that is known and loved, the nearby landmark eucalyptus trees will be destroyed, however said that seventy percent of the grove will be preserved, that is not being perfectly fair as anyone knows that commercial property needs visibility therefore it is suspected that the trees will be trimmed back substantially, thus one may be looking at eucalyptus trees that bear a great resemblance to palm trees. There will be no view of the golf course as one travels the Boulevard rather, parking lots and retail stores, how big are the parking lots, it is known that there will be twenty-seven hundred cars that could be parked in the area across from Rossmoor Center which is about twenty-seven acres of asphalt, and no matter how you try to beautify the asphalt area, he said that is still not as pretty as a golf course. Mr. Siler said again that the default plan is equally unappealing, the Marriott Senior Facility is scheduled at eighty-eight thousand square feet, how big is that, one-third the size of the Bixby Office Park, that would be across the street from residences. It has been heard how beautiful and upscale the Towne Centre would be, the South Coast Plaza is upscale, has beautiful buildings, yet it is not believed it would be desirable to live next to, it is not felt that the people want to live next door to either the Marriott facility or a large scale commercial center. There needs to be some other way to solve the Bixby land use problem, it will not go away, there needs to be something that is mutually satisfactory. He noted that some years ago a citizens committee was formed, that committee looked into the future as to what could happen with this land and concluded that the golf course home project was the least onerous of all the land uses that could be found, it was acceptable to Bixby and actually represents the highest and best use of the land, a project like that has twice the market value of an all commercial project, however, that is not the plan before the Council, that because certain procedural anomalies have occurred and apparently it is very difficult to get to a point where it can be considered. Mr. Siler said he believed that the City Attorney, if requested to do so by this Council, could find an appropriate and expeditious procedural way to get the mixed use plan back before the Council, there was an EIR for that plan approved by the Planning Commission, submitted to the Council, yet never acted upon, therefore that EIR is still available to be acted upon, that may be a procedural way that plan could be I I 11-9-98 brought back before the Council, admittedly that EIR would have some issues that are out of date yet those have been updated with the new EIR, between the two EIR documents it is proposed that this Council would have more information on which to make a decision than any Council has had in utilizing one EIR. His belief is that if Bixby were asked if they prefer the default plan or the golf course home plan, in his opinion they would choose the golf course home plan, it is believed that is best for the community, the Bixby Company, and certainly best for those residents north of the freeway, as to traffic, that plan has about five thousand trips a day of which about ten percent would occur at peak hour, that is five hundred trips, that compared to the proposal that will generate somewhere between fourteen to twenty-six thousand cars a day, three to five times as many cars with nine percent at the peak hour. Mr. Siler stated that traffic is the key to this development, the key to the community is traffic, there is a need to look forward at how Bixby is going to use its property, it is not going away, and they can not be stopped forever. He nc)ted that historically the people of College Park East tried to get a park where the townhomes are presently located, the City did not support the residents back then in the 1970's, the townhomes were built, the residents lost, a few years later 1;he office building was proposed at a height limit higher than any other structure in the city, Bixby wanted a variance for the height, ultimately that was granted, College Park objected, there was an election, College Park opposed the Office Park, notwithstanding, Bixby won. If one looks down the road, Bixby will eventually develop this property, they will eventually get something along the line that is economically viable from either this or a future Council, at this point he would suggest that there needs to be compromise and be realistic, a view that he has had for considerable time and has been criticized for it, the golf cc)urse home plan should be revisited and work it out as best Ciin be, and expressed his certainty that the Council could find a way to do that. Ms. Sally Unrath, College Park East, al5ked who likes the Bixby project, not Rossmoor or Los Alarnitos or College Park East, they have been heard here, at meetings, and at the ballot box on two occasions, at the Planning Commission meeting someone observed that no one has spoken in favor of the project except Bixby, even the mixed use advocates want this project stopped so that they can push their own agenda, houses under the runway, to which she emphasized that there is no mixed use project on the table, that was withdrawn some three years ago realizing that not only did the community not support it they could not muster three votes on the Council. She noted that the only project before the Council now is the commercial plan, no one wants this plan, to accept it would require a declaration of overriding need by the City Council, however to her the only overriding need is for Bixby to tear up the golf course, tear down some trees, increase pollution and traffic, and plan a project, any project, underneath an active airport runway. Ms. Unrath requested a vote against the commercial project, asked that the opinion that the residential plan is the lesser of two evils not be considered, rather leave the zoning that is already in place, if the projected traffic numbers for the default plan have any ring of reality the sites would have been developed long ago, commercial and residential are too much development for their area. Mr. Ace Yearn, College Park East, said he would think that perhaps the two new members of the Council are concerned when they hear the mixed use plan was turned down at the Planning Commission level, late]~ withdrawn, indicative I I I 11-9-98 I of a lack of support from their community, now it is being heard that there is considerable support for the mixed use plan again and wondering why. Mr. Yeam noted that in November, 1996 the Register newspaper ran the results of a survey that Councilmember Campbell had done to determine what the College Park East area would prefer. The first question was a preference of land use for approximately thirty-four acres behind the trees on Seal Beach Boulevard, the choices were open space, residential, or commercial, those choices even though open space has never been an option, open space received fifty-seven percent, residential was twenty-six, commercial was eight, to question two, land use for the nine acres behind the Mobil Station, open space was forty-eight percent, residential was forty-one, commercial was twenty- one, to the third question, land use for the tennis court site, open space was fifty-six percent, residential was thirty-eight, and commercial was four. He said this is the information on which the election campaigns were based, yet now the College Park community is beginning to realize that open space is not an option, they have a choice and could oppose this plan yet that would then revert to the default plan, to which Mr. Yeam said no reasonable person would want that plan over this commercial plan because the default plan would generate just as much traffic if not more, there would be no mitigation, and the tennis court site would be lost. To the comment that no one ever says what they want, Mr. Yeam said they want the mixed use plan, that can be seen by the referenced survey, also, there should be respect for their Rossmoor neighbors, they too are part of the community and may be residents of either Seal Beach or Los Alamitos in the not too distant future. Mr. Yeam requested that consideration be given to what the public wants, that the commercial plan be rejected, and that somehow the developer be convinced to resubmit the mixed use plan. Mayor Brown said his understanding is that the choices are the commercial, or if rejected, the default plan, and inquired as to the status of the mixed use proposal. The City Attorney offered that there are actually more than two options, as everyone knows the mixed use plan is not before the Council for consideration however there is that alternative in the EIR that would require a new application, General Plan amendments, zone change applications, subdivision maps, and environmental review, even though the current EIR's would be looked at, further review would be needed to determine what this would entail, it would not be as simple as merely taking the EIR that was done some four to five years ago. Mayor Brown said he had specifically inquired of Mr. Bradshaw that if the commercial is not approved and the default plan comes into being, would Bixby reconsider the mixed use, his response at that time was that his Board did not support it, at this point the action will likely need to be a vote in favor or against the plan before the Council, then wait to see whether Bixby would embark on the default plan, and in his opinion he is not certain they would not. Ms. Seligman, twenty-seven year resident, stated Rossmoor has been the best place to bring up children, taking them to Seal Beach when they were younger, said she likes Seal Beach, as does her friends, the people of Rossmoor help support Seal Beach, clean its beaches, support the swimming pool, rebuilding of the pier, participate in the community activities. She asked if the Council was familiar with the word 'boycott', which is what she and her friends are talking, what is needed is a better Rossmoor Center, not something else across the Boulevard, and requested that Seal Beach help them. Mayor Brown expressed concern with the term 'boycott.' Mr. Robert I I 11-9-98 Hobb, College Park East, said a lot hal; been heard about the pros and cons of this project, offered that the Towne Centre is a handsome project, it is a great idea but just the wrong time. He mentioned hearing from the E:CR consultant and the others about traffic, to which he said there are basically too many cars, yet the fixes for that are ultimately too costly, the area will suffer with about fourteen thousand I trips, which there will theoretically be in the long term anyway, but the traffic flow for the Towne Centre is not the right approach. The trees have been talked about over and over and he is sure that they will be thinned out regardless, thus the community will have to live with something less over time because the trees will not be able to stay where they are, losing the trees is not worth it for a Towne Centre, there is just too much mitigation needed for this proposal, drainage is a problem, just imagine the! rain that will come from a twenty-seven acre area of parking, in order to mitigate the drainage Bixby had to increase the basin substantially at considerable cost, it was heard that Bixby spent over a million dollars on that evaluation, that considered a reasonable expenditure bec:ause there is more money to be made from the commercial Cl!nter. Another speaker said that the ultimate use would be benefitted by developing homes in the area, yet the financial planners say it is better for the City to have a commercial development because of the sales tax revenue, therefore it is thought that the final issue for Council consideration is where the money to run the City is coming from, it can be kept in mind that the Towne Centre will generate money howeve!r is not a long term solution, it will cost more in crime, Inore in service problems, it is said that College Park was a hook-on for more I money, it is being used again for more money. Mr. Hobbs offered that this development would not be put on Hellman Ranch, on Pacific Coast Highway, or anywhere near the pier, nowhere except north of the freeway. He said possibly it is good to look at this one more time, that Bixby seriously consider withdrawing this project and c:ome back with something better, they have done that before and it is possible, and as to the comments of the City Attorney with regard to reactivating maps, those are simply pieces of paper sitting in a drawer, all that needs to be done is change the date and there is an up to date map, tile EIR can be changed as there are only mitigating differences between the new and the older document. He again suggested that Bixby consider withdrawing this plan and come back with a plan that fits the needs of the people of Rossmoor and College Park. Mr. Phil Fife, College Park East, said he believes it is clear that he has always favored the mixed use plan i!S the best plan and realistic alternative, he did not realize that by favoring the mixed use plan he would be involuntarily employed by the Bixby Company with the official title c)f stooge, and maybe someday get the title of 'Bixbyite.' He expressed his belief that all of the people who favor the mixed use plan and those in opposition thereto are united in opposition to this plan, I he had always felt that the choices were not open space, not Bixby dedicating the land to the City as a public park and paying for it for years, it was letting them proceed within existing zoning as to what they could do, without EIR's, no Planning or Council meetings, just go through the Building Department, or, the mixed use plan that was developed after years of consultation between Bixby and members of the community, a plan developed by the fonner Councilmember Laszlo's appointed committee. Mr. Fife claimed that the plan under consideration is still shrouded in mystery as to what it really entails, it was conceived under the prior Council 11-9-98 I in the form of an MOU yet passed off at a meeting to allow the City Manager to determine how much money to offer Bixby for the purchase, lease, sale, or exchange of real property, there was no money to buy land from Bixby, there was no land to sell or exchange with Bixby, thus work began on a development project behind the public eye, the MOU and this plan are pretty much synonymous. Along with that point there is something that needs to be considered, there is talk of the advantage of this plan to save the tennis club, yet does it really save the tennis club, the mixed use plan saved the tennis club and provided $750,000 for refurbishment of it as a useful community center, the amount is now $100,000 to convert the tennis club to something, it will never be supported by a community that is not comprised of tennis players but a whole spectrum of aging persons, some nearing retirement, the mixed use plan also gave the tennis club to the City in perpetuity, the MOU requires that the tennis club revert back if the City can not support it or ceases to use it as a community center, however, the City can not fix its sidewalks, infrastructure, so how will it come up with the money to improve that center, especially if it comes as an aged, worn out tennis club. There is little mitigation of traffic on Lampson Avenue, it can not be mitigated, it is too narrow, there is no land to mitigate, yet there are going to be driveways and cross traffic just a hundred and fifty yards down from Seal Beach Boulevard, to which Mr. Fife predicted there will be increased deaths on that roadway, it is already the highest fatality street in the City, the traffic will increase, there is no way to access the Centre unless by means of the freeway, Lampson, or roundabout to Katella and over. Mr. Fife expressed his opposition to the commercial plan, agreed with the speaker that suggested if this reverts to the default plan then they should be fought on the CUP for the Marriott facility, and try to force Bixby to come back with either the mixed use plan or something better than the commercial with a residential component, something that does not change the community which is existing residential with a commercial enclave and a commercial district with a residential enclave. I Mayor Brown suggested this meeting be continued until Tuesday, November 17th for further comments. Councilman Boyd mentioned that this meeting had been noticed well in advance to allow public testimony, and moved to close the public hearing. Members of the Council objected, and Mayor Brown seconded the motion for the purpose of obtaining a vote: AYES: NOES: Boyd, Doane Brown, Campbell, Yost Motion failed I Mr. Victor Grgas, 15th Street, noted listening to the discussion this evening as well as that of the Planning Commission, sympathized that this is a difficult decision, it is a loss whatever way the vote falls because there will be people unhappy on either side. He said he shares the same sentiment as many of the speakers, unfortunately the best plan is not under consideration, the plan under consideration however has some good aspects, the default plan does not. With regard to the development business, especially given the position Mr. Bradshaw and his company finds themselves today, and given his own experience in this business for ten to twelve years, doing projects often many times larger than this, he said the one thing Mr. Bradshaw can not accept is 11-9-98 the uncertainty, at some point in time they will make a decision based upon certainty, and that is the underlying zoning that is permitted for the site, if pushed far enough they will have to do what they have to do, and the MOU, at least from their standpoint, provided some level of certainty to get though this process, it is an expensive process, the consultants are expensive, and to that he extended respect to the consultants, a bringing together of a good team. He emphasized that without certainty that creates problems and at some point the developer has to make a decision, they will not wait forever. Mr. Grgas said if the desire is to go back to a mixed use plan the developer needs to have some certainty, it can not be a mere promise or wish that will give way when the project comes back to the City, that is the worst thing possible, noting that Bixby has been through the process five times, it has been about 'ten years, and if a decision is going to be made they need to have certainty, otherwise in time the parties will end up in court and that serves no one. Mr. Grgas stated his feeling that the mixed use was the best plan, if that can not be done recommended that the default plan not be accepted, it was not good, rather, work something out with the de'veloper. I Yost moved, second by Campbell, to continue this hearing until Tuesday, November 17th. AYES: NOES: Brown, Campbell, Doane, Yost Boyd Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS There were no City Manager reports. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications presented. COUNCIL ITEMS No Council Items were presented. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, November 17th at 7:00 p.m. By unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. City of Approved: I Attest: