HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 95-14 - 1995-08-09
RESOLUTION NO. 95-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO DEVELOP THE
OLD RANCH GOLF COURSE WITH A
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 198-223 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND AN EXPANDED GOLF COURSE (GPA
AMENDMENT 95-1A AND IB)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. In September, 1994, the BIxby Ranch Company ("Apphcant"),
completed and subrmtted a revIsed applicatton for General Plan Amendments 95-1 (A&B), ZOne
Change 95-1, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 14465 (collectively "apphcatton") WIth the
CIty of Seal Beach. The Appltcant seeks amendment to the General Plan to allow an mcrease
ofapproxlmately 22.75 acres oflow denSIty TeSldentlalland, 8.7 acres of hIgh denSIty resldenttal
land, 13 4 acres of golf course land and a decrease of I 7 acres of general commercIal land on
the land described as:
Parcel A, conSlsttng of BIxby Old Ranch Golf Course:
All that certain real property sItuated in the City of Seal Beach,
County of Orange, State of CalIfornIa, bemg porttons of Sections
31 and 32, in TownshIp 4 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardmo
Base and Mendtan.
BegInning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of satd Section 31; Thence S 890 48' 20" E a
distance of 3739.27 feet, to the begmnlng of a 1040.00 foot non-
tangent curve, concave to the South, a radtal to satd begmnlng
bears N 000 ))' 34" E; Thence Westerly, along saId curve,
through a central angle of 350 14' 56" an arc dIstance of 639.82
feet; Thence S 540 56' 39" W a dIstance of 1508.98 feet, to the
beginning of a 10040.00 foot tangent curve, concave to the
Southeast; Thence Southwesterly, along saId curve, through a
central angle of 160 00' 00" an arc dIstance of 290.42 feet;
Thence S 380 56' 39" W a distance of 893.13 feet, to the
begmnmg of a 960 00 foot tangent curve, concave to the
Northwest; Thence Southwesterly, along satd curve, through a
central angle of 510 15' 17" an arc dIstance of 858.78 feet,
Thence N 890 48' 04" W a dIstance of 547.94 feet, to the
begmnlng of a 760.00 foot tangent curve, concave to the
Northeast; Thence Northwesterly, along saId curve, through a
central angle of 630 09' 08" an arc dIstance of 837.68 feet;
Thence N 26038' 56" a distance of 389.91 feet, to the begmnlng
of a 840.00 tangent curve, concave to the Southwest: Thence
Northwesterly, along satd curve, through a central angle of 28"
10' 05" an arc distance of 412.97 feet; Thence N 000 11' 45" E
a distance of 1849.74 feet; Thence S 890 48' 15" E a dIstance of
20.00 feet; Thence N 000 30' 22" E a distance of 183.97 feet;
Thence S 890 48' 15" E a dIstance of 123 15 feet; Thence N 890
48' 15" W a dIstance of 130.00 feet; Thence N 000 ))' 45" E a
D IWPSIIRI!SOIGPA9S-IA PCRILWI08-09-9S
Pla"",ng CommIssIon ResolutIOn 95-14
August 9, 1995
dIstance of 285.13 feet; Thence S 890 48' 05" E a dIstance of
214.97 feet; Thence N 000 12' 22" E a dIstance of 168.28 feet;
Thence S 890 48' 09" E a dIstance of 1045.65 feet; Thence S 000
11' 35" W a dIstance of 1320.09 feet;
Parcel B, consisting of C-2 South of Lampson Avenue, east of Seal Beach Boulevard:
All that certain real property sItuated m the CIty of Seal Beach,
County of Orange, State of Callforma, bemg a portion of SectJon
31, m TownshIp 4 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base
and Mendlan.
BeginnIng at the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of satd SectJon 31; Thence S 270 57' 06" Wa
dIstance of 2067 08 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 650 50' 21" W a dIstance of 627 52 feet; Thence N 570
01' 00" W a dIstance of 69.20 feet; Thence N 530 18' 39" W a
distance of 103 00 feet, to the begmmng of a 78.00 foot tangent
curve, concave to the East; Thence Northerly, along satd curve,
through a central angle of 900 00' 00" an arc dIstance of 122.52
feet, Thence N 36041' 21" E a dIstance of 310 30 feet, to the
begmmng of a 1260 00 foot tangent curve, concave to the
Northwest; Thence Northeasterly, along satd curve, through a
central angle of 140 14' 40" an arc dIstance of 313.25 feet, to the
begmnmg of a 45 00 foot non-tangent curve, concave to the South,
a radtal to satd begmmng bears N 670 33' 18" W; Thence
Easterly, along satd curve, through a central angle of 106052' 33"
an arc dIstance of 83.94 feet, to the begmmng of a 760.00 foot
compound curve, concave to the Southwest, a radial to saId
begmnIng bears N 390 19' 15" E; Thence Southeasterly, along
said curve, through a central angle of 240 01' 49" an arc dIstance
of 318.75 feet; Thence S 260 38' 56" E a dIstance of 271.51 feet
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Parcel C, consIsting of R-G South of Lampson Avenue, east of Seal Beach Boulevard'
All that certam real property SItuated m the CIty of Seal Beach,
County of Orange, State of Callforma, bemg a portion of SectJon
31, in Township 4 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base
and Mendlan
Begmnlng at the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of satd Section 31; Thence S 270 57' 06" Wa
distance of 2067.08 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 260 38' 55" E a dIstance of 118.40 feet, to the begmmng
of a 840.00 foot tangent curve, concave to the Northeast; Thence
Southeasterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 63009'
08" an arc dIstance of 925.86 feet; Thence N 890 48' 04" W a
dIstance of 461 36 feet; Thence N 840 55' 33" W a dIstance of
439.80 feet, to the begmmng of a 35000 foot tangent curve,
concave to the North; Thence Westerly, along satd curve, through
a central angle of 320 43' 33" an arc dIstance of 199.91 feet,
Thence N 520 12' 00" W a dIstance of 46.77 feet; Thence S 000
11' 27" W a dIstance of 12.62 feet; Thence N 520 12' 01" Wa
distance of 190 45 feet, Thence N 570 01' 00" W a distance of
122.83 feet, Thence N 65050' 21" E a dIstance of 627.52 feet to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
D IWPSIIRESO\OPA9S-IA PCRILW\OIl-O!I-9S
2
Planmng Commzsnon Resolunon 95-14
August 9, 1995
Parcel D, consisting of proposed RHO, east of Seal Beach Boulevard:
All that certam real property sItuated in the City of Seal Beach,
County of Orange, State of CalIfornIa, beIng a portton of SectIon
31, in Township 4 South, Range 11 West, San Bemardmo Base
and Mendian.
BegInning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of satd Section 31; Thence N 00. 11' 35" E a
dIStance of 990 09 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence N 89. 48' 09" W a dIstance of 1260.66 feet; Thence N
00. 11' 35" E a dIStance of 161.72 feet; Thence S 89. 48' 05" E
a dIstance of 214.97 feet; Thence N 00. 12' 22" E a dIStance of
168.28 feet; Thence S 89. 48' 09" E a dIstance of 1045.65 feet;
Thence S 00. 11' 35" W a dIstance of 330 00 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SectIon 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15025(a) and ~~ II C and
ill of the City's Local CEQA GUldeltnes, staff prepared an InitIal Study and a Draft
EnvIronmental Impact Report, which was CIrculated for publtc revIew and comment from
November 9, 1994 to December 27, 1994, in complIance WIth the proviSIOns of the Caltfornlll
Environmental QualIty Act and the CIty's Local CEQA GUIdelines Upon completIon of the
publtc review period, a Fmal EnVIronmental Impact Report was revIewed by the Planmng
CommIssIon at publtc hearings held on June 7, 14,21, and 28, 1995.
Section 3. A duly notIced publtc heanng was held before the Plannmg
CommIssIon on June 7, 1995 and contInued to June 14, 21, and 28, 1995 to conSIder the
appltcatlon. At the publtc heanng, Appltcant's consultants and representatIves, mc1udmg
Appltcant's legal counsel, and several other persons spoke m favor of the request Numerous
resIdents spoke m opposItion to the requests.
SectIon 4.
The record of the hearings mdicates the followmg:
(a) Appltcant seeks to develop 98 detached smgle-famtly reSIdences,
100-125 multIple famIly residences, a redesIgned and reconfigured 18 hole golf course, a 180-
room hotel, 30,000 square feet of restaurant space, 35,500 square feet of office space, and
30,000 square feet of retatl space.
(b) The subject property IS compnsed of seven (7) parcels, compnsmg
a total of approxImately 212 acres Presently, approxImately 197 acres IS deSIgnated for "Golf
Course" and approxImately 15 acres for "CommercIal - General" m the General Plan The
subJect property is located on the easterly SIde of Seal Beach Boulevard between the 1-405
Freeway and the Los Alarmtos Armed Forces Reserve Center. ApproXImately 13.56 acres IS
located adJacent to Seal Beach Boulevard, south of Lampson Avenue, WIth the remammg 199
acres located north of Lampson Avenue.
(c) The surroundmg land uses and zonmg are as follows
NORTH In the CIty of Los Alamltos, the Los Alarmtos Armed Forces Reserve Center,
zoned Commumty FacllttIes (CF), smgle famIly residences, zoned Single-Farmly (R-l), and a
servtce statIon m the CIty of Seal Beach, zoned C-2, General Commerctal.
SOUTH Single famtly dwelltngs and MultIple famtly dwellmgs, located m the ReSIdentIal
Low DenSIty (RLD) zone and ResidentIal Medmm DenSIty (RMD) zone (College Park East
neighborhood). Private tennis club located m the C-2, General CommercIal zone. 1-405
Freeway, WIth the Seal Beach Naval Weapons StatIon located south of the 1-405 Freeway m the
Publtc Land Use (pLU) zone
D IWPSIIRESO\(JPA9S-IA PCRILW\08.09-9S
3
P/Q1I1lIIII/ ComnussIon Reso/lIIlon 95-14
August 9, 1995
WEST A mixture of commercIal and residentJ.a1 uses located along Seal Beach Boulevard
in the General CommercIal zone (C-2) and R-I zone (Rossmoor commumty).
EAST Single family dwellmgs and Multiple family dwellings, located m the ResidentJ.a1
Low DenSIty (RLD) zone and ReSJdentJ.a1 MedIUm DensIty (RMD) zone (College Park East
neIghborhood).
(d) The Planmng CommiSSIOn has recommended, through the adoptJ.on
of Plannmg CommissIon Resolution No. 95-13 that the CIty Council find the BIxby Old Ranch
Development Plan Fmal Envrronmental Impact Report (EIR) to be mlmmally legally adequate
Said ResolutJ.on is hereby mcorporated herem by reference.
(e) The BIxby Old Ranch Development Plan EIR represents the
mdependent Judgment of the CIty of Seal Beach.
SectJ.on 5. Based upon substantial eVIdence in the record of the Planmng
CommiSSIon heanngs regardmg the applicatJ.on, mc1udmg the facts stated in ~ 4 of thIS
resolutJ.on, and in the enVIronmental documentatJ.on prepared m conJunctJ.on with thIS proJect,
and pursuant to ~~ 28-2600 and 28-2602 of the CIty'S Code, the Planning Commission hereby
fmds that General Plan Amendments 95-1A and 95-1B WIll be detnmental to the short term and
long term land use goals of the CIty of Seal Beach. The Planning Commission further finds that
approval of the subJect applIcatJ.ons WIll not promote the public health, safety and welfare
Therefore, the Planmng CommIssion finds that the requested amendments to the General Plan
of the CIty of Seal Beach WIll not be m the publtc mterest, and makes the follOWIng findmgs of
fact.
(a) The proposed project WIll create a slgmficant mcrease m the number
of reSIdences m the CIty of Seal Beach, with a correspondmg mcrease m population at least as
large as the growth identJ.fied m the EIR.
(b) Publtc schools in the community are crowded under eXIsting
condltJ.ons. The additional growth m number of students generated by the proposed proJect, as
IdentJ.fied m the record of these heanngs, wtll only further mtensify those future demands.
Although the proJect proponent would be requrred to proVIde certam revenues to the school
dIStrict, the public health, safety and welfare will not be advanced by mcreasmg demands on
publIc school factlIties.
(c) ExIsting traffic m the area is already congested. Cumulative traffic
impacts from other approved proJects m the regIon will further exacerbate the sltuatJ.on The
addltJ.onal traffic generated by the proposed project WIll only further mtenslfy those future
demands. It IS doubtful that each of the mltJ.gatlon measures proposed to mitJ.gate the traffic
Impacts ansmg from this proJect IS feaSIble. In addItion, the methodologIes used to
quantJ.tatively calculate the traffic Impacts are national standards WhICh may not fully reflect
actual condItions in Orange County.
(d) The proposed proJect wtll expose future reSIdents to potentJ.a1ly
Slgmficant and obJectionable levels of noise. The EIR and testimony at the heanng mdlcates
that, after mitigatIon measures are applted, portions of the proposed proJect WIll be exposed to
cumulative nOise from atrcraft actlvitJ.es at the Los Alamltos Armed Forces Reserve Center
combmed WIth traffic noise from surrounding streets that WIll exceed an average nOise level of
65 CNEL. In addition smgle event nOise occurrences generated by the Los Alamitos Armed
Forces Reserve Center will penodlcally expose potential reSIdents to nOise levels m excess of
100 db. The exposure of new resIdents to such levels of nOIse would not promote the publtc
health, safety and welfare. Further, the short term and long term land use goals of the CIty, as
set forth in the existing General Plan, are to duect new reSIdential development m the CIty away
from areas whIch pose the nsk of prolonged exposure to potentJ.a1 health nsks and annoyances
such as excesSIve nOise.
D IWPSIlRESOIOPA9S-IA PCRILWI08-09-9S
4
Plonmllg ComnusSJon ResolllllOll 95-14
August 9, 1995
(e) The Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center IS an important local
asset. It would not be m the publIc mterest to permit development adJacent to the base whIch
mIght pose confhcts WIth Its mIssIon. Even If prospective buyers of the proposed reSIdences
were provided notice of the potential for obJectionable nOise, these extreme nOise levels make
it likely that future reSIdents of the proposed proJect would complam to the operators of the
airfield about excessIve nOise The Disaster Support ActiVIties of the Los Alamltos Armed
Forces Reserve Center, actiVIties which promote the pubhc health, safety and welfare, should
not be compromised by locating new resIdential areas withm close proxImIty to the fhght paths
of the Los A1amitos Armed Forces Reserve Center.
(f) The apphcation and ElR defer detatled soils and geology analYSIS
until after approval of the requested General Plan Amendments. Absent more detatled analySIs,
the CommIssIon was unable to determme whether the property IS geologically SUitable for the
proposed proJect
(g) The apphcation does not proVide clear-cut development time
schedules, particularly WIth regard to the constructlon of the necessary publIc facilities and
mfrastructure Approval of thIS proJect despIte substantial uncertatnty as to the tumng of
Important mitigation measures is not m the publIc mterest.
(h) There is substantial evidence m the record winch mdicates
conclUSIvely that approval of the applIcation would have slgmficant adverse Impacts on the
environment in the CIty of Seal Beach The ElR Identifies four enVIronmental Impacts whIch
are SIgnificant and unavoidable even after the ImpoSItion of all feaSIble mItigation measures In
addItion to the nOise impacts identified above, the project would convert prime agnculturalland
to resIdential uses, thereby contnbutlng to the urbanization of the area Accordmg to the ElR,
such an adverse Impact IS sigmficant and unaVOidable. LikeWise, project operational emISSions
would have a SIgnificant, unaVOidable adverse Impact upon arr qualIty. Approval of the
applIcation would therefore not be m the publIc interest, and would not promote the pubhc
health, safety and welfare m that the proposed proJect would senously degrade the qualIty of the
enVlfOnment and the quality of lIfe m the commumty.
SectIon 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planmng CommIssIon hereby
recommends that the CIty CounCIl deny General Plan Amendments 95-1A and 95-lB.
Section 7. Because the Planning CommiSSIon recommends denial of the subJect
applIcation for a General Plan amendment, no formal action regardmg the request for Zone
Change 95-1 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14465 was taken, as those requests are
mconsistent With the recommendations of the Planning CommISSIon regardmg the subJect
General Plan Amendments. Zone Change 95-1 and Vesting Tentattve Tract No 14465 are
inconSIstent with the General Plan, and thus cannot be approved WIthOUt the requested
amendments to the General Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Plannmg CommIssIon of the City of
Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9th day of August, 1995, by the followmg vote:
AYES: Commissioners
Brown. CamDbell and Dahlman
NOES: CommISSioners
Law and Sh;u:p
ABSENT: Comtnlssloners
D IWPSIIIlESOIOPA9S-IA PCRILWIOIl-09-9S
5
tenberg, Secretary
Plannmg COmmISSIOn
D IWPSIIRBSOIOPA95-IA PCRILWI08-O'J..9S
Plannlllg CommisSIon Resolullon 95-14
August 9, 1995
VJ~4f)J ~_
Patnclll E. Campbell, Chairm
Planning ComlIDsslon
6