Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1984-07-09 6-25-84 / 7-9-84 I was the direction of the Council that a written commendation from the Council be prepared. Councilmember Risner inquired as to the time frame for receipt of the pier restaurant design phase. The City Manager reported he would be meeting with the Thirtieth Street Architects the following day and would try to obtain copies of the renderings for each member of the Council. There were no other oral communications; Mayor Brownell declared oral communications closed. CLOSED SESSION It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn to Closed Session at 8:27 p.m. The meeting reconvened a~ 8:55 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney reported the Council had discussed potential litigation. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, 8:56 p.m. second by Grgas, to adjourn the meeting at AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Cit Sea and ex-offlc'o City Council I Approved: ().s .'4.-- d ~. .... -. U- Mayor Attest: 9~"..(~ ~ Clty Clerk Seal Beach, California July 9, 1984 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Stickney, Assistant City Engineer Mr. Baucke, Principal Planner Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner moved, second by Wilson, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent 7-9-84 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. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1169.- FEE SCHEDULE - IMPOUNDED ANIMALS I_ Ordinance Number 1169 was presented to Council for second reading entij:led "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE III, OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANIMALS AND FOWL." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1169 was waived. Clift moved, second by Risner, to adopt Ordinance Number ll69 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS !'B" THROUGH "D" The City Manager requested Item "D" removed from the Consent Calendar. Risner moved, ~econd by Grgas, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented, except Item "D". B. Approved the minutes of the regular adjourned City Council meeting of June 21, 1984 and the regular meeting of June 25, 1984. C. Approved regular demands numbered 52705 through 52785 in the amount of $lI3,423.78; regular demands numbered 52786 through 527787 in the amount of $3,957.91; and payroll demands numbered 9546 through 9729 in the amount of $l48,262.76, as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for the same. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried REPORT - PIER CONTRACT AWARD The City Attorney reported that a proposed agreement has been prepared, pursuant to negotiations with Crowley Constructors for completion of Phase III of the pier reconstruction. Mr. Stepanicich explained that some minor changes to the agreement may be necessary upon completion of review by Crowley, the agreement to subsequently be executed by the par~ies thereto should the Council approve the agreement concept. The City Attorney reviewed the terms of the agreement as follows: that the contract with Crowley will consist of all specifications and provisions of the prior contract that was entered into with Magnus, with the addition of the proposed agreement to resolve the issues that have arisen due to the default by Magnus; that Crowley will be required to complete the contract in accordance with the plans and specifications; Crowley will be requ~red to accept all work done by Magnus and the subcontractors; that any corrective work that has to be done will be performed by Crowley before the project will be accepted by the City and the City Council; that the time for commencement of the project will be within seven days after the contract is executed; completion to be within one hundred days, after which the City would require liquidated damages under the standard provisions I 7-9-84 I of the construction contract, $500 per day; compensation on a time and expense basis, the cost not to exceed $826,000, the contract detailing how various charges for the work done will be handled. He reported that the City will be responsible for providing all materials, lumber and hardware, except miscellaneous items, for the project. Mr. Stepanicich reported that as of Friday tentative agreement had been reached with the surety company whereby they will release the materials to the City at no initial cost, payable when the contract is complete. He explained that the City then has a $200,000 surety that will be held until such time that there is assurance that the City's damages are covered. He further explained that there is also a procedure set forth in case the materials are not acceptable, the contract providing that the City will make the final determination as to what materials may be used, and if replacement of materials is necessary the City will obtain same. Mr. Stepanicich noted two additional points, that in the case of compensation on a time and expense basis it is hoped that the cost may be reduced up to $50,000 below the $826,000, and that Crowley Constructors has inspected the work completed under the previous contract. The City Attorney recommended Council approval of the contract with Crowley subject to final approval by the City Attorney, and that the City Manager be authorized to execute the contract as finalized. Council inquired if this type of contract negotiation is acceptable to FEMA, and the other funding sources, the State and the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks. The Assistant City Engineer responded that staff had discussed the matter with FEMA, and that they had indicated their agreement to the contract subject to approval by the City Attorney, with their funding continuing to be based upon the original low bid, with the City and surety company responsible for any costs above the original contract amount. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to approve the agreement as set forth by the City Attorney. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The City Attorney explained the need for a written agreement between the City and the bonding company for release of materials, and requested the Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement,. subject to City Attorney approval, providing for the release of materials and further accounting after the project is completed as to how the expenses of the project will be reimbursed. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to approve agreement with the surety company as stated by the City Attorney. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS I Recreation- and Parks Commission - District One Councilman Grgas requested this appointment be held over until next meeting. Seal Beach Administration Buildin . Authorit ounCl man Grgas reporte the res gnatlon of Barbara Rountree from the Authority, moved to accept same, the appointment to be held until next meeting. Councilman Clift seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried 7-9-84 Project Area Committee - Organization Nominees Councilman Grgas moved to approve the reappointment of Dr. Gordon Shanks, nominated by the San Gabriel Pacific Park Society, and the reappointment of Barbara.Rountree, nominated by the Historical Society, to the Project Area Committee for the full term of two years, expiring July 1986. Councilman Clift seconded the motion. A member of the audience questioned the organizations submitting nominees to the P.A.C. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Civil Service Board Councilman Clift moved to appoint Mr. Bill Howard to the Civil Service Board from District Four for the unexpired term ending July 1986. Councilmember Risner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENT - ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL Councilman Grgas moved to reappoint Mrs. Georgianna Brown to the Orange County Health Planning Council for the 1984/85 one-year term. Counci1member Risner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Risner moved, second by Clift, to appoint Counci1member Edna Wilson as the alternate representative to the O.C.H.P.C. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried I DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY WORKSHOP Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to set Monday, July 30th at 7:30 p.m. as the time for the Downtown Revitalization Study Workshop. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PUBLIC. HEARING - AMENDING POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN _ ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing open to consider an amendment to the Position Classification Plan for the position of Administrative Aide. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been advertised as required by law and reported that no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Assistant City Manager presented the staff report and recommendation of the Civil Service Board. There were no communications from the audience relating to this matter. Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3395 - AMENDING POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN - ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE Resolution Number 3395 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO INCLUDE THE POSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3395 was waived. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3395 as presented. I 7-9-84 AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3396 - ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE - SALARY RANGE Resolution Number 3396 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CREATING A SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE. ", By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3396 was waived. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3396 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-l003 - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION - WARD/McCOLLOM - 205 - lOth STREET Mayor Brownell declared the pUblic hearing open to consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1003 for the conversion of an existing triplex into three condominium units. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing had been published as required by law, and reported a communication received from Pryde and Ross McGuire, l34- AMain Street, stating they had no objection to the proposed conversion. The Principal Planner presented the staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mayor Brownell invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Charles Antos, agent for the applicants, Mr. Neal Ward and Mr. Richard McCollom, stated that the applicant/owners are agreeable to the conditions as outlined in the resolution. There were no other communications; Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3397 - APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 84-1003 - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION - WARD/McCOLLOM - 205 - lOth STREET Resolution Number 3397 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 84-1003." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3397 was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3397 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I PUBLIC HEARING - BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK - SPECIFIC PLAN and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mayor Brownell announced a proposed time limit for presentations before the Council on this item, allowing the Deputy Attorney General ten minutes as requested, and sixty minutes each for the proponents and opponents of the project. Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing open to consider the Bixby Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The City Clerk certified that a quarter page legal notice of public hearing had been publiShed in the Seal Beach Journal, the City's officially designated newspaper for legal publications, as well as in the News Enterprise and the Long 'Beach Press Telegram, that the notice had been posted at City Hall, mailed to property owners within three hundred feet of the project area and to interested parties. Mrs. Yeo reported that no communications had been received either for or against this matter, however two mailed notices of hearing had been returned undeliverable. Councilman Clift voiced his objection to the proposed time limit for 7-9-84 presentations. After discussion, it was determined that no specific time limit would be imposed unless presentations became lengthy. Principal Planner, Mr. Baucke, commenced presentation of a detailed staff report regarding the Bixby Old Ranch Business Park. He described the property as an irregularly shaped vacant parcel of land containing approximately eighteen plus acres located on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard, and the north side of the San Diego (405) Freeway, zoned M-I (light manufacturing) and C-2 (general commercial). Mr. Baucke stated the Specific Plan proposes three office buildings of four stories (seventy feet maximum) containing a total of 270,000 square feet, two free-standing restaurants two stories in height (twenty-five feet) containing 9,000 and 6,000 square feet respectively, and a one-way westbound connector road from Seal Beach Boulevard to Seventh Street. He reported that an Environmental Impact Report had been prepared as required by California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Impact Guidelines of the City of Seal Beach. Mr. Baucke reviewed actions taken relative to the 1980 approved Bixby Old Ranch Business Park, Tentative Parcel Map 80-1001, which con~isted of four commercial buildings, two financial buildings, five industrial buildings and one restaurant, with a maximum height of 28.75 feet. He reported that since the 1980 approved development, Bixby Ranch Company subsequently revised the proposed use of the site and submitted a Specific Plan dated May, 1983, to the City, after which an Initial Study was performed as required by CEQA. The Principal Planner reported that subsequent to the Initial Study a Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 1983, was prepared under the City's direction by U1trasystems, Inc., Irvine, addressing the issues indicated by the Planning Department which could cause significant environmental impact, with references made to the 1980 EIR relating to environmental issues previously covered and considered unchanged. He reported that upon receipt of the Draft EIR, the document was forwarded to affected public agencies for review, and as a result of their recommendations on the Draft EIR and the project in general, revisions were made to the project which included the westbound 7th Street connector, reduction of parking spaces and the height of the eastern most office building, with an addenda prepared to the Draft EIR reflecting same. Mr. Baucke reported the October 20, 1983 action of the Environmental Quality Control Board, subsequent to their public hearing, to adopt the Draft EIR with the exception of landscaping, updating of the EIR report, revision of the open space/park section, further study on flight patterns, and inclusion of a sound barrier wall along the northerly property line. Additionally, he reported that on November 17, 1983 the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission found the Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plan consistant with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan subject to three conditions relating to sound attentuation, height criteria, FAA approved obstruction lighting, and specific restrictions to avoid interference with aeronautical operations, noting further that the Commission added a caveat expressing concern with matters of public safety in the vicinity of the Air Force Reserve Center, urging the City and the developer to consider proper mitigating measures to enhance public safety. Also, on December 15, 1983, upon a request from a member of the Council, the Commission again addressed the Bixby Specific Plan and after testimony, determined not to reconsider its previous action. The Principal Planner stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter I I I 7-9-84 I on December 7th which was continued to allow for further investigation of issues raised at that hearing. He reported that a representative of the Bixby Ranch Company proposed the following modifications to the proposed project at the continued hearing of January l8, 1984: l) construction of a wall, minimum of ten feet in height, along the northerly property line adjacent to Rossmoor, to be consistent with the soundwall to be constructed by Caltrans; 2) landscaping of the northern perimeter with landscape materials in a hedgerow manner with a maturity height of twenty-five to thirty feet, to provide a view screen; 3) reduction of the. maximum building height to sixty-nine and one-half feet, reducing the proposed project to three four-story office buildings; and 4) adding to the permitted uses, private ancillary restaurant facilities, therefore allowing private cafeterias for major tenants. Mr. Baucke reported that the Planning Commission acted to deny the Bixby Park Environmental Impact Report on the basis that it was an inadequate document due to lack of adequate consideration of: I) sound barrier wall, 2) crime safety, 3) fire safety, 4) seismic safety, 5) airport safety and 6) telephone services. That the Commission also moved to deny the Specific Plan because they felt the Plan did not adequately address the interest of public safety and welfare specifically in regards to: I) density of population, 2) height of structures, 3) impact on possible crime safety, 4) fire safety, 5) seismic safety and 6) airport and related aircraft activities. He explained that subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing the questions and concerns expressed have been addressed in the Draft EIR. Mr. Baucke explained further actions, requested by the Bixby Company, affecting postponement and an extension of time for final action on this project pursuant to State law. It was reported that the revised environmental documents were received by the City on May 9, 1984 from the City's environmental consultant, reviewed by staff, and returned to Ultrasystems for additional clarification of specific areas. It was pointed out that as the project is presently proposed, the site coverage is l4.2 percent, that the project meets all parking requirements, that the height of the office buildings proposed are now seventy feet maximum and twenty-five feet maximum for the restaurants, that setbacks far exceed the City's requirements, that the Plan includes the 7th Street connector road, and outlines regulations and standardS necessary for the project. It was noted that the City's Code presently allows M-I , zoned sites over ten acres to be built to a maximum of seventy-five feet, and thirty-five feet on sites of ten acres or less. with regard to specific concerns brought forth during the public hearing process, Mr. Baucke addressed in some detail: I) the use of Specific Plans, 2) interface of the project to the Rossmoor community; 3) compatibility with the Armed Forces Reserve Center Los Alamitos Airfield Operations; and a document entitled Master Plan, Bixby Old Ranch, Seal Beach, California. The Principal Planner stated that the staff recommends that the City Council, upon the recommendation of the E.Q.C.B., find that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Guidelines and be so certified, and further, if the Council deems that the issues in this matter have been addressed to the Council's satisfaction, staff recommends approval of the Bixby Ranch Specific Plan with the following conditions: I) that the adopted ordinance contain written findings and conditions as they pertain to environmental impacts noted in the Final EIR; and 2) that the Bixby Old Ranch I I 7-9-84 Business Park Specific Plan be amended to include "Section 10 - Required Specific Plan Submittals", and "Section II - Required Precise Plan Submittals", as set forth in detail in the staff memorandum dated July 6, 1984. The City Manager stated that based upon the Specific Plan for 270,000 square feet of office space and two restaurants, the staff compiled estimated revenues and costs for the project as follows: one-time permit fees of $159,097, annual recurring revenues from property tax and sales tax of $86,200; and annual recurring known costs of $6,626~ Mr. Parker stated that all City maintenance costs could be recouped by establishing a Maintenance District specific to the Bixby site, noting that the developer is amenable to such a District. Mayor Brownell invited members of the audience wishing to speak in favor of the proposed project to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Thomas Blake, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California and legal advisor to the Military Department at the State of California and the California Army National Guard, read a prepared statement relating to the Los Alamitos Army Airfield, concluding that "The development proposal which is before you tonight is, we believe, consistent with the airspace needed for flight operations at the airfield. The Bixby Ranch development as proposed meets the. requirements of Part 77 of the FAA regulations. The California National Guard, therefore, has no opposition to the development of the buildings proposed in this project." Mr. Jim Taylor, Planning Consultant for the Bixby Ranch Company, noted the extensive review the proposed project has undergone, referenced the Environmental Impact Report, staff report, summary of previous agency actions and an Issues Document relating to this project, and pointed out a scale model of the project concentrated on the office development, noting that the model did not include the restaurants since they are a separate portion of the project due to architectural design and requiring further review by the City. Mr. Taylor spoke to major issues and concerns that were brought forth during the project review process. He referred to criticism of the EIR that it did not address all areas of concern, explained that the EIR was a focused EIR and areas of consideration were identified by City staff to be addressed by that document, that the focused EIR referenced the previously approved EIR and provided data on those issues that were not included in the 1980 document. He stated that the EIR as revised, addresses all issues and questions raised to date. He noted that the EIR had received approval of the Environmental Quality Control Board and recommended approval to the City Council. Mr. Taylor stated that the process of review and critique of the EIR is not unusual, but in fact within the spirit and intent of the law in accordance with CEQA. with regard to building height, he acknowledged the project is proposing a height exceeding the normal height limitations for office development in the City, referenced other buildings exceeding the thirty- five foot limitation, and noted seventy-five feet is allowed on M-1 zoned property. He stated the Plan proposes a mid-rise facility in order to encourage the location of one or several major corporate tenants in Seal Beach, and in order to do so it is necessary to be competitive with the surrounding market. He said that in Bixby's opinion, the quality of the buildings being proposed and the physical environment in which they are placed, the open nature and limited lot coverage, 14.2 percent, coupled with the type of tenants, will be of significant benefit I I I 7-9-84 I to the City. He pointed out that a two-story office or industrial complex does not reflect the present market trends and would require that the project be phased over a longer periOd of time. Also, that if the project is not approved, the entire project must be changed in concept including architectural design, site design and coverage, as well as revision of the tenant profile concept that the present project proposes. Mr. Taylor stated that it is Bixby's opinion that the height variance does not set a precedent since it is established under a Specific Plan, with each Specific Plan being judged on its own merits, pointing out that the Plan is based upon the unique characteristics associated with the property, that the site is large, and that the boundary conditions are significantly different from other sites. with regard to the project's relationship to adjacent communities, he stated that Bixby has attempted to be as responsive as possible to the adjacent community of Rossmoor, and that the following provisions have been included into the project: l) a building setback of 208 feet from the nearest rear yard property line of the closest residence, 2) that the area adjacent to Rossmoor will be landscaped with trees that will reach a maturity height of twenty to thirty feet in order to screen views to and from the project; 3) a masonry wall, minimum of ten feet, to extend the length of the northerly property line. He explained that the wall is not required for sound attenuation purposes, that the ambient noise levels to properties in Rossmoor are created by traffic noise from the freeway and that development of the project will not increase those noise levels, that the wall and landscaping will, in fact, screen noise levels and benefit the Rossmoor properties. Mr. Taylor reported that a Traffic Analysis had been prepared and included as an appendix to the EIR, which concludes that the project does not prOduce traffic problems that can not be adequately handled by the existing roadway system coupled with the mitigating measures Bixby is required to provide. Also, that all traffic signals operate at acceptable levels, as determined by the traffic engineering sources. He reported that the traffic analysis states that traffic effects on peripheral roadways, specifically Lampson, are not significant, that traffic volume associated with the project on Lampson totals 229 vehicles over a twenty-four hour periOd, and based upon the fact that the project will operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. until possibly midnight, the analysis points out westbound Lampson Avenue traffic would be increase by fifty-seven vehicles in the morning peak hours, and forty-three additional automobiles eastbound during the evening peak. Mr. Taylor spoke to the referenced Bixby Master Plan for the area, stating that the document was prepared by Bixby Company in order to discuss possible acquisition, exchange or use of forty-eight acres of land owned by the military in an area immediately adjacent to their runway, and explained that the only way to obtain that information from the military was to propose a plan to them. He reported that the military, after reviewing the Plan, informed Bixby that it had no interest in pursuing utilization of that property, therefore, based upon that fact, the Plan was not officially filed with the City, therefore Bixby does not consider it to be an official Plan. He concluded that the particular eighteen acre parcel in question stands on its own and does not have any reference to the Master Plan. With regard to the Armed Forces Reserve Center's prior concerns with the proposed project, Mr. Taylor stated he had no comment based upon the communication received from the Deputy Attorney I I 7-9-84 General. In conclusion, Mr. Taylor stated that it is Bixby's opinion that all technical requirements and issues of the project have been answered or resolved, that the EIR is complete and approval recommended, the compatibility between the project and the AFRC has been resolved in the affirmative, concerns regarding the physical relationship of the project and the adjacent uses have been accommodated by set-backs, a wall and heavy landscaping, that traffic is a non-issue, that the project provides many community I benefits, a productive use of vacant land with the highest quality of architectural design, projects a prestigious image for the property, and creates an open parklike office complex and two quality restaurants. Mr. Taylor stated that in exchange for these benefits to the City, the Bixby Company is requesting that the office complex be allowed at a maximum of seventy feet, four stories, in order to reflect the current market and obtain quality tenants. Counci1member Risner inquired if Bixby would be willing to include trees along the perimeter that would be twenty feet at the time of planting. Mr. Taylor responded that according to landscape sources contacted to date, the intent is to plant thirty-six inch boxed specimen trees of fifteen to eighteen feet with their maximum height being reached within thirty-six months. He added that any changes could be included in the Landscape Plan when it is prepared. Co~ncilman Clift stated he had discovered the Bixby Master Plan among miscellaneous documents in the Planning Department and inquired as to how it was obtained by the City. Mr. Taylor responded that he did not say the document had not been sent to the City, merely that it had not been officially filed with the City, and stated that a courtesy copy had been provided to the City for information only. Mr. Jim Bell, 3372 Druid Lane, I addressed the Council as a twelve year resident of Rossmoor and as a member of the real estate industry, employed by Coldwell Banker, spoke in support of development of the property, stated he felt the project was well planned, designed by a top architectural firm, is respective of the needs of the community, noted that the barrier wall will reduce freeway noise to the Rossmoor residential area, and expressed his support for the four-story office buildings on this parcel of land. Mr. Robert Smiley, l3360 Alderwood Lane, spoke in support of the project, the revenue to be generated to the City, and stated he felt the development would enhance the community. Mr. Mike Randall, 4296 Elder Avenue, reported his employment as Vice President of a major Los Angeles construction firm, referred to a meeting held the previous evening during which the major objection to the proposed development was with overflights, and where the feeling was that it would be better to pursue the proposed 1980 commercial/industrial development. Mr. Randall stated he did not favor the prior project for this site, that the project proposed will create a much different atmosphere, attract a different type of business tenant, spoke highly of the architectural firm, and stated the value and amenities of this project are fifty to one hundred percent greater than the 1980 project. He spOke briefly regarding accident potential I and traffic, noting that the Army has withdrawn its objection to the Bixby project, and expressed his feeling that the proposed development will have much less impact on the area. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:38 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. 7-9-84 I As a matter of clarification, Mr. Baucke reported that the E.Q.C.B., at their meeting of June 19, 1984, discussed the revised environmental document, however no formal action was taken since it had not been requested by the Council. He reported that there had been input and a couple of questions, however there was no formal action as to whether or not the DEIR was or was not complete. He explained that there were concerns expressed by members of the audience regarding the use of Specific Plans, however in regard to the environmental documents there were no negative comments regarding the project.. Mr. Baucke did note that the Council had not received a copy of those minutes. He explained that the E.Q.C.B. had taken formal action at their meeting of October 20, 1983 adopting the Draft EIR and forwarding same to the Planning Commission. I Mayor Brownell requested members of the audience wishing to speak in opposition to the proposed Bixby Old Ranch Business Park to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Gus Brickman, President of the Rossmoor Homeowners Association, stated that the Rossmoor homeowners were not present as an adversary of Bixby, noting their appreciation for inclusion of a masonry wall and trees along the northerly site boundary. Mr. Brickman commented on a telephone call he had received from Caldwell Banker, Torrance office, regarding the Bixby project, and expressed his concern regarding possible involvement with this project by previous speakers. with regard to traffic, Mr. Brickman stated Lampson Avenue and the freeway on-ramps are presently full during peak trafflc hours and cannot accommodate additional traffic, and questioned the traffic analysis of Ultrasystems. Mr. Brickman referred to the Los Alamitos School District's consideration of whether the Zoeter School site should be sold or maintained, its worth estimated at seven million dollars, and the retention of which is of value to the City of Seal Beach and pointed out that Rossmoor residents did not speak out in an attempt to force the sale of that site. Mr. Brickman spoke of aircraft flights from Los Alamitos and the military's ability to change the use of that facility if they so choose. Mr. Brickman expressed strong support for two- story low-rise buildings on the site, which would not necessarily have to be manufacturing use, and stated approval of this project will set a precedent for future development. He also expressed his feeling that the City will have to contend with future plans of Bixby for some time. He stated that Bixby had been requested to locate the buildings closer to the freeway, to which they responded that it would not be compatible for a major tenant, and he suggested that the Council study a market survey for development of the Bixby site. In conclusion, Mr. Brickman stated Rossmoor residents feel the project is invading their privacy, urged that the sit~ be developed with two-story buildings within the height limitation which would generate as much income as the subject development without impacting Rossmoor. Mr. Marsh Blu, 4409 Ironwood Avenue, acknowledged that the project was well planned, stating that he had no objection to Bixby Company developing their land, however expressed his objection to the project as proposed at a height of seventy feet and adjacent to residential areas. He noted th~t the Rockwell facility, which exceeds the thirty-five foot limit, is surrounded by parking and open space areas. Mr. Blu stated that density is the issue, height, not land coverage, that Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard are already overly crowded, that the development is not compatible with the I 7-9-84 community, and approval of this project does set a precedent. Mr. John Shaffer, l37-1/2 Dolphin, suggested that if the Council approves the Plan in principal, that the traffic issue be referred back to Bixby for revision of the traffic provisions. Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, stated he could not accept the comments of the Bixby Ranch representative that the Bixby Master Plan is not germaine to the project, noted the problems that would be created should the development as set forth in that Master Plan I be implemented, questioned the sensitivity and community amenities referred to under the "Purpose and Intent" of the Plan, questioned the legal authority for the development of a Specific Plan, and inquired as to who developed the Plan since neither the Planning Commission nor Council did so. Mr. Cook referred to comments regarding E.Q.C.B. recommendations, stating that that Board has no responsibility to evaluate the issues which were involved in the Planning Commission denial, disagreed with citing economic feasibility as a basis for four-story office buildings, and urged the Council to establish procedural guidelines for use of Specific Plans. In response to Council, the City Manager reported this to be the fifth Specific Plan considered by Council. Mr. Jim Funk, 2l5-1/2 Tenth Street, expressed concern with the precedent that would be set by the four-story office structures, and expressed appreciation with Council comments that such height allowances would not be extended to other developments. Mr. Funk suggested that the City negotiate a development agreement in order to extract a larger concession of financial payments on an annual basis from the developer, and stated that the lot area could accommodate, with land to spare, the floor area that is being proposed at a lower number of stories. Mr. Van Tarver, I 4380 Elder Avenue, referred to the Bixby Master Plan, the obligation of Bixby representatives to maximize the return on Bixby's investment, and urged that the Council not take lightly the affect on the community with the construction of four-story office buildings. He stated his feeling that such development will set a precedent, made reference to the existing traffic congestion on Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, objected to the EIR statement that no additional police or fire services will be required, referred to the low annual revenue return to the City, and requested Council consideration of the feelings of College Park East residents. Mr. Tarver requested that, should the Council approve the two proposed restaurants, operating restrictions be placed on those restaurants in connection with any request for approval to sell alcoholic beverages. Mr. Robert Haub, 4252 Dogwood Avenue, expressed his concern with existing bicycle and pedestrian safety, specifically for children of the area, and the potential for worsening conditions with the approval of the Bixby project. He stated he would challenge the Traffic Analysis data, citing the density of the project, and asked that this matter be held over until a new traffic analysis is prepared. Mr. Gary Roberts, 4325 Elder Avenue, expressed his concern with aircraft safety, noting that corporate entities that will be coming in as tenants of the office I buildings will not tolerate fly-overs, therefore may force Los Alamitos to institute unreasonable flight patterns, possibly over Leisure World or into the boundaries of College Park East, and recommended that the studies of the FAA and other qualified organizations should be questioned. Ms. Jackie Trani, 4381 Ironwood, stated traffic safety on Lampson Avenue is presently unacceptable, and reported recent incidents involving vehicles crashing 7-9-84 I through the block wall bordering Lampson, and requested Council consideration of the traffic safety aspect. Rose Marie Garonda, 3192 Yellowtail Drive, spoke regarding existing traffic problems on Seal Beach Boulevard to and from the freeway on-ramps and requested Council consideration of the traffic concerns, also objected to the access road immediately behind the Rossmoor homes. Ms. Ladel1e Clark, 3351 Yellowtail Drive, requested that the proposed development, including the two restaurants, which will serve alcoholic beverages and have live music, plus the three four-story office buildings be rejected, that the Council follow the the Planning Commission's action to deny the project on the basis of public safety and welfare. Noting that the Bixby representative referred to the project as productive use of vacant land, Ms. Clark suggested that the greatest contribution Bixby could make to the entire community would be to leave the land vacant, and expressed her opinion that the Bixby Master Plan was very germaine to this project. . Mr. Phillip Fife, 4301 Ironwood Avenue, stated that he'had spoken in opposition to the Bixby project before the Planning Commission, noted that none of the officers from the Los Alamitos base were present to speak to this issue, and stated his disbelief that the danger that was expressed a few months ago no longer exists. Mr. Fife stated that he is an attorney by prOfession, associated with a legal firm handling the MGM hotel fire and reported certain settlements relating to that disaster. He stated that should an air disaster occur, Seal Beach and its taxpayers would assume that burden, and suggested that the City require the Bixby Company to assume that riSk by indemnifying the City with a 25 to 50 million dollar insurance policy in perpetuity. Mr. Fife also recommended that the parking spaces be reduced, additionally referred to traffic impact and safety on Lampson Avenue. Mr. Hank Manzo, 363l MarigOld, expressed his concern with aircraft safety, stated he did not understand the statement presented from the Attorney General's office, and cautioned that the use of the military base could change with additional encroachments, to the point of allowing civilian use. He referred to the freeway on-ramp, from Seal Beach Boulevard utilized by residents of Seal Beach, Los Alamitos and Garden Grove, which to date has not been metered by the State due to public protest, and objected to increased congestion arising from the Bixby development. Mr. Manzo objected to allowing the four story buildings noting that other developments will want the same consideration, and stated that the volume of patrons of the proposed restaurants will tend to increase crime in the area. Mr. Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, referred to the Bixby Master Plan and quoted a paragraph contained in a letter from the Bixby Company to Washington, D.C., advising that Bixby has no interest in renewing their lease and stating their intention to develop their land in Seal Beach. Mr. Laszlo stated that in August, 1975, the Council changed the zoning for nine acres of the subject property to M-I over the objection of College Park East and Rossmoor residents, later Bixby built condominiums where the residents wanted a park, and are now requesting approval of a project that exceeds the City's height limit and, in his opinion, increases traffic and jeopardizes lives. Mr. Laszlo spoke to the Bixby Traffic An~lysis, Cal Trans Traffic Report, and expressed his concerns with the traffic impact on all areas of the community, as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety. He reported that Cal Trans had estimated a two percent increase in traffic every year without the project. Mr. Laszlo stated the project height will set a precedent for increased building height throughout the City, ultimately affecting I I 7-9-84 Pacific Coast Highway, Main Street and Ocean. with regard to financial benefit to the City, Mr. Laszlo said that the property tax generated would be virtually the same whatever type development, that additional revenue could be generated through sales tax, which he did not foresee with the proposed project. Mr. Laszlo referred to testimony before the Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission regarding air safety, noting that the Planning Commission denied the project because of height and safety I concerns and the ALUC, in their correspondence, expressed concern with air safety, commenting that fliers out of the AFRS have also voiced their concern with safety. He reminded the Council that flight activity from the Southern California Disaster Support Area (Los A1amitos) would be increased should there be such an occurrance of disaster. He also spoke to the liability burden that will be placed on the community should an accident occur. Mr. Laszlo concluded that should the Council determine to approve the project, conflicts could arise between areas of the City that may impair future decisions and harmony within the community. Mayor Brownell declared a recess at 10:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. Mr. Jay Covington, 4260 Dogwood Avenue, member of the Planning Commission, stated that throughout the Bixby EIR and Special Summary the phrase "highest and best use" had been used numerous times, and offered a definition of that phrase from an owner/developer standpoint and from planning standards. Mr. Covington expressed his opinion that this is the wrong project to be built in the wrong place for I the wrong reasons, citing the density of the project, crash hazard safety, the 7th Street connector road, the impact of the project environmentally on surrounding areas, stated the project is inappropriate, that the EIR is an inadequate document, and asked for rejection of the environmental document. He referred to the Bixby Master Plan of which the proposed project is merely a part of the whole development, suggesting that the Council reject this Plan and require the Bixby Company to present an EIR that will comprehensively review the impact of the whole project, which could be for the development of up to another one hundred fifty acres. He referred to a recent news article regarding a 2,000 acre development on the perimeter of the El Toro Airfield of one and two story structures, proposed by the Irvine Company, on land similar to the subject 18 acre Bixby parcel. Mr. Covington, also addressed Council as a Seal Beach resident, stating that a vote for the project represents a vote for a single property owner above the well being of 26,000 residents, compromises the lives of persons occupying the project over the life of the project, jeopardizes the financial security and savings of property owners for liability in the event of a disaster, sets a precedent for height and density in the City, and requested that the Council reject the project as proposed. There being no additional I comments from the audience, Mayor Brownell invited the representative of the Bixby Company to respond to issues and questions of the persons speaking to this matter. Mr. Taylor noted the many issues discussed, mostly the recurrence of the issue associated with traffic, and requested clarification by the environmental. consultant. Mr. Don DeMars, Director of Environmental Studies Division, U1trasystems, stated that their firm assisted the City 7-9-84 I in preparation of the EIR, explaining that there had been changes to the project, some of which are reflected in the Traffic Analysis and the Parking Study that were prepared by a registered, professional traffic engineer. He reported that the studies had been reviewed by a third party, Ca1 Trans, that a difference of opinion initially existed, however it was determined that the most effective way to relieve the current traffic congestion in that area and the traffic anticipated from this project, was to extend the 7th Street on ramp, as well as the addition of left turn lanes, restriping and some signalization changes. He reported that these changes reduce the traffic level to a level of service "C", which is "stable operation conditions." He explained that the present level is "D" and "C", therefore an improvement can be foreseen, which is the opinion of the professionals and confirmed by the Ca1 Trans report. As a clarification, Mr. DeMars stated that reference had been made to the number of additional trips on Lampson Avenue, that currently there are an approximate 7500 trips daily, therefore a three percent increase is anticipated from the project, the total project having approximately 2,000 trips in and 2,000 trips out. Councilman Grgas verified that the 7th Street connector is included in the Plan, referred to the projected 4000 plus trips in and out of the project under this Plan, with the Master Plan calling for one million square feet of development, therefore a possibility for 6,000 additional trips in and out of the project areas. Noting that the City generated the EIR, Mr. Grgas stated he found it difficult to accept the document as comprehensive when there is a potential for development of additional land as set forth in the Master Plan, the impact of which has not been addressed. Mr. Grgas also questioned the legality of the EIR and Specific Plan since it did not receive approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. DeMars reported that the Master Plan was not considered, that to his knowledge no additional development plans have been submitted, however if they had been, they would have been addressed in the environmental document. Mr. Taylor responded that since the issue had come up, he wished ta address the Master Plan. He stated that there appears to be an assumption that there is a Master Plan, however reported that Bixby has stated that that document was submitt~d to the military for a reaction for a stated purpose and when that reaction was received the document ceased to exist, and that it had been filed with the City as a matter of courtesy to allow the City to be aware of what it was Bixby was talking to the military about. He stated that the California Environmental Quality Act requires that an EIR be prepared when there is a project, when the project is identified, and the project filed for discretionary action. Mr. Taylor stated Bixby has never filed a Master Plan with the City'requesting a discretionary action on any property other than.the l8 acre parcel, therefore the EIR does address the statutory requirements of CEQA. Mr. Taylor reported that the other Bixby properties have development on them and that the Council should assume, because it has the perogative to approve, deny or amend any use that is proposed, that there is no Master Plan until it is filed. Mr. Grgas expressed his disbelief that the Bixby Company would prepare and then discard a document such as the Master Plan, stated he could not accept a Traffic Study that only takes into account a portion of a project that may eventually take place in that area, and suggested a Ca1trans traffic corridor study of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue may be in order. Mr. Taylor stated that the application under consideration I I 7-9-84 is for the 18 acre parcel, that Bixby has no application or plans coming to the City for development of additional acreage, therefore the Traffic Study submitted takes into consideration the requirements of CEQA and provides Council information necessary to make a decision on the l8 acre parcel, that the traffic information with the mitigating measures required as part of the project, states that traffic conditions will be improved over conditions that presently exist. Mr. Taylor stated that the comments I presented basically reflect conditions as they exist today without the project, offered that methods are available to resolve those problems, suggesting that the City, at a future time, may want to undertake examination of the various techniques that are available to resolve issues relative to traffic and speed on the highway as it exists now, that it should not be claimed, based upon the technical data submitted, that the project increases that problem when the professional consultants who examined the project say that is not the case. He assured the Council that if the consultant had said the project would create greater traffic problems than now exist, the consultant's determination would have been honored, however the consultant has said that the mitigating measures that Bixby is required to put in as part of the project will, in fact, alleviate the traffic problem. With regard to aircraft safety, Mr. Taylor said the same holds true. He explained that the military initially said there was a potential danger in relationship to the project, that the consultants analyzed the information and disagreed. He reported that the project was considered at two public hearings before the Airport Land Use Commisssion and they also disagreed with the military position. Mr. Taylor referred to the fact that the military now says that they do not have any objections to the project and that their I statement submitted to the City confirms the data that was in the EIR relative to aircraft operations and aircraft overflights. with regard to the 7th Street connector, he stated Bixby would prefer not to have ~he street as part of the project, however that requirement was imposed by Cal Trans, who felt this measure will alleviate congestion associated with the traffic signal on Seal Beach Boulevard at the freeway on-ramp, expected to decrease approximately twenty percent of the traffic at that intersection as it now exists. Mr. Taylor concluded that the fundamental issue with the project appears to be "don't change Seal Beach", however the project proposed, in Bixby's opinion, has positive implications to the City, is not felt that it changes the City or sets any precedent, but does change this land from vacant property to the proposed development. He noted that the Council has the power to zone and restrict a project based upon its merits, that if no other project has the same conditions that exist on this project, the City is not bound to approve another request. He continued, explaining that Bixby had the opportunity to develop the property several years ago and subsequently decided not to develop it at that time, however chose to wait until the best project could be built both for themselves and the City. He stated that the Bixby I Company is not considering "no project" on this site, and asked that the Council keep in mind Bixby's right under existing zoning to develop this land to the density that is allowed, C-2 and M-I, at the heights that are at or equivalent to what is proposed as a part of this project. He noted that if developed under existing zoning, the impact would be the same as to traffic and intensity of use. Mr. Taylor requested that the Council consider the project as presented and the positive aspects associated 7-9-84 I with the project, at the height proposed versus a project Bixby feels would be of lesser architectural quality, lesser physical design amenities, lesser tenant sophistication and involvement, built on a slower basis with the same problems associated with any development relative to traffic and use of the land. Mr. Cook, 441 Central, requested an answer to his question as to whether or not the Planning Commission is charged with developing a Specific Plan, noting that the Commission denied this Specific Plan, and asked who developed the Plan. The City Attorney responded that the application for the Specific Plan was made by the developer, the Planning Commission denied it. He stated that the City Council retained the jurisdiction to consider the application by the developer for the Specific Plan. He stated that the Specific Plan law, which applies to General Law cities, was used as a format to provide the City with a procedure to process the Plan, however as a Charter City, Seal Beach is not strictly under the requirements of that State law. He stated further that both the Planning Commission and the City Council' have the jurisdiction to initiate or to hear a Specific Plan proposed by a developer or a property owner, and in this case, the Planning Commission can not take away the power of the City Council to consider the Specific Plan, and for that reason, even though the Specific Plan was denied by the Commission, the City Council properly has the jurisdiction to consider the Specific Plan. He stated that the City Council has the authority and is within its discretion to either approve or deny the Specific Plan after the hearing is closed. The City Manager added that the developer filed the application with the City for consideration of a certain kind of development, and should the Council look favorably upon the request, the City Attorney and the Principal Planner will prepare the ordinance, which is the Specific Plan. He explained that the only matter the Council is considering at this meeting is approval of a concept of elements to be included in a Specific Plan, the Specific Plan itself, which is an ordinance, must come back to the City Council and be adopted the same manner as a zoning law. Mr. Cook asked if a precedent is being set, removing the Planning Commission from developing future Specific Plans. Mayor Brownell declared the public hearing closed. City Council discussion commenced with Councilman Clift directing his comments to the Council, stating that the site of the Specific Plan is located nearest his district and the persons he represents, that he has reviewed the EIR and related studies and analyses, documents of all other affected agencies, minutes of previous actions, as well as the 1980 approved Bixby plan. He reported he had met with Bixby representatives to discuss the proposed Plan, at which time he informed Bixby that he believed in their right to develop their property to the highest and best use consistent with reasonable restrictions, however felt a responsibility to deny approval of the Plan as proposed. Mr. Clift stated that three facets of the Plan are most objectionable, the proposed building height, increased traffic congestion, and public safety as it relates to the office buildings and restaurants in relation to the Los A1amitos airfield. Councilman Clift referred to the statement made at this meeting by the Deputy Attorney General advising the Council of their revised position relating to the Bixby Plan, advising the City that the Los A1amitos Airfield Master Plan is no longer a viable planning document and that the State Military Department has determined to reexamine that document, and I I 7-9-84 in turn expressed his concern that no military personnel were present to speak at this hearing as they have done previously. Councilman Clift spoke at length regarding Los A1amitos airfield operations, the type of aircraft utilizing the facility and increased operations therefrom, accident potential, and the assignment of Los Alamitos as a Disaster Support Area. Councilman Clift expressed his feeling that placing buildings of high population density on the Bixby site could place persons occupying I those buildings in danger. He noted that proponents of the Plan state that aircraft would come no closer than one thousand feet to the business park, therefore have stated there is no prOblem as to accident potential. Mr. Clift referred to the Bixby Master Plan for the southwest perimeter of the airfield that proposes a hotel and restaurant, stating that should that proposal be considered, aircraft could then be required to make a dangerous tight turn or fly over the Rossmoor or Leisure World areas. Councilman Clift expressed his concern with the feeling that the Bixby site may be an accident potential, referred to the liability that could be placed on the City in event of an accident, and suggested that the developer be required to obtain/retain liability coverage to cover potential claims in the event of a disaster. Referring to the 1980 approved Plan, Mr. Clift stated that the profit to the Bixby Company may not have been to the degree the present Plan would generate, however would provide greater, on-going revenue to the City than would the current Plan, suggested modifications could be made to the approved Plan that would generate greater revenue to Bixby and would meet the requirement for low density population of the site. Councilman Clift concluded that a restaurant was proposed in the 1980 approved Plan fell within the APZ at that time, stated that the recent Airfield Master plan I modified the APZ's which in turn has freed approximately one-third of the site from that zone, therefore he proposed relocation of the restaurant to the free area. He stated his intent was to illustrate that the formerly approved Plan could be totally compatible, and also bring more revenue to the City, and with movement of the restaurant, provide some guarantee for public safety. Councilman Grgas stated his feeling that the important issue is that despite the fact that the City is not looking at the Master Plan as a whole because it is not technically required to do so, the consequences over the long run of development as set forth in the Master Plan are being ignored. Mr. Grgas offered his scenario of what may occur if the project is approved, that the project will meet the requirements of mitigating traffic concerns, even to the point of upgrading conditions on Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue, however sometime in the future there may be an additional six thousand cars a day on the affected streets. He pointed out that the developer has proposed high density on the first phase of the development and that the Master Plan shows lower density on the second phase, that severe mitigating requirements may be necessary for traffic impact from the second phase. He expressed his concern that a precedent is being set in terms of height for a greater I economic return on the project, also that additional concessions may be necessary in the future to pay for extensive mitigations when the balance of the project is built. Councilman Grgas expressed his concern for potential liability and inquired about present business license policy for office development, asking if the business license policy could be amended to include gross receipts and/or number of employees computation for the Bixby project. The City Manager responded that industrial business is 7-9-84 I the only category for which the business license is based on gross receipts, that under the impending Jarvis legislation it could not be done, however could possibly be a provision of a development agreement. Councilman Grgas stated that if a development agreement is considered, and urged that it be, he recommended negotiations include: 1) a business license fee computed on gross receipts or the number of employees; 2) cost of living increase escalators; and 3) indemnification or insurance coverage naming the City co- insured in the event of a catastrophe. The City Attorney responded that he could see no legal problem with a development agreement as part of the Specific Plan, however stated business license increases should be dealt with on a citywide basis, not by singling out a property owner or business for a different calculation. With respect to an indemnification provision, Mr. Stepanicich reported that this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meetings, and stated he had not recommended this idea for the reason that if approval of the Plan by the City is deemed to create significant safety hazards, that would be the basis for dening the project, rather than transferring the liability to a property owner or a private party. For that reason, he stated it is his belief that the City should not require an indemnification agreement if the City is trying to transfer the risk of a potential hazard liability to another party. Mr. Stepanicich stated further that if the developer was willing, on its own, to insure the City or enter into a voluntary agreement with the City via a development agreement for such a provision, then in that case it may be an acceptable route. He stated he would have a concern with imposing, as part of the Specific Plan, an indemnification requirement, which would void the issue that the Council has to decide as to whether or not the approval of .the project would or would not create any additional significant hazards to the community. The City Manager expressed concern with a development agreement at this point, noting that it is usual to have a developer proforma, after which the City could negotiate concessions for payment or improvements in some form. He explained that in the absence of a proforma, it would be difficult, not knowing the requirements about to be imposed through a Specific Plan ordinance, to determine the cost in dollars. Secondly, he stated that whatever concession that may be imposed upon the Bixby Company will be transferred to the ultimate user, therefore there should be an examination of the marketing needs they are talking about. With the imposition of a development agreement, he questioned what could then happen to the square footage costs, whether that would make the project successful or would a high percentage of the buildings be vacant. He noted an additional point, that since the project is a controversial issue and concerns have been expressed with traffic safety, the Master Plan issue, and other matters, he explained he would be hesitant to interject a development agreement where it may appear that Bixby may be given the opportunity to buy their variance and Specific Plan approval, stating that he would prefer the matter handled on its own merits, and from a cost conscious standpoint, stated he felt the Maintenance District would recoup the City's costs, suggesting that some form of agreement could be reached covering such concerns as liability, etc., after the basic issues are resolved. In response to Council it was reported that the cost of the EIR was $25,000, said cost passed on to the developer as is customary. Councilman Grgas again referred to the traffic concerns, suggested that the staff be directed to make some assumptions and do some initial studies on traffic impact on the whole area based upon I I 7-9-84 development that may occur in the future. Councilmember Risner conveyed the indepth review that has taken place for this proposed project. First of all, she stated she had questioned the appropriateness of the project for this 18 acre parcel versus commercial or manufacturing, concluding that the effect on general environs will be less with this type of commercial development, noting that only fourteen percent of the site will be covered by buildings, the remainder for parking, streets, and open space with I landscaping, and that the fourteen percent coverage can only be achieved by allowing the height. Councilmember Risner expressed her concern with traffic impact, noting that the experts have testified that the problems have been mitigated, in fact existing problems will improve, that the 7th Street connector will relieve southbound Seal Beach Boulevard traffic that normally uses the freeway. with regard to noise, the studies have shown, she stated, that noise projected from this project will not exceed existing conditions and that the development will attenuate existing noise from the freeway with the inclusion of a ten to twelve foot perimeter wall, landscaping and trees. Mrs. Risner noted that previous concerns regarding shadows of the office buildings protruding onto Rossmoor residences have been resolved with the lowering of the building heights to four stories. Mrs. Risner conveyed her concern for retaining the small town, unique atmosphere of the community, and referred to past improvements/developments that were controversial at the onset, however have proved to be a betterment to the community. She stated that she did not feel a precedent would be set if the project is approved, that each project must be judged on its own merit. Mrs. Risner stated she would not support the Master Plan concept for the Bixby land and would oppose any extension of development on Lampson Avenue. Councilmember Risner stated I she did not see the project as a detriment to the City, and concluded stating she would most likely support the project with additional conditions which she wished to propose. Councilmember Wilson stated she had studied the proposed project in depth, and that she felt the City is fortunate to have the Los Alamitos Airfield and the Naval Weapons Station in the area helping to keep the area open and uncongested. Mrs. Wilson stated she did not feel development of the 18 acre site would create undue traffic congestion with the addition of the 7th Street connector that will relieve much of the existing congestion, that the project adds needed restaurants and tax dollars to the City's treasury, further, and if there was a hazard from the air she felt the government would have sought the subject property long before now, noting that previous air crashes have not occurred on this site. Mrs. Wilson reported that she has not found the Leisure World community to be opposed to the project, that she felt the Bixby Company has the right to a reasonable development on their land, that the office buildings and extensive landscaping and sound barrier would buffer freeway noise, that once construction is complete, the area will be more attractive, be a tax producing asset, and create jobs in the area. Mrs. Wilson also expressed her concern with accidents that I have occurred to properties adjacent to Lampson Avenue. Mayor Brownell stated he spent many hours studying the numerous documents related to this development in order to resolve questions that have been raised, noting that any objection the Los A1amitos military may have had has been withdrawn. He stated he did not foresee increased accident potential, noting that the flight pattern is over the Weapons Station, not over Rossmoor or Leisure World, additionally that the majority of accidents occur with 7-9-84 I landings, which is not over the subject site, and not take- offs. Mayor Brownell concluded that the development will be an asset to the City, and that he has received no objections from persons in Leisure World. Counci1member Risner reported that the Armed Forces Reserve Center had taken a majority of the Council on a helicopter flight to observe the flight pattern which, she stated, is not in close proximity to the subject property. Councilman Clift read an excerpt from the Airport Land Use Commission minutes, where a member of that Commission had stated that some question had been brought forth during their meeting relative to air safety, and that the Commission had attempted to point outltheir concerns to the City and the need for those issue~' to be addressed. With regard to insuranc'e or indemnification of the City, the City Attorney stated that should the Council approve the Specific Plan concept at this meeting, an ordinance would be prepared for Council action, and prior to that time, the staff could discuss with the Bixby Company the possiblity of a hold harmless or indemnification agreement, however he stated he would like to give further review to this matter as to how it may affect the City's position in the event of a future litigation. Councilmember Risner read additional proposed conditions to be included in the Specific Plan relating to: height of trees, building wall thicknesses, landscape and street maintenance district, interior street driveway spacing, FAA Certificate of No Hazard, bicycle facilities, architecture and tenancy of the restaurant sites, hours of operation for delivery and maintenance vehicles, compliance of buildings with State Energy Conservation Standards, Precise Plan submittals, Precise Landscape Plan, approval of businesses or use, incorporation of bus stop, Precise Lighting Plan, utilization of non-mirrored glass, and that Precise Plans be in conformance with conditions of the Airport Land Use Commission as denoted in its letter of November 21, 1983. It was clarified that seismic design, as referred to on page 26l of the EIR, will be in conformance to the Uniform Building Code, and with reference to elastic spectra, the City Manager stated matters of seismic safety could be incorporated in the Specific Plan ordinance. Councilman Grgas indicated his concurrance with the conditions proposed, referred to the financial return to the developer if the Specific Plan is approved as proposed, and stated his feeling that the City should receive more concessions from the developer for this project, suggesting that consideration be given to a piece of artwork, a City monument for the pier or Main Street, or park contribution. A member of the audience suggested the developer fund the purchase of traffic signals on Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, and that the signals be adjusted to accommodate the morning and evening rush hour traffic flow. Discussion continued. The City Attorney verified that traffic signals would be a reasonable condition to the extent that the project affects signalization and traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson, subject to agreement by the Bixby Company. I I wilson moved, second by Risner, to certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Seal Beach Environmental Qualtiy Guidelines. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brownell, Risner, Wilson None Clift, Grgas Motion carried Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the Bixby Old Ranch Specific Plan concept, with the conditions as set forth in the staff report of July 6, 1984 and those presented 7-9-84 / 7-23-84 at this meeting, and the additional condition for traffic signali zation. Councilman Clift moved a substitute motion to deny the Specific Plan as presented. Councilman Grgas seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas Brownell, Risner, Wilson Motion failed I Vote on the motion to approve the Specific Plan concept as conditioned: AYES: NOES: Brownell, Risner, Wilson Clift, Grgas Motion carried Councilman Grgas asked that the record reflect that his no vote was because he felt a greater contribution should be made by the developer. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brownell declared oral communications open. Mitzi Morton, 13th Street, expressed her disappointment with the Council's action relating to the Bixby development. There were no other oral communications; Mayor Brownell declared oral communications closed. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adjourn the meeting at 12:48 a.m. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I and ex-off'cio clerk of the City Council Approved: ?~ _../~'" I ....,eeL May Atte." 9-.....~ VJ City lerk Seal Beach, California July 23, 1984 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None