Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1984-07-23 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 7-23-84 Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Baucke, Principal Planner Mr. Stickney, Assistant City Engineer Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I WAIVER OF FULL READING Risner moved, second by Wilson, to waive the 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. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3397 - COMMENDING SOUTH COAST REPERTORY - TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY Resolution Number 3397 was presented to Council and read in part by Mayor Brownell entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, COMMENDING SOUTH COAST REPERTORY FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ON THEIR TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY." Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3397 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I AGENDA AMENDED Councilmember Risner moved to amend the agenda to discuss a traffic study. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I Risner moved, second by Wilson, to direct the staff to implemet a traffic study relative to the impact of possible future development by Bixby of their vacant parcels of land. Discussion followed regarding the responsibility for payment of such a study, with Mrs. Risner inquiring if the cost could be passed on to the developer. The City Attorney advised that if it was the intent to pass the cost of a traffic study on to Bixby Company it would have to be tied to a future discretionary action requested of the City, and should the Council choose to have such study done now the cost would have to be borne by the City since there are no development applications pending. With reference to discussion regarding a zone change of Bixby property, Mr. Stepanicich explained the City has the authority to initiate such change, which would not necessitate a traffic study. He suggested that a study could be required of the developer upon submittal of any application affecting the use of their property that would address the cumulative impact on traffic in the area. Mr. Stepanicich also explained that the Council has the authority to impose a moratorium on development pending the preparation of a traffic study addressing the total impact. Discussion continued. Councilmember Risner withdrew her motion with consent of the second. Risner moved, second by Wilson, that the City Council be notified of any future plans presented to the City by Bixby for discretionary or non-discretionary action, and that no permits be issued pending City Council notification and possible action. The City Attorney noted that a moratorium is allowed for 7-23-84 up to two years pursuant to State law. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3398 - ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS - BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN Resolution Number 3398 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, I CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3398 was waived. Principal Planner, Mr. Baucke, stated that all findings have been incorporated in the proposed resolution. The City Attorney recommended the following changes to the proposed resolution: l) page three, Section 2, delete the words "The City Council finds as follows", adding a colon after "EIR.; 2) page three, Section 2-C, amended to read "...lessens this effect as development has obtained permission....; 3) a sentence added to Section 2-C to read "Further, the project as revised is consistent with the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan"; and 4) Section 2, Finding "K" added to read "Members of the public have expressed concerns regarding the impact on public safety as a potential significant environmental effect. The City Council hereby finds that the potential'impact on public safety is not significant as the project complies with all FAA regulations and is consistent with the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Further, the adjacent airport operator has stated that it is not opposed to the project." A member of the audience spoke regarding the possibility of the Army changing their flight patterns, asked if flights will I be reduced, questioned property owner liability in the event of a disaster, and referred to the Armed Forces Reserve Center Master Plan which has reportedly been withdrawn at State level, and inquired if the Plan would still be a legal document on file with the federal government. The City Attorney stated ,that the local base is subject to the position taken by the State and the Attorney General, explaining that the State appeared at the public hearing on behalf of the base, stating it was not opposed to the project, therefore the purpose of the additional Finding "K". ' Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3398 as amended. The City Attorney explained again that Finding "K" was being added in view of testimony during the public hearing process that dealt with public safety and, additionally, that the Finding itself would have no affect on the issue of liability, that certain liability would exist for Bixby, the City or the air base regardless of the Finding. In response to Council the City Manager reported that according to the City's insurance broker ten million dollars of additional insurance coverage would cost approximately'five thousand dollars. Vote on the motion to adopt Resolution Number 3398: AYES: NOES: Brownell, Risner, Wilson Clift, Grgas I Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER l170 - BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN Ordinance Number 1170 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE BIXBY 7-23-84 1- OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1170 was waived. The City Manager reported that a meeting had been held with the environmena1 consultants to discuss concerns relating to the Traffic Engineering Report, noting that the consultant and the traffic engineer, Mr. Justin Farmer, were present to respond to questions raised. The City Manager referred to a statement made by the EIR that the Seventh Street connector would tend to mitigate existing traffic congestion at the intersection of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard, ask'ing how this interrelated with the left turn ramp to the northbound San Diego Freeway. Mr. Farmer introduced himself and stated he had assisted U1trasystems in the preparation of the environmetal impact report. Mr. Farmer reported that during morning peak hours approximately llOO vehicles per hour make southbound left turns from Seal ,Beach Boulevard onto the loop on-ramp to the San Diego Freeway, many of those vehicles exiting Lampson Avenue, and with the completion of the Seventh Street connector approximately 450 vehicles per hour would no longer use the on-ramp, but use the connector. Mr. Farmer explained that the estimated number of vehicles was calculated based upon a 1979 origin/destination survey conducted by Ca1trans, reporting sixty percent of the vehicles destined northbound on the freeway, with forty percent traveling towards Long Beach via Seventh Street, therefore.the connector road would relieve the freeway on-ramp~ Mr. Parker asked if, when the 1980 project was evaluated, a conclusion had been made that the Seventh Street connector was unwarranted. Mr. Farmer stated that there are pros and cons to the connector, and explained that it will relieve a problem on Seal Beach Boulevard as well as the freeway as it relates to the number of vehicles and lane changes, however the 450 vehicles per hour in the morning will then be competing ~or capacity.on the interior roadway. Mr. Farmer reported that the s~ecific effect on the signalized intersection at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard will be that the traffic flow and congestion will be relieved, with a number of vehicles utilizing the number two lane rather than the number one lane. The City Manager asked what the existing traffic cQunt on Lampson is during peak periOdS and how much traffic will be added to Lampson. Mr. Farmer responded that a number of counts have been made over the last several years, that an October 1981 count at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson during morning hours showed 594 vehicles northbound and 83 making a right turn; from Lampson there were 913 making a left turn and 670 making a right turn; and southbound Seal Beach Boulevard left turns at th on-ramp of 1100, noting the peak morning hour is between 7 and 8 a.m. He reported that during the morning peak there would be 57 additional trips entering the project area from westbound Lampson and 13 in the evening. In response to the City Manager, Mr. Farmer stated there would be 43 vehicles in the evening eastbound on Lampson as a result of the project, and in the morning II vehicles. Mr. Farmer added that during a twenty-four hour periOd, 229 westbound and 229 eastbound vehicles would utilize Lampson Avenue as a result of the project, with the project generating, over the twenty-four hour periOd, 2080 vehicles entering and 2080 vehicles exiting the project area. The City Manager asked if a comparative figure was available for the 1980 proposed project for 206,000 square feet of mixed garden office/retail mix use at a height of thirty- five feet~ Mr. Farmer reported' that figure to be 5480, noting that office development generates traffic in the morning and evening, however does not generate the use the remainder of the day as does retail. Mr. Farmer stated 1 1 7-23-84 further that persons traveling northbound on Seal Beach Bou~evard will have the option of using the present freeway on-ramp to Seventh Street or a proposed northbound left turn lane onto the Seventh Street connector. Mr. Farmer verified that the Seventh Street connector will not mitigate the evening northbound Seal Beach Boulevard traffic. with regard to signalization at Lampson, he added that it would be possible to reduce the signal cycle time with the reduction of left turn vehicles. Mr. Parker asked if it I had been determined whether the Specific Plan office use or the previously approved garden office project, assuming equal square footage, would have a lesser effect at peak hours. Mr. Farmer responded that the Specific Plan proposed would generate considerably less peak hour traffic than the previous mix, noting that there is a high generation from commercial uses, approximately IlS trips per 1000 square feet. With regard to determining the peak hour, Mr. Farmer stated it depends on what the condition of the street is, some of the uses, and the ability of a driver to adjust working hours to fit peak traffic hours, possibly through flex time, referring to Transportation Systems Management which outlines various functions such as staggered days and hours, ride sharing, and public transportation. In response to Council, the City Attorney suggested that an advisory condition could be included encouraging the property owner to implement TSM. Principal Planner, Mr. Baucke, reported that the proposed ordinance had been prepared as directed by Council at the July 9th meeting, and incorporates certain language as outlined at that meeting. He pointed out that two Specific Plans had been provided the Council, the Specific Plan prepared by staff incorporating the conditions and 1 environmental findings approved by Council, and the Plan that the Bixby Ranch Company is requesting to be adopted. The Principal Planner reviewed in detail the differences between the City's Specific Plan and the proposed Plan of the Bixby Company. Mr. Baucke reported that since the July 9th meeting, other additions and changes are proposed for consideration, and reviewed each in detail as follows: Section 4-A-i amended to read "That a contractual agreement between the City and the Developer be drafted as approved by the City Attorney which includes what signal modifications, traffic and median improvements, developer's contributions of the project requirements as approved by the City Council; Section 4-A-j amended to read "A Maintenance District for landscape and street maintenance shall be established for all public streets and right-of-way within the project as approved by the City Attorney." In response to Council, the City Manager explained that a Maintenance District as a condition for new development would not fall under the restrictions of the proposed November Jarvis amendment. ~he Principal Planner proposed deletion of Section A-4- o regarding special acoustical review, stating those requirements are contained in Section A-4-d; after discussion, Section A-4-t amended to read "Trees of sufficient size as determined by the City, berms, hedges and thick foliage plants shall be included within the Precise Landscape Plan"; 1 Section A-4-z amended to read "The dinner house shall be relocated to the souths ide of the 7th Street connector road unless engineering and safety studies show conditions exist which make the location infeasible"; Section A-4- bb added to read "A construction schedule shall be established prior to issuance of building permits which includes a limitation of heavy earth-moving activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. as approved by the City Engineer"; and Section A-4-cc added to read 7-23-84 I "The office buildings shall be located 40 feet closer to the south and east property lines than shown in Exhibit A. (Building '1, 97 feet to the eastern property line and building '2, 80'feet to south property line) unless the building height is reduced to 60 feet." The Planner proposed amendment of Section B-I to read "The conceptual location of all principal land uses is shown in Exhibit A, Site Plan, with the addition of the restaurant site modification to the souths ide of the 7th Street connector road. All construction...."; Section B-3-a amended to include the words "...with restaurant site modification noted in Section A-4-z of this Specific Plan"; Section B-4-e added to read "Traffic Modifications on Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard...The applicant shall provide $lIS,OOO for modifications to traffic control facilities on Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard. This shall include: I) Modernization of traffic controls on Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson (head, poles and equipment, etc.); 2) Modification to include interconnects on Lampson Avenue from Seal Beach Boulevard to City boundary; 3) Restripe intersection of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard; 4) Install new illuminated street name signs at Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson intersection; 5) Install new loops and loop protectors at Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson intersection; 6) Installation of new controller, cabinet and related equipment at St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard"; Section B-4-f added to read "Armored Guard Rail on Lampson Avenue...The applicant shall provide an engineering study, and a maximum contribution of $18,000 for construction of armored guard rails along the south side of Lampson Avenue"; Section B-4-g added to read "Median strip on Seal Beach Boulevard...The applicant shall provide a contribution of $35,000 for the construction of a landscaped median strip along the center line of Seal Beach Boulevard from the intersection of Lampson Avenue to the freeway on and off ramp signal"; Section B-4-h added to read "That the applicant construct a screen of the drainage channel at Seal Beach Boulevard to include: I) 6' block wall; 2) A.C. pavement at flood control driveway; and 3) construct catch basin as approved by the City Engineer and Orange County Flood Control District. Mr. Baucke continued with an amendment to Section B-S-a to read "The maximum building height shall be limited to four (4) stories not to exceed sixty (60) feet unless the Precise Plans show the office buildings located 40 feet closer to the east and south property lines as noted in Section A-4-cc above, in that case seventy (70) feet will be allowed"; Section B-6-b- 2, added to read "Up to 35% compact parking shall be specifically authorized with the resultant (IS%) savings of parking area to specifically be used for additional landscaped open space area on the northeastern side of the 7th Street connector road"; Section B-8-b amended to read "Landscaping the boundary of the site along the proposed wall facing the Rossmoor community shall include plant materials which at maturity reach a height of between twenty-five (25) and thirty (30) feet. The trees will be 36" box specimens with a height at the time of planting of IS to 18 feet." Councilmember Risner noted that upon further investigation it had been found that larger trees may tend to become root bound therefore the reduced height of the initial plantings. Section B-'ll, Required Precise Plan Submittals, amended to reflect that the City Council will only be involved with review of the materials, colors and textures of the elevations, to read "A - Fifteen (lS) copies of the following shall be submitted for Precise Plan review by the City Council, approval prior to issuance of building permits. I - Precise elevation of all buildings I I 7-23-84 and structures with heights dimensioned in detail (seven of the fifteen copies to be colored as proposed). The City Council to review only the materials, colors and textures of the elevations. Samples of all elevation materials and textures to be submitted for approval"; and lastly, Section B-II-B amended to reflect Precise Plan review by staff, to read "Five (5) copies of the following shall be submitted for Precise Plan review by staff, approval prior to issuance of building permits. l) A Precise Site Plan showing all buildings, structures, parking circulation and landscaped areas all shown in accurate dimensioned detail (I" to 60' scale minimum); 2) Samples of all decorative hard surfaces or walkways; 3) Photo or plans of any streetscape furniture; 4) Precise Lighting Plan showing the type, size, height and location of exterior lights; 5) Precise Landscape Plan showing actual location, type, size, and number of plants, trees and ground cover. In addition, the plan must specify the design and location of the irrigation system required for maintenance of the landscape and provide concrete curbing or other separate material surrounding the landscape areas; 6) Complete floor plans of all floors of all buildings with rooms labeled as to use; 7) Precise Sign Program Plan for all exterior signage including project identification and directional signs. The actual location, size, shape, height, color, type of illumination must be shown. One of the copies to be colored as proposed and material samples submitted." The City Manager suggested that prior to approval of the proposed changes, that the Bixby Company be allowed to respond, particularly since the dollar figures for traffic modifications differ in the City's Plan and the Bixby proposed Plan. Mr. Taylor, consultant to the Bixby Company, asked if the dollar figures set forth in the City's Plan for traffic modifications were a "not to exceed" figure. The City Manager verified that they were. With the exception of one item, Mr. Taylor stated that the conditions would be acceptable, however will have an impact on the project. Mr. Taylor read proposed condition "cc" relating to relocation or lowering of building heights, and relinquished the podium to Mr. Ron Bradshaw, Project Manager, to respond to this issue. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the useable height of the buildings proposed is presently 60 feet with a 10 foot parapet that surrounds the top level of the buildings which is primarily a screening device for mechanical equipment. He explained that the building itself sits 2-1/2 feet above the parking lot grade, that the first floor, which accommodates structural members and allows for the lobby area, is 19 feet 5 inches with a leasable area of 12 feet and a lobby of l4 feet, the second and third floors being 13 feet floor to floor height with a 9 foot ceiling, allowing a 4 foot cavity in which to run mechanical equipment, ducting, and electrical through the infrastructure, the fourth floor being 12 feet floor to roof in height, with a 3 foot space for mechanical equipment, noting that the elevator equipment protrudes above the height of the building by 7 feet, therefore the overall building height of 60 feet without the parapet. Mr. Bradshaw stated the proposed parapet would be constructed of the same materials as the rest of the building which gives the appearance of being a part of the structure and provides a clean line from an architectural standpoint. With regard to moving the buildings forty feet closer to Seal Beach Boulevard and the freeway, Mr. Bradshaw stated this would have major considerations with regard to design of the project. He explained that the intent of the design of I I I 7-23-84 I the three office buildings was to create a total surface parking area that would have no front or rear concept. He stated he felt that moving the buildings back would create more of a parking lot feeling, that the design was built around the concept of workability, and that moving the buildings would impact the design of the project and the atrium areas, also, there would no longer be two main entrances into the buildings, that a single entrance would be created. He explained that the parking had been distributed to each section of the project, away from the major entrances and the connector road. Mr. Bradshaw explained that relocation of the buildings is not something that could not be done, however it would have an impact on the project design that was presented. Counci1member Risner suggested that two of the four rows of parking spaces, each space being twenty feet in length, be deleted from the area where the building relocation is proposed, therefore two rows of parking would remain along the entire perimeter of the area. Mr. Bradshaw suggested that the City staff may want to comment on the proposed building relocation as it relates to fire safety, circulation around the buildings and parking, and possibly meet with the designers to work out any prOblems with engineering and design. Mr. Bradshaw proposed that language similar to that relating to the restaurant relocation be considered for the office buildings. Mrs. Risner suggested an amendment may be necessary after the staff has verified that moving the buildings will meet the requirements for safety vehicles. The City Attorney suggested that an additional provision could be added giving the Council the option to place the buildings back where they were originally proposed if it is determined unfeasible to locate them as set forth in "cc". Mr. Taylor expressed his concern that the position of the office buildings in relation to the restaurant may pose a conflict between the two uses, and should it be found relocation is not feasible, suggested that the staff look into applying the engineering and safety language relating to the restaurant, to the office buildings. Mr. Taylor stated that moving the buildings would be the most difficult, that lowering the building height could be accomplished by removing the parapet. The City Manager pointed out that lowering the height to sixty feet is not relevant to engineering safety, stated that removal of the parapet would be unacceptable to staff and recommended that should the four story building be approved, the parapet be required. Mr. Baucke stated that the Specific Plan refers to the Municipal Code for items the Plan does not address, and specifically under commercial provisions of the Code all mechanical devices are required to be screened, therefore anything above the roof level would have to be screened from view in some manner, noting that a parapet around the entire exterior of the elevation, as Bixby has proposed, would be the most acceptable to staff. Mr. Bradshaw suggested that the engineering and safety consideration should only be relative to moving the pad locations, stating he felt the preference would be for relocating the forty feet and keeping the building height from an architectural standpoint. I I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of Council, to recess at 9:13 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:3l p.m. with the Mayor calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney recommended Condition "A-4-cc" be amended to read "Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the office buildings shall be located 40 feet closer to the south and east property lines than shown in Exhibit A unless the building height is reduced to 60 feet"; that 7-23-84 Section "B-S-a" be amended to read "Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the maximum building height shall be limited to four (4) stories not to exceed sixty (60) feet unless the Precise Plans show the office buildings located 40 feet closer to the east and south property lines as noted in Section A-4-cc above, in that case seventy (70) feet will be allowed"; and Section B-II-A-l amended to read "A Precise Site Plan showing all buildings, structures, parking circulation and landscaped areas all I shown in accurate dimension detail (l" to 60' scale minimum). The City Council shall review only the height and location of the buildings and the materials, colors and textures of the elevations. Samples of all elevation materials and textures to be submitted for approval." The City Attorney explained that this will allow the Council to review the location and height of the buildings at the time the Precise Plans are considered, and if it is determined at that time that movement of the buildings by forty feet is not feasible the Council could adjust the movement to a lesser footage, require the forty foot adjustment, or require the buildings be lowered. with regard to flex time, the City Attorney suggested Condition "dd" be added to read "The developer shall be encouraged to implement a Transportation System Management Plan which includes flex time, staggered hours, and other similar measures." In response to Council discussion, the City Attorney recommended an additional sentence to Condition "t" to read "All damaged landscaping shall be replaced with p1antings of substantially similar size." In response to a question by Council relating to Condition "e", the City Attorney explained it to be a technical phrase as provided by law, and noted that any substantial change to the Specific Plan would be required to be considered 1 by Council under public hearing, and suggested that Condition "e" be amended to read "Modifications...which do not give rise to a conflict with the intent or policies of the Specific Plan...". Councilman Grgas referred to the developer's contributions and stated he wished to point out the affect of approving the project and granting the variance. He stated he had made certain assumptions regarding the worth of the land versus the building costs based upon two scenarios, the property held for investment purposes, or the sale of the property when the project is built, and then compared the proposed project with a project without the variance. He offered that if Bixby were to propose a 270,000 square foot project spread across the site, two to three stories, with stairways and stucco rather than the high-tech architecture of steel and glass, the project would probably generate $16S,000 per year cash flow or a two and one-half percent return on a 13 million dollar investment assuming a rental rate of $l per square foot. In contrast, the high-tech project, based upon $1.SO per square foot rental, would probably produce an annual cash flow of $6l0,OOO per year or a return of 7.3 percent return on an investment of seventeen million, therefore tripling the return on investment affected by granting the variance to allow the 1 building height. Mr. Grgas continued, stating that the Bixby land is very old in terms of ownership, therefore has a low property value, and that a higher land value could be obtained through sale of the property. He projected that should the project cost 36 million, a fair land allocation to the project would be about 9.4 million, therefore a 270,000 square foot project value of 45 million which could generate 4.5 million annual income. He stated that should the project be sold for its worth, there is , 7-23-84 I a potential for a profit of lO million dollars, which includes the land value. He compared the proposed project with a 270,000 square foot lower grade project, stating that Bixby stands to realize between 4 to 6 million dollars additional profit by receiving the variance, that the variance will increase their profit return by two and one- half times, increase their cash flow by three and one-half times, concluding that the variance, in essence triples Bixby's return from the project. Councilman Grgas expressed his feeling that Bixby's contribution in the form of traffic modifications is inadequate, should be at least doubled, or that a contribution in another form would be appropriate. Mr. Taylor stated he would turn the discussion to Mr. Bradshaw if it was felt this discussion was germaine to the project, also th~t he felt State planning laws prohibit a City from making extractions for a project based upon a projected profit to the developer rather than on planning merits. Councilman Grgas responded that if the plan is approved it would be on its planning merits, however planning considerations are also based upon economics, that consideration" in this case is not clearly made on the site, topography, and existing surrounding land uses, suggesting that Bixby could propose a project of lesser degree and mass rather than the steel and glass structures proposed. Mr. Bradshaw stated he did not feel economics were pertinent to the discussion and that he felt the statements were misleading. He stated Bixby would welcome a purchaser of the property for 9.4 million dollars as it sits, noting that he did not feel Bixby or any other developer would be looking at anything near a 7.3 percent return cash on cash. He stated that the base of the property has a detrimental affect on Bixby Ranch as compared to another developer who would come in and pay retail for the property, referring to the tax base, stated that the only way Bixby could get out of that property and preserve its position would be to go to some type of exchange, which he felt would not be difficult to prove, noting that Bixby has not sold a piece of property, other than residential zoned property, in the past fifteen to twenty years, that properties are held basically due to the tax disadvantages associated with a sale. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that over and above the project, Bixby is putting in a wall at an estimated cost of $300,000 which was not required by the EIR but included as a mitigating measure for the Rossmoor community, $100,000 freeway signal at the intersection of the project, which was not previously required and benefits the community, the turning lane costing approximately $30,000, $222,000 raw cost for putting in the Seventh Street connector road, $200,000 imposed by the landscaping speciman trees, in addition, the City will receive fees associated with plan checking of about $10,000, Bixby's engineering and design costs of approximately $50,000, a total of those items being $913,000. Additionally, the Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard traffic modifications costs of about $180,000, for a total of $1,093,000, noting these contributions exceed by approximately $750,000 the previous project. Mr. Bradshaw also stated that Bixby has not discounted the 2.4 acres for the roadway, estimated value of l.2S million, pointing out that the project cost to Bixby now totals 2.3 million dollars for which there is no return on investment. Mr. Bradshaw continued, stating that a consideration, not only for this project but the prior project, is that Bixby did not maximize the density that would be allowed under either of the scenarios, therefore if Bixby were to maximize development under the M-l and C-2 zones, Bixby could produce a 500,000 square foot project similar to the 1980 project, which, he stated I I 7-23-84 is three times greater intense use allowed under existing zoning, which would also be without exceeding the seventy- five feet allowed in the M-l zone. Mr. Bradshaw confirmed that Bixby has held the subject non-productive property for a hundred years, stating he felt Bixby has been considerate, in terms of approach and intensity, as to what they would build on the site. Mr. Bradshaw referred to the proposed project of 270,000 square feet on an eighteen acre site, and should it be sold for a 9.4 million I dollar figure given that kind of land base, he stated no developer could make the project pencil out on a economic basis, based on a rent schedule of possibly $2.50 per square foot for unleasable space and $1.50 for leasable space, that that would mean a debt service on 36 million dollars of 35 million, therefore a loss of about 5 million just in cash flow. He noted the cash flow on this project would be about "break even" in the early years. Mr. Bradshaw stated he could not think of one consideration that Bixby has not responded to, attempting to work with the community, and offered that Bixby could be put in a position where they will go back to the original zoning, suggesting that no one should be mislead that Bixby Ranch would go back to 196,000 square feet of development, deeming it not to be an economic use of that property under that scenario. Again referring to the one hundred year ownership of this site and pointing out that College Park East and Rossmoor residential areas were once Bixby land, Mr. Bradshaw stated Bixby could not be considered merchant builder, that they manage their projects well, and further that Bixby has not sold a project for profit in twenty years. Mr. Bradshaw stated that the proposed project was a well thought out plan, being considerate of land use in relationship to the freeway, also relationship and location in the community, as well as the mitigating measures over and above those I called for in the EIR, and requested that it be kept in mind that Bixby is contributing over 3 million dollars to the project. Councilman Grgas responded that he felt certain that there is at least a I million dollar contingency built into the developer's proforma, in addition another million dollars of development fees associated with the building of the buildings that they charge internally, referred to square footage prices of similar properties, stating that there are buyers in the market at the asking price and based upon what it is felt can be obtained from city and county agencies. Councilman Grgas offered that this project is unusual in that the developer is being asked to contribute where he might not otherwise be required to, unless the project was in a redevelopment area or under a development agreement, stating however that the developer is benefiting greatly by receiving the variance. He continued, referring to the mention of a 500,000 square foot development on the site, stating he would not object to that as long as the thirty-five foot height and parking requirements were met, which would increase the tax base and sales tax return and most likely still require traffic mitigating measures. Mr. Grgas expressed his strong feelings that the developer is not contributing an amount commensurate with the height variance for the project. Councilmember I Wilson referred to the uniqueness of the site and location, stating the privacy and traffic problems have been addressed, that she found the contribution figures quoted by Bixby interesting, and expressed her feeling that this is the best project for this site. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve the Specific Plan changes as presented by staff, as amended, and the additional conditions and changes proposed at this meeting. In response to Councilman Grgas regarding the legality of developer contributions, the 7-23-84 1 City Attorney stated that he has seen no cases to date that dealt with the issues of developer contributions based on the economic profitability of the project, that typically cases have emphasized that conditions of a project should be based on land use impacts, suggesting that that should be the basis for the Council to add conditions to the project. He clarified that land use impacts are mitigating impacts on surrounding areas, upon the community and services, and should be the basis for developer contributions. The City Manager referred to the negotiated cash contribution for park land for the Hellman development as example, adding that whatever the contribution, it should have a relationship to the development. Discussion continued. r , Vote on the motion to approve Specific Plan changes and amendments: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I Councilman Grgas suggested an annual assessment be considered for the maintenance and repair of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud and Beverly Manor Road. The City Attorney cautioned that inclusion of areas outside of the project could be deemed a benefit to other properties, therefore they too would have to be assessed. Mr. Grgas suggested a flat fee contribution, possibly $100,000. Mr. Stepanicich stated that a legal test would be whether or not there would be a reasonable relationship between that contribution and the impact of the project on the street, additionally, if challenged the question would be whether or not the $IOO,OOO amount was a fair and reasonable amount based upon the proven impact on Seal Beach Boulevard, which is an engineering question. Grgas moved, second by Clift, to impose a $100,000 developer contribution towards maintenance and repair of streets impacted by the project. Councilmember Risner asked what percentage of impact there would be on Seal Beach Boulevard by the project. It was clarified that this would be a one time contribution. Discussion followed. 1 It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council to declare a recess at lO:37 p.m. to allow the staff to calculate data relating to street impact and repair/maintenance costs. The meeting reconvened at 10:S8 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. The Assistant City Engineer reported that the Bixby project would be responsible for four percent of the traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and three percent on Lampson, that the total project cost of reconstruction of Seal Beach Boulevard between Beverly Manor Road and St. Cloud would be $200,000, Bixby's share would be $8,000, that reconstruction of Lampson Avenue from Seal Beach Boulevard to the east City boundary would be $700,000 total, Bixby's share $24,000, for a total of $32,000. Councilman Grgas pointed out that the City provides maintenance and weed abatement along Lampson Avenue, suggesting Bixby should be charged for those costs. The City Manager stated that if there is no public use for the Lampson Avenue right- of-way, it could be abandoned back to Bixby, which the staff could initiate. Councilman Grgas, with consent of the second, rephrased his motion on the floor to reflect a $32,000 one time contribution rather than $lOO,OOO. The City Attorney stated that the data the City staff presented does provide factual support for the contribution, suggesting it is a matter of policy whether or not the 7-23-84 Council chooses to request this type of contribution. Counci1member Risner expressed her concern with this condition, that she felt Bixby had tried to contribute to the surrounding areas, however indicated she would support the motion to maintain the City's roadways. Mayor Brownell stated he personally did not approve of this type of financial condition, therefore would vote against the motion. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Risner Brownell, Wilson Motion carried 1 Councilman Clift commenced his comments with reference to statements that the Bixby Company could set aside this Specific Plan and then submit a project to build 75 foot M-I and 35 feet C-2 buildings on this parcel under existing zoning and in conformance with the General Plan. He referred to Ordinance 975 which changed the zoning of nine of the eighteen acre Bixby parcel from C-2 to M-l, and as a result of that public hearing, the matter of use was subsequently referred to the Planning Commission for hearings, after which Ordinance 982 was adopted amending Article IS of the Zoning Code, requiring all development in the M-I zone to take place in the industrial park concept in order to insure compatibility with the surrounding land use and to insure general health, safety and welfare of the community, etc. Pointing out that Ordinance 975 specifically referred to nine acres, he then referred to Municipal Code Section 28-IS02 which allows the maximum height of main buildings on a ten acre or larger site of 75 feet, and 35 feet on a site less than ten acres. Again referencing the nine acres set forth in Ordinance 975, Councilman Clift contended that the intent was that any building construction in that nine acre, M-I zone, should I not exceed the height of 35 ~eet. Mr. Clift stated that the argument has been made that the word "site" refers to the entire parcel and not the nine acre portion that is zoned M-I. The City Attorney stated that the staff had requested clarification of that section of the Code, that there is an ambiguity in the Ordinance in that the word "site" was used, which is not specifically defined by the zoning ordinance. He stated that upon review of the Zoning ordinance, it was determined that the term "site" generally makes reference to an entire parcel or entire building site. with regard to the Bixby Ranch property, he stated it is an eighteen acre building site, therefore it has been determined that the common usage of the word "site" would refer to the entire area. He explained that in interpreting an ambiguous ordinance a court can look at the intent of the City Council, and if there is evidence in the record to indicate what the intent was, that would be a factor to be considered. He stated he had not reviewed the record of the City Council, however in reviewing the words used in the ordinance, it would seem that a court would most likely determine "site" to include the eighteen acres, not just a portion of the site. He explained that the zoning cuts across the Bixby property, however there is only one parcel of land, and for that reason it was determined it was most likely, given the present wording I of the Code, a court would determine that the "site" would refer to the entire eighteen acres. Mr. Stepanicich stated in terms of that interpretation, the Council could, if they believe that the original intent was to limit the site area to the M-I area, amend the Code provisions for M-I zoned property, making it clear that the only property that could be developed to a height ~f 75 feet would be a ten or more acre M-I zone property. He clarified that if 7-23-84 I the Code were amended in that way, a 75 foot building could not be built on the Bixby property, also that the issue of zoning will be moot if the Specific Plan is adopted which will then be the controlling document, explaining that any amendment to the Code would only effect the Bixby property if the Specific Plan is not adopted. The City Attorney also clarified that M-I zoned properties would allow only those uses permitted by the Code. The City Manager interjected that an exception under the Code is research and1development, such as Rockwell, which is a corporate office. I Ms. Carol Theriault, 4309 Elder Avenue, submitted petition sections appealing to Counci1member Risner to change her vote on the Bixby Business Park project. Mr. Robert Cook, 44l Central Avenue, stated he had several questions he would appreciate a response to, the first, why this issue was not referred back to the Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65504 since a change had been made to the Plan. The City Attorney responded that the Government Code provisions specifically only apply to General Law cities and are not binding upon Charter cities, that the Government Code provisions had been used as a guideline in adopting a Specific Plan, secondly with regard to this case, there is a provision of State law that requires a City to act upon a development project, under which this project qualifies, within one year after an application is filed with the City, and that this provision of State law controls over any other provision of State law or local provision, as well as Charter cities, therefore the City Council must act by August 6th, noting that until there is a Council decision as to what the contents of this Specific Plan will be, there is nothing to refer back to the Planning Commission. He stated that should the Council take an action at this meeting, there would not be sufficient time to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for their report back to the Council due to the fact that it is necessary for the Council to take action on the Plan by August 6th. He explained that even if the Government Code provisions did apply, which they do not as to Charter cities, the one year time requirement would still supercede the Specific Plan regulations in the Government Code. Mr. Cook's second question was, does this Specific Plan restrict or preclude any other structures going on that piece of property. The City Manager responded that if the Specific Plan is adopted, in order put anything else on the site or to go back to the existing zoning, Bixby would be required to submit their request to amend the Specific Plan and go through the exact same process. Mr. Cook asked how many votes of the Council it would take to change a Specific Plan. The City Attorney stated it would require a majority vote of the Council after a public hearing. Mr. Cook stated that since the applicant indicates that all that is proposed under the Specific Plan is offices, he asked if the ordinance calls for a zoning change or will it remain M-I and C-2. The City Attorney stated that the zoning would remain as it is now as for the General Plan designation for the property, that the requirement of a Specific Plan is that it be consistent with the General Plan which, in this case the General Plan is very general as to the use of this property, and that the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan. He reported that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance that states that if there is any conflict between the provisions of the zoning ordinance and a Specific Plan, the Specific Plan shall control. He noted that this is not the first project where 1 7-23-84 there has been a conflict between the Specific Plan and the provisions of the base zoning, for example the Hellman and Department of Water and Power properties. Mr. Cook expressed his concern that the subject parcel could have an additional 443,000 square feet of footprint plus parking at some future date by a majority vote of the Council. Mayor Brownell recommended that the reference to the I Specific Plan be changed to read "City of Seal Beach Bixby Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plan." The City Attorney recommended that that change be made throughout the ordinance as well as the findings. ORDINANCE NUMBER ll70 - CITY OF SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN Ordinance Number 1170 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1170 was waived. Mr. Joe Siler, 4217 Birchwood Avenue, stated he wished to raise a procedural question, noting that the City Attorney had made reference to a State statute which requires the City to take certain actions within a one year period, Section 65950, which refers to action by a lead agency, he stated by definition, he felt the lead agency should be the Planning Commission. The City Attorney responded that the interpretation was not correct, explaining that the lead agency would be the agency that makes the final decision upon a project, the project, in this case, under State law would be defined as the Specific Plan which was applied for by the developer/property owner. I Further, he stated that once the property owner applied for the Specific Plan the one year time periOd began, and in this case the lead agency would be the City Council since the Council will make the final decision, with the Planning Commission being an advisory agency making a recommendation to the City Council. With respect to responsible agencies, a term used in CEQA, he stated the term refers to separate agencies that have power to review a project but do not make the final decision on that project, therefore responsible agency does not apply to the City at all, and the lead agency is clearly the City Council in this case. Mr. Siler referred to City ordinances that establish the Planning Commission as the arbiter in certain circumstances when an application is made to the City, additionally that under the Code the Planning Commission makes every decision relating to zoning with the exception of the appeal right to the City Council. Mr. Stepanicich stated that to be correct with respect to a Conditional Use Permit or Variance, explaining that the lead agency would be the Planning Commission since under the Code relating to those two matters the Planning Commission makes the final decision unless there is an appeal to the City Council. The City Attorney explained further that with respect to a General Plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment or zone change, or with respect to a Specific 1 Plan, the Planning Commission is not the final approving agency, but a recommending body to the City Council therefore the Council becomes the lead agency. Mr. Siler asked if there was anything in City ordinances that defines the City Council as a lead agency. Mr. Stepanicich noted that it is sometimes difficult to determine who is the lead agency when there are various governmental agencies involved in a project, however in this case, only the City of Seal Beach is involved in the approval. He explained 7-23-84 I that the term "lead agency" is not used in the City Code since adoption of that terminology was subsequent to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore the term is defined by State law. Councilmember Risner expressed her concern with the confusion and air of distrust that has resulted from this project, with the statement of the State Attorney General, with the process of Specific Plan's in general, motives of the City Council, with the City staff and City Attorney's position relative to the Bixby project, with the completeness of the EIR, confusion as to how this plan relates to the existing zoning of the parcel, M-1 and C-2, the traffic impact as conc1ued by the professional traffic engineer, confusion as to the desires of the people of the area affected by the project, whether or not this project is setting precedent by whatever height is determined, and whether the project is appropriate for this parcel, however, would be inappropriate for land in the old town and hill areas. Mrs. Risner stated she did not know of another parcel of land in the City that has the same configuration or abuts the freeway as does this parcel of land. Councilmember Risner noted that from the many discussions she has had, persons have expressed their views for and against the height, architecture, restaurants, return on investment and property taxes. Mrs. Risner stated that in her estimation the project should not be determined as to how much money the project is going to bring to the City, possibly a consideration but not a final determination, the final determination made as to wnether or not the project is suitable for the site, with the least impact to the area. She indicated that the City might make more money with the 1980 plan as well as increase the sales revenue, however stated she did not believe in strip zoning of retail/commercial from a planning perspective. Councilmember Risner explained that her major concern with . the project was alleviated with the statement from the Attorney General, her next concern was with traffic congestion. She stated that she, along with the staff, had met with the traffic engineer, with the conclusion that the project will impact the area in a positive way by relieving some of the traffic congestion, noting that without the project, nothing is being done to correct the traffic situation. Mrs. Risner added that she felt most any city in Orange County would welcome a project of this quality that only covers fourteen percent of the parcel, noting that with the dense landscaping and mature trees, it will soon become a beneficial project in that area. Councilmember Risner expressed her appreciation for the interest that has been shown tOWards this project, noting that her district would not be impacted to the degree of College Park East, but concluded that she felt the impact that College Park East perceives may not be realized, additionally, conSidering what other type of development would be suitable for this parcel, stated that she felt office use the best. Councilmember Wilson reiterated her feeling that the plan with its modifications, is the best land use however stated she would like to address a rumor that Leisure World representatives may vote for this project because Leisure World has plans to build a nine story building. She reported that she had attended a luncheon this past year during which a citizen stated he wanted to tear down existing buildings, replace them with a nine- story building at his expense, stating she presumed the rumor started with those remarks. Mrs. Wilson reported that a poll had been taken regarding use of the land that was later developed into the condominiums, with the opinion being that the residents would like to have a hospital or convalescent home in Leisure World, however those thoughts I I 7-23-84 were abandoned as not feasible. Mrs. Wilson stated she knew of no such plan for a nine-story building in Leisure World as rumored. Mayor Brownell stated that the decision on this project that he will make is what he feels is right after indepth study of the project as well as the questions that have been raised, which have now been responded to. Councilmember Risner stated she had heard rumor from College Park East that she was voting this project because Bixby donated a large sum of money to the pier, and asked the I Bixby representatives why they did not contribute to that fund. In response to a member of the audience, Counci1member Risner clarified that the mitigating measures will alleviate the morning traffic impact, that it was reported that the evening traffic would not be improved, also, that the traffic signals will be set to coordinate with morning and afternoon peak traffic. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number l170 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Risner, Wilson Clift, Grgas Motion carried A member of the audience inquired as to Council direction for a traffic study, and complained that the traffic presentation was poor and that information provided the Council was not provided the public. The City Manager reported that a traffic study would be ordered at such time as new development is processed, reported that there was no new traffic information provided the Council, merely an explanation of the facts contained in the EIR, and a map of the area with no data on it. The City Manager stated that a workshop had been scheduled for Monday, July 30th, for a discussion relative to the downtown business district, however Councilmember Grgas will be unable to attend that meeting, and reported that Ordinance 1l70, requiring a second reading by August 6th, could be considered at that meeting, and reschedule the downtown workshop. By consensus, the Council agreed to consider Ordinance 1170 for second reading on July 30th, 7:00 p.m. Councilman Clift stated that he would be providing to the Council specific questions that he would be addressing to the City Attorney concerning the procedural aspects of processing the Specific Plan, with a written response requested. In response to Council, the City Attorney stated that it has been Council policy if a Councilmember has specific questions, that they be presented during the course of a meeting in order to obtain the concurrance of the Council to have the City Attorney's office respond. After discussion regarding possible legal costs involved, the Council, by consensus, authorized the City Attorney to respond to Councilman Clift's questions. A member of the audience requested that second reading of Ordinance 1170 be postponed until Monday, August 6th, noting the possibility of circulation of a referendum against the Bixby project. At the request of Councilman Grgas, the Council, by unanimous consent, agreed to excuse his absence from the July 30th meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "D" THROUGH "I" Councilmember Risner requested Item "I" removed from the Consent Calendar. Wilson moved, second by Clift, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Item "I", as presented. D. Approved regular demands numbered 52788 through 53009 in the amount of $Sll,743.84, and payroll I I 7-23-84 demands numbered 9730 through 9910 in the amount of $l33,07l.2l as approved by the Finance Committee and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for the same. 1 E. Denied the claim of Gabrielle Olmstead for property damages and referred same to the City's insurance adjuster. F. Received and filed the memorandum reporting that the Civil Service Board had taken action to change their meeting time to 6:15 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month. G. Bids were received and opened by the City Clerk at 1:30 p.m., June 13, 1984 for Project Number 547, Alley Reconstruction, as follows: Sully-Miller Contracting Company Dyno Construction, Inc. Shawnan Corporation Richardson & LeBouef Company Damon Construction Company $ 455,427.03 524,046.47 S42,128.58 544,739.75 SS2,176.l9 I Rejected all bids for Project Number 547, Seal Beach Alley Reconstruction, directed the staff to modify the plans and specifications to delete the Electric Avenue Alley from the Project, and authorized the City Manager to readvertise for bids for said Project. H. Appropriated an additional $lO,OOO from the unallocated General Fund balance for tree trimming professional services for fiscal year 1984/8S. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "I" - REPORT - SIDEWALK REPAIR Risner moved, second by Grgas, to hold this item over until the next regular meeting. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - RECREATION and PARKS COMMISSION SEAL BEACH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AUTHORITY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Wl1son moved, second by Grgas, to hold over the appolntments to Boards and Commissions until the next regular meeting. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brownell declared oral communications open. Mr. Robert Cook, 44l Central Avenue, reported his observation of site grading in the Trailer Park intended to be used for a manufactured unit by the developer of the Park, and objected to certain residents residing within the intended low income Park. The Ci~y Manager reported that Mr. Dawson has applied for a permit to place a manufactured home on his site in the Trailer Park, noting that the existing 7-23-84 agreement for the Park calls for l20 spaces for low/moderate income, 6 for market income, with Mr. Dawson having one of the market income sites. He reported the immediate concern by the staff was that it was a manufactured home, explaining that those sections of the Health and Safety Code dealing with definitions of Mobile Home Parks was changed in 1982 to allow manufactured housing to be placed in Mobile Home Parks. He reported the next concern dealt I with which setbacks would apply, whether it would be R-3 trailer setbacks or under Title 25, noting that the definition of what can be put in a Mobile Home Park now allows manufactured housing, however the regulations dealing with setbacks, sideyards, etc. only address mobile homes. Mr. Parker reported that staff contacted the State Department of Houslng for an interpretation, and their interpretation was that wherever the law says mobile homes you simply substitute manufactured housing, therefore you use the setbacks in those particular codes. He stated, subsequent to those discussions and with the knowledge of how the State would rule, Mr. Dawson was then granted a foundation permit for the manufactured home that he intends to place in the Trailer Park which the State has deemed as legal. In response to Council, the City Manager, stated he believed the setbacks to be six feet. Mitzi Morton, lS3 - 13th Street, expressed her feeling that a traffic study should have been required and paid for by Bixby some time ago, and stated she felt the the Traffic Study should have dealt with the impact of the Hellman property development and with the new Navy housing development, noting the future impact on Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue. There were no other oral communications; Mayor Brownell declared oral communications closed. CLOSED PERSONNEL SESSION I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn to Closed Session at 12:22 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:40 a.m. with the City Attorney reporting that the Council had discussed personnel matters. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Clift, to adjourn the meeting to Monday, July 30, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 12:44 a.m. of the Approved: QA A.....~ ~ - f~-- .~ Mayor Attest. ~.- '~~r{fJ I