Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1984-07-30 7-30-84 Seal Beach, California July 30, 1984 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. 1 ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Councilmembers Clift, Risner, Wilson Absent: I Councilman Counci1member Grgas ~ Grgas's absence from the meeting was excused. Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager Mr. Broi1es, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager 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 to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Counci1members after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1170 - CITY OF SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN Ordinance Number 1170 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH BIXBY OLD RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1170 was waived. The Principal Planner reported that all changes and conditions discussed and approved by the City Council at previous meetings have been incorporated into Ordinance, Number 1170 and related documents. At the request of Council, the City Manager read his memorandum summarizing the measures included in the Bixby Old Ranch Business Park Specific Plan designed to mitigate environmental concerns, as follows: Traffic Mitigation Measures. (a) Change in proposed land use from 196,000 square feet of garden Office/retail mix to 270,000 square feet of mid-rise corporate offices. will reduce total cars the project will generate in a 24-hour period from 5,480 to 4,160; (b) Construction of the 7th Street Interconnect. will divert 40 percent of the vehicles from making southbound left turns from Seal Beach Boulevard onto the northbound San Diego Freeway on-ramp during the morning peak hour traffic. This, in turn, will relieve traffic congestion now occurring at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Lampson intersection during the same period; (c) Lampson Avenue Interconnect. will permit vehicles to travel on Lampson Avenue at a constant speed without being stopped by random signal changes; (d) New controller, cabinet, and related equipment at St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard. The existing equipment is dated, periodically has problems, and lacks the efficiency of modern equipment. The new 7-30-84 equipment will improve the reliability of that signal; (e) Modernize traffic signal at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard. Will eliminate the poles from the center medians, install new vehicle sensing loops, and install illuminated street name signs. The intersection will be made safer, cleaner and more responsive; (f) Armored Guard Rail. will provide an added safety feature for homes along that section of Lampson Avenue which have had a history of auto accidents involving the Lampson Avenue block wall; (g) Encouragement of the developer to implement a Transportation System Management Plan which includes flex time, staggered hours, and other similar measures to reduce peak time traffic concerns; (h) Bicycle Lane. Additional bicycle path facilities will be provided to increase bicyclists' safety; Mitigation Measures for Residents Adjacent to the Project. (a) Relocation of the buildings forty feet further away from the adjacent residents or lowering of the buildings ten feet in height; (b) Construction of a 10 to 12 foot wall along the flood control channel to both screen the project from adjacent residents and to provide additional source reduction of the 405 Freeway noise; (c) Along this same wall, the planting of 36-inch box trees IS to 18 feet in height, thus providing visual screening from the project to the residents; (d) All on- site outdoor lighting will be shielded from adjacent r~sidents; Other Mitigation Measures. (a) Relocation of the dinner house (if shown to be possible from engineering and safety perspectives) to the souths ide of the 7th Street connector road; (b) Establishment of a Maintenance District to ensure that all costs of landscape and street maintenance will be paid by the property owner and not the City. Also, requirement of a $32,000 contribution to the City to offset Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard street maintenance costs; (c) Compliance with all FAA regulations and consistency with the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Councilman Clift stated that a question had been raised as to whether or not another public hearing was required at the time of first reading of the Ordinance, to which the City Manager and City Attorney had responded that the pUblic hearing was held July 9th at which time the concept of the Plan was approved and the ordinance directed to be prepared, and that a second public hearing was not required for the first reading of the Ordinance. Council requested that the record reflect that those persons wiShing to speak to this issue were allowed to do so at that public hearing prior to the first reading of the Ordinance. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1170 as presented. A member of the audience stated she did not feel there was adequate pUblic notice of the hearing for the project, expressed her concern with the height of the buildings, potential for air accidents, increased traffic and crime. A resident of College Park East stated that the residents of that area disagree with the Traffic Report and feel traffic will be increased. Vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance Number l170: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Risner, Wilson Clift Grgas Motion carried Mr. Frank Laszlo, 4480 Candleberry Avenue, and Mr. John FOllis, 4372 Elder Avenue, addressed the Council, stating they were co-chairmen of a referendum committee against Ordinance Number 1170, that the necessary documents and facts have been prepared with the intent to commence I I I 7-30-84 I circulating the petition by Thursday of this week. Mr. Laszlo read facts relating to the referendum, as prepared by the referendum committee, as follows: "1) This is the densest and tallest project to be built in the City of Seal Beach in the last twenty-five years that has been approved on the most dangerous piece of land in the City; 2) The height of this project is twice the legal height that would be allowed to be built on this parcel under regulation zoning; 3) This high-rise project has 90,000 more square feet, almost fifty percent more than the original project which the Bixby Land Company planned for this parcel and was approved in 1980; 4) The City would have made more money on a commercial sales oriented project as in the 1980 plan than it will on office high-rise. The City will make no sales tax on someone working in an office; 5) There will be an increased liability for every citizen and property owner in the City of Seal Beach because of the hazardous location of this project so near the air stati~n. If the City is sued for a large sum of money because of the disaster they will assess every taxpayer in this City; 6) Planes have crashed close to this very parcel several times in the past. It is obviously dangerous and common sense tells us not to allow such height and density; 7) People in the planned restaurant are in the most dangerous portion of this parcel; 8) A high-rise building here will set a precedent for future high-rise on P.C.H. or Ocean or Main Street; 9) Traffic congestion is already a prOblem here. This project will greatly increase the problem that we already have being so close to the freeway entrance and exit, and with Lampson the single artery west out of College Park East. The more dense the project the more traffic it will bring; lO) Every school child over the age of l2 in the whole City of Seal Beach has to pass through these intersections with this increased traffic danger; ll) The owner of this parcel could build any project he wants there so long as it is under the 35 foot height and conforms to commercial or light manufacturing designations. Why should he be given permission to build high-rise; l2) The Bixby Land Company may build a hotel on the site behind the Arco Station. will they ask for the extra height too? will our City Council allow that too?; 13) will the Bixby Land Company ask for the extra height for the offices they want to build on Lampson? will our City Council allow that?; 14) Will the Bixby Land Company ask for more height for their 18 acres of offices on Seal Beach Boulevard? will our Council allow that too?; IS) City Council members have said that if we do not allow Bixby to build this project the next plan might be even worse, isn't that a bit like asking us to cut our own throat?; and 16) This project does not seem to be good for the City. If the City staff and the 3 to 2 majority of the Council are in favor of it, can you trust the City government and staff in your area? with these three votes on the Council they can do anything they want unless we stop them." . I I Discussion continued between the Council and audience relating to the referendum facts as presented, air safety, flight patterns, building height, the option to move or lower the buildings, required screening of roof mounted equipment, and time frame for submittal of Precise Plans. At the request of Council, the Principal Planner explained that the issue of building height, relocation of office buildings and restaurants will be reviewed by the City Council during the Precise Plan review process. Further, he stated that a Specific Plan is a regUlatory, administrative document, a legislatiive action which 7-30-84 . outlines the criteria for a particular piece of property, such as the Specific Plan just adopted, and that the Precise Plans will be reviewed by the Council when they are parepared and submitted. He explained that a Specific Plan provides a general conceptual framework under which the actual building plans will be prepared within those criteria. As far as a time frame for submittal of Precise Plans, Mr. Baucke stated that it is up to the developer to make a decision as to scheduling, additionally that the developer has the option to determine whether or not to to ahead with the project or reconsider the whole design within the framework of the Specific Plan. The City Manager added that under other adopted Specific Plans, such as the DWP or State Lands site, it is still not known what the ultimate design of the projects will be, explaining that the developer will more than likely not commence preparation of architectural and working drawings and other Precise Plan documents until the outcome of the referendum is known. With regard to referendum procedures and time frame, the City Clerk reported that upon the adoption of the Ordinance the proponents of the referendum have until 5:00 p.m. on the thirtieth day thereafter to submit the referendum petition, thirty days are then allowed from the date of submittal for verification of the signatures, afterwhich certification of the facts of the petition would be submitted to the City Council, expected to be the first meeting in October, at which time the Council would have the option of repealing the ordinance, calling an election for the second or third week of January, or possibly postpone the call for election until a future time. Mrs. Yeo explained that the time frame to consolidate with the November 1984 election could not be met since that deadline is August lOth, and estimated the cost of a special election between $17,000 and $20,000. Councilman Clift referred to a statement just made referring to the Specific Plan as a legislative action, and referred to questions he had submitted to the City Attorney for written response, one reference being to a California Supreme Court Case, Arnel vs. City of Costa Mesa in which a one year time frame was attempted to be imposed and was overturned because the action taken on a Specific Plan or change in zoning amounted to a legislative action which has no time limit to be imposed upon it by the nature of that action. The Assistant City Attorney stated their interpretation of the State law is that the one year requirement does apply in this case, stated he was familiar with the Landi case as well and in that situation the court had before it a situation that is far different from that which the Council has considered. He stated that the matter before the Council has characteristics that lend itself more to an adjudicatory type of action, considering specific facts on a specific project, where the Landi case concerned a general zoning proposition. The Attorney stated it is their opinion that the one year provision is applicable to this project and that the time period will run out the first week of August. It was clarified that the building height is measured to the top of the screening or to any device that is on the roof, and with regard to the length of time Bixby is allowed to build the project, the City Manager stated that the Ordinance is a legislative act, remaining in effect as would a zone change, therefore there is no specified time frame. with regard to whether or not the Specific Plan is a zone change, the City Manager responded that the Municipal Code is silent regarding procedures for adoption of a Specific Plan, explaining that the steps taken to process this Specific Plan were relatively identical to those governing a zone change, public hearings before the I I I 7-30-84 I Planning Commission, City Council, etc., noting that the Planning Commission makes recommendation to the Council with the City Council having final approval, again, as for all zone changes, in this case the Planning Commission recommendation was denial, and in effect the City Council is overturning the recommendation of the Commission. With regard to the addition of another building on the site at a future time, the Principal Planner responded that any application to change or add to the provisions would require the same procedures%that have taken place with this project, which would be an amendment to the Specific Plan requiring public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council. A member of the audience inquired when guidelines for Specific Plans would be forthcoming as discussed by the Council at a previous meeting. In response to a question relative to liability insurance in the event of a disaster, the City Manager responded that the Ordinance does not require liability insurance to be carried by the developer of the project, the reason being that that would tend to be an admittance that there may be a problem from a liability perspective, therefore in its absence protects the City and ultimately the community. Mr. Parker explained further that there is nothing in the EIR, nor official statement from the military regarding potential danger, there is approval from the FAA, and there is a statement from the State Attorney General speaking for the National Guard that they have no objection to the project, therefore in the absence of any direct evidence of potential danger, the City cannot make the finding that there is such a concern. He noted that from a legal standpoint the issue cannot be addressed in the Ordinance, however may be a negotiable item with Bixby at some time in the future, noting that the City's insurance broker estimated ten million dollars coverage would cost approximately $5,000. With regard to the City's liability position in the instance of a crash, the Assistant City Attorney stated that in each situation the facts have to be examined as to what attributed to the accident occurring, stating that the City, based upon its decisions on this matter, would not be liable and would be deemed a no risk situation on the part of a property owner. The City Manager added that if a risk existed, the developer would be unable to obtain financing for the project. With regard to Planning Commission actions, the staff reported that the Commission had raised a number of concerns with the project, all of which have been addressed in the final EIR, noting that the Planning Commission could have continued their consideration of the project pending receipt of additional environmental data rather than their action to deny. Further, it was explained that this action is not a zone change, that existing zoning of the site will remain the same, however becomes mute since a Specific Plan supercedes existing zoning. The Assistant City Attorney advised that a written response to all questions presented to the City Attorney would be forthcoming. Discussion continued regarding building height, air safety, potential liability, processing procedures of Specific Plans, and traffic impact. I I CLOSED SESSION It was the order of the Chair, with consent of Council, to adjourn to Closed Session at 8:58 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. The City Manager reported that the Council had discussed personnel matters. 7-30-84 / 8-l3-84 ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, second by Clift, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I City Seal Approved: O.-4A -v 4 -- - ~ ~ .. ~~ iF Mayor ~ Attest: ~.<<. ./})Jl r:.z Clty Clerk Seal Beach, California August l3, 1984 I 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 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 wilson moved, second by Grgas, 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. I AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PRESENTATION - PIER RESTAURANT The City Manager reported the preliminary design of the pier restaurant prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects,