Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1988-09-07 '4 .' . . . . . .' < ,. '. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLARRIRG COMIIISSIOR MBETIRG SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 MIRU'l'ES The Planning commission of the city of Seal Beach met in regular session with Chairman Sharp calling the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PT.'ROGE OF AT.T.'Rr.'IARCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Jessner. ROLL (,-AT.T. Present: Chairman Sharp commissioners Rullo, Fife, Suggs, Jessner Also Present: Ed Knight, Director, Development Services Dept. Quinn Barrow, Esq., city Attorney's Office Elline Garcia, Admin. Aide, Develop. Srvcs. Dept. REQUESTS BY CHAIRMAN ~Rlt.1U) Chairman Sharp, noting the many people in attendance, requested consolidation of public comments and limiting the commentary to 3 - 5 minutes. Chairman Sharp noted that this meeting was advisory in nature (to the City Council). The City Council will make the final decisions. Quinn Barrow said there will be another public hearing on this matter before the City Council. CONSERT t"Jl.T.'RNTlJl.lI A. JlIRU'l'ES of AUGUST 17, 1988 Commissioner Jessner corrected the Minutes at page 4, paragraph 4, sentence 6 to read: "The planning Department" vice "The Planning Commission". MOTION by suggs to approve the Minutes of August 17, 1988, with one correction; second by Fife. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSTAIRING: RULLO . . " . .' . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 PUBLIC R'R1UntlGS A. 1. General Plan Amendment 1a-88, Land Use Elellellt 2. General Plan Amendllellt 1b-88, Open Space/ Recreation/conservation Element. 3. Amendment to Hellman specific Plan. 4. Parcel Map 86-349. 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198. 6. Precise Plan 88-1. Mr. Knight presented the Planning Department staff report on this Subject. He gave a chronology of events dealing with the Hellman-Mola project starting with the inception of the project up to the point where project approval/staff report begins: JUL 1986 - OCT 1986 JAN 1987 - . FEB 1987 MAR 1987 - JUL 1987 JUL 1987 SEP 1987 - NOV 1987 - . Mola approached the city with the concept plan. Mola took their plan to the City Council as a public information presentation. Articles appeared in the News Enterprise and Seal Beach Journal. city approved an agreement with Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) to prepare the Specific Plan and EIR for this concept plan. Notice of Preparation was issued. There were two Scoping Sessions with the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) (2/24/87, 3/24/87). county agency scoping sessions --- which included the Naval Weapons Station, all the County agencies, city of Long Beach (3/3/87). Notice of Completion for the draft EIR and the draft specific Plan. citizens session with the EQCB (7/21/87) and an inter-agency session with the Fish and Game commission, corps of Engineers and the Coastal Commission (8/20/87). Public Hearings with the planning Commission 9/2, 9/16, 10/7 with recommendations to the City Council. First public hearing with the City Council on 11/2/87 with the city Council. The item was approved - the General Plan Amendments and the Specific Plan were approved on 11/16/87. Second reading on the Specific Plan ordinance, completing the process, was 12/7/87. '. . page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 IfDLA n'RV'RT.n1>llRll'l' - KIRK BYARS - HDH'rING'l'OR BEACH. CA Mr. Evans said that Mr. Knight's staff report covered where everyone had been going with this project with the exception of a couple of items. . First, when Mola got this project approved by the City Council they had a copy of the Land Use Plan that the Coastal Commission was acting on. Although it had never been formally adopted by the Coastal Commission it did have certain criteria concerning the wetlands. The LUP did have a category that stated Mola would provide 19.6 acres of wetlands north of First street. So, Mola did not have the wetlands as you see them today --- Mola had to make a change because they assumed the Coastal commission would stand by wanting the wetlands north of First street. Also, because of the oil expiration, the wetlands was not one twenty acre parcel. The staffs from all the various agencies Mola met with said that was totally unacceptable --- they wanted one parcel at the southwest corner of the site plan. In order to provide the 20 acres, Mola lost the 20 acres in the golf course and shifted a couple of condominium buildings around. The wetlands 20 acres was arrived at because the Coastal Act says that for every one (1) acre of degraded wetlands that you're proposing to develop, you will provide 35% of that acreage in restored wetlands. There is roughly 24.8 acres of degraded wetlands --- the exact look of the wetlands is being studied by the Federal government and State are studying now to decide how much will be water, wetlands, Pickleweed etc. It will not be accessible to the public and will be completely fenced off. No dogs or cats will be allowed in. The fence is a State requirement. second, Mr. Evans noted Mola's objections to six (6) conditions pertaining to Resolution 1517: 1. Prior to Final MaD ADDroval. #12: #12. Prior to Final Map approval, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement and improve or post security with the City of Long Beach to construct the improvements at the corner of westminster Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. . Mola would like to have this condition clarified to say that if the city of Long Beach says "no", that Mola does not get held up from being able to finalize their map. Mola doesn't have any control over this. There is a condition dealing with the Coast Highway and Cal trans. Cal trans has the ultimate jurisdiction. They do listen to what the City wants but they do have the authority to say "yes" or "no". Mola does believe the city of Long Beach has said "yes". '4 . " '- . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 2. Prior to Final MaD ADDroval. #13: #13. Prior to Final Map approval, all improvements to Gum Grove area shall be completed. Prior to Final Map approval Mola will have Gum Grove Park completely finished -- as far as new trees planted, grading and things of that sort. Mola would like to have that condition placed in (the section) Prior to Buildina Permits ADDroval. The reason being that Gum Grove Park will be taken care of by the time Mola does their grading. Mola can't get in there, do the work in Gum Grove Park, and then come back in and do the grading. 3. Prior to Buildina Permit Issuance. #8: #8. Prior to building permit issuance, the security wall along the north side of "A" street and the tract wall fence along the golf course and adjoining the existing residences shall be completed. . Some people refer to this as First street and/or "A" Street--- basically it goes from Pacific Coast Highway at the First street connection all the way over to Regency. Mola's plan calls for a six foot (6') high solid masonry wall built along there. Mola is asking that this condition (which they will live by) that it be put on the Prior to OccuDancy section. Mola will be building those walls at the same time they will be building houses and has no problem having it completed prior to anybody moving in but, having it completed prior to pulling building permits would not be possible. 4. Prior To certificate of occupancv. #4. #4. Prior to any certificate of Occupancy, improvements to the wetlands shall be completed, along the implementation of the jurisdictional entity that maintain the wetlands and the maintenance program. the with will . Mola doesn't think they will have a problem but, Mr. Evans said, that when you have a Specific Plan, with very specific condi tions, Mola does have a problem of being able to have the Planning Director have the jurisdiction to allow them to proceed. This item, #4, pertains to dedicating the wetlands to some other local jurisdiction. Mola has spoken to the local Coastal conservancy organization, which is in Huntington Beach, and they have told Mola they would take a look at Mola's plan and if they like the way everything is laid out they might (emphasis Evan's) be willing to accept it. The Fish & Game commission is the same thing. Mola doesn't want to be put in the position that if they can't get a local jurisdiction. to accept the wetlands that they can't proceed with their project. Therefore, Mola asks that Mola - . , " . . . " Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of september 7, 1988 could proceed and that they could treat the wetlands as they would treat Gum Grove Park --- as far as maintaining it- -- until Mola can get a local agency to accept it. This would not preclude any group that could be formed in Seal Beach that could take it over and maintain it. Mola has no problem with that. Chairman Sharp noted maintenance because the with natural growth. It that there will be practically no wetlands are to be in a natural state amounts to locking the gate. . 5. Prior to OccuDancy Permits. #5. #5. Prior to any Certificate of occupancy, the improvements to the golf course, including the club house and ancillary improvements shall be completed. If the clubhouse has not been completed, subdivider shall post bond and establish a schedule to show completion date. This requirement of completion is not applicable to the night lighting of the driving range. Mola wants to make sure that everybody understands it takes a long time to build a golf course. Mola will start the golf course construction as part of their grading operation. The planting of the grass will take a certain amount of time to establish itself. Houses will be constructed prior to being able to play golf. So, the condition says the golf course will be completed prior to the houses being occupied and this won't be possible. It takes about 18 months to build a golf course and 6 months to complete a house. Mola asks for language to be inserted in this condition saying that prior to occupancy permits, as long as Mola is using due diligence and they are proceeding with the golf course construction, that they not be held up on certificates of occupancy. 6. General Conditions. #26. #26. The subdivider shall pay a proportionate share of the cost of design and installation of the Hellman Ranch Road collector from the corner of Regency Drive and "A" Street to westminster Avenue. The percentage of that share is based on the total acreage of this project, the remaining acreage of the Specific Plan, and potential use by the Rockwell facility. The percentage of cost shall be not less than fifty (50%) percent of the total cost for design and installation. with the approval of the Specific Plan, which was back in NOV 1987, and the EIR and with Condition #7 in the Certificate of Occupancy, Mola is being asked to pay a pro-rata share of the future Hellman Ranch Road to Westminster Avenue. Mola has not ., . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 problem with that. The City Engineer has placed a condition in there that says Mola will pay a pro-rata share but not less than 50%. Mr. Evans said he asked Dennis Jue how 50% was arrived at- -- that it was always a pro-rata share of traffic they created-- - and it was explained that they took an acreage based on Rockwell's parcel and Mola's parcel which would include 20 acres of golf course, wetlands and things of this type. Mola didn't think that was fair. Mola wants it to be a pro-rata share of the traffic that Mola is putting on that road -- that they will do all the improvements. mUTIE VASQUEZ - The Firlll of Jlt'!T oRren-Vasauez & Partners . Mr. Vasquez, architect for Mola Development, presented a slide show on the proposed Mola development in Seal Beach. Mr. Vasquez gave some historical details, stating that Mola had had input on this project for three years. He mentioned the Ponderosa development of four years ago which was proposed as single family detached homes with no open space. The ponderosa development had drainage and fault line problems which have been noted and corrected in the Mola proposal. He contrasted the present Mola project which proposes two residential products in one area--- sub-neighborhoods builtin clusters to take advantage of the views of the lakes and golf course. It has open space and a theme road built on a concept of 5.5 units per acre for 145 acres, open spaces with two planned areas --- single family homes and stacked condo units. The Wetlands Mr. Vasquez said there will be no access to the wetlands. The acreage will be secured by a hidden fence. The 660 condominium units have been moved inland, thereby reducing the golf course. SIRGLE FAMILY HOMES He noted there will be 113 single family, zero lot line, patio style homes. Gate-auarded Communi tv There will be a guard house for the project which will establish a sense of privacy for the homes and condominiums. There will be two separate entrances -- one for the condo area and one for the single family homes. Recreation In the single family home area there is a main recreation area plus a tot lot. . Exterior Architecture Lots of attention has been paid to aesthetics regarding the street scene and housing exteriors. The single family homes have minimum lot sizes of 36' x 120' but some may be larger due to cuI de sacs. Care was taken to maximize use of rear lots. He noted . . .. . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 that second floors have been pulled back to facilitate street scene character. CONDOMINIUMS There will be 660 condominium units built in a stacked concept allowing flow-thru ventilation on all sides. The smallest condominium will be 660 square feet and the largest two-bedroom condominium will be 982 square feet. Care has been taken to make all four sides on these buildings aesthetically pleasing. They will have a Mediterranean architecture with varying roof forms. Recreation Facilities Mola's concept is a luxury resort. The condominium area will have tennis and swimming pool facilities with a large recreation area. There will be satellite recreation centers. parkina There will be a separate entrance to the condominium area with a security guard. parking will be in underground basements with landscaping on top of these areas to include 3 foot planters. Each building has space for 81 cars and assigned parking. . Gum Grove Park Mola has been working with the Meridian Company to improve and enhance what's existing in Gum Grove Park. Mola's concept is a passive park with meandering paths of decomposed granite and about two areas of picnic tables with good gathering places. * * * COMIIIssrON OUESTIONS Rullo: Evans: Sharp: . What's the width of Gum Grove Park now. (Referring to wall chart) The exhibit shows the fence line today. The fence was constructed by the City of Seal Beach at the time the lease was signed with the City. When the fence was erected no set 10.4 acres was determined~ the fence was just put up. Then an ALTA survey was done and 10.4 acres was arrived at by estimating acreage inside the fence line. The darkest green line shows the 4.7 acres of trees proposed by Mola. The Park is now under a lease situation which says that if the City tried to acquire it they would have to buy it. But the City didn't want to buy it and asked Mola to provide it as a buffer. Mola would dedicate the park to the City. I'd like to clarify this "giving to the City". What this really means is the City would have to pay for the Park through Quimby fees. . . page 8 - planning commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 Evans: It would be a credit toward Mola's Quimby fees but the City has the right to reject any proposal. Mola is putting a price on Gum Grove Park. The City had a recent appraisal which shows the Park is valued at $235,000 per acre. Mola is being asked to pay $1.1 million to $1.8 million in park fees. Fees are based on the new resident population created by Mola - to be sure the new residents don't over burden the City - not to take care of a shortfall in the city of Seal Beach. Mola is saying they have to provide land and/or fees, so Mola made an offer that if the city wants Gum Grove Park and doesn't want to worry about the developer closing the Park etc. Then Mola was going to offer it to the city. A condition of approval is that Mola will keep the park open and pay for it forever. But if the City wants to buy it or if Mola wants to give it Mola is establishing the land value and they are willing to pay for it. Jessner: Regarding safety and the golf course being along Seal Beach Boulevard, will there be fencing? . There's fencing planned. Everything will be enclosed. Mola proposes an open-type fencing --- perhaps wrought but a solid block wall could be built if that's what is wanted. Mola must offer the abutting homes two types of walls --- solid and open. Jessner: Will there be a sidewalk along Seal Beach Boulevard? Evans: Evans: There will be a side walk from the Hill area to the police station that 4.5' wide. Jessner: In the housing area -- will there be a buffer between the center of the homes? Evans: The golf course and landscaping will be the buffer. Jessner: About walls around the oil wells, why are they 6'? Evans: six foot walls is an arbitrary height but is O.K. for sound attenuation and safety. Eight feet is O.K. also. Jessner: What is the length of the driving range? Evans: It's 250 yards. This is an average length. There will be a fence to stop longer drives. This is a viable golf course with 90,000 rounds per year of play expected per the consultant's study. Golf course yardage is 3,347 yards. Priority starting times for Seal Beach residents. Evans: . , . , Page 9 - Planning commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 Jessner: Could the driving ranges be shorter than 250 yards? Evans: Yes. That would be OK but the fence would have to be taller --- like a IS' - 20' wire fence. . Jessner: If shortened, would this land be incorporated into Gum Grove Park? Evans: Yes. Jessner: Where is the First Street connection proposed? Evans: It will connect to Regency and Regency to Seal Beach Boulevard. Jessner: Is a connection to Westminster proposed at this time? Evans: . Suggs: Evans: Sharp: Evans: . No. The Parcel Map and Tract Map requires Mola dedicate 80 feet of right-of-way through the Hellman Ranch property that Mola did not develop. That will tie in the land with the land that Rockwell has likewise dedicated to the city. In the event a road is needed prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the City will have a study done to determine how much it will cost to do those road improvements to have a connection to westminster. Mola is to pay for those costs and the cost to design and implementation will be on a pro-rata basis per what Mola is using. Actual construction does not appear necessary from studies. Traffic problems don't occur from westminster south to Pacific Coast Highway - most of those intersections are at Level of Service "A" . Orange county feels Seal Beach is over-designed. So the connection is not needed but it has always been shown on the City's plan. Could you compress driving range and move lake acres to Gum Grove Park? Yes. You could shorten range but moving the lake would not add area. (Referring to wall exhibit) Could you extend Gum Grove Park in this area? Yes. We could extend Gum Grove Park to Seal Beach Boulevard, it would not hurt the golf course and would get Gum Grove Park to 6.8 acres. . '- . . . " page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 Jessner: Reviewing single family residences and parking, I'm wondering about parking and specifically guest parking. The lots are 36' feet wide with 20' wide driveways~ is the remaining 16' intended for parking? Evans: Yes - guests could park in the driveways and at the curbs but there is also straight in parking in recreation areas. The ratio of guest parking to homes is 3 or 4 to 1,that's excluding driveways and streets. Evans: There are 37 or 47 guest parking spaces that are off- street. We propose guests park in driveways. Fife: Regarding the street and the 45 MPH speed limit, my question regards left turns at Evans: Yes, there will be left and right turns there. Our single family homes will probably not use First street unless as a shortcut to PCH. There will be a separate signal to the single family homes. We would be willing to put in three traffic signals if they're required as a condition. Traffic studies didn't indicate such needs. Fife: Regarding provisions for errant golf balls and the 45 MPH traffic - what has been provided for? OUr golf course architect has made provisions for errant golf balls with fencing. But this golf course will have the same problems as all golf courses facing public streets and we can't guarantee that stray golf balls will not hit a car. If the public does have a non-exclusive easement t 0 Gum Grove Park, what restrictions would be placed on public useage? Evans: Fife: Evans: The Park would be fenced and locked at dusk every night. The Park is seen as a low intensity useage area, which would mean no motorcycles. The superintendent of the golf course would oversee the Park. Fife: More people will probably use the Park. Evans: The Park, again, is seen as a low intensity usage area -- for picnics. The Park could be protected from errant golf balls by heavy tree growth and the fact that the Park itself is elevated from the golf course. . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 Fife: Evans: Fife: Evans: Fife: . Evans: Sharp: Evans: will there be a continuous asphalt path around the golf course? It could be used for strolling or bicycling after evening golf has ended. I don't know. During the summer there's twilight golf and you'd have to be careful having people on the course when the golfers are playing. What considerations have been made in the event the operating revenues of the golf course fail to meet to operating expenses? This is not anticipated. The study done on the golf course shows the first year's profit in 1993 (before taxes and debt service) should be $222,000. Gum Grove Park operating expenses are minimal they include some irrigation and pruning. I understand that the oil production area, when it is no longer needed, and the wetlands, if no longer feasible, would be added to the golf course. How is this proposed? When oil production ceases we could move the golf course north of First Street and we could charge higher greens fees for a larger course. Mola would be willing to post a bond for improvement of the oil area. These areas will be set aside for the golf course and not other development. What about the encroachment of the homes on Crestview? Mola has no intentions of asking homeowners to move fences if the land is not needed for Gum Grove Park or the wetlands. Mola would build their fences along the same lines. PUBLIC BEARIRG Chairman Sharp asked for those in favor of the Mola development proposal to speak first, to be followed by those opposed. ROBERT SMILEY - 1360 nr.'RAllDER LAME Mr. smiley stated he was in favor of the Mola project. . K'RN KIlO)>R - 1005 t"1IR.C::'I'V'Il~W. SEAL BEACH Mr. Kroph said he has lived on Crestview (Referencing a letter he wrote and distributed) against parks but feels Gum Grove Park is not for 12 years. he said he's not an asset to the . .. . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 city because it is an under utilized resource and a liability (examples of fire, personal injury, lack of police patrols were mentioned). He would favor less density in the condos. HUGH FE'RT.'RY - LEISURE WOllT.n - REPRESERTING THE FRIDAY GOLF CLUB OF LEISURE _T.n. Mr. Feeley said he has collected 600 - 800 signatures stating they don't want a private golf course but they are in favor of a public golf course. He would like Leisure World to urge the Planning commission to recommend to the City Council we accept the latest proposal from Mola Development in its entirety. MARILYN BRUCE HASTINGS - 121 12TH STREET. SEAL R'RAf'R Ms. Hastings spoke against Mola allowing Crestview residents to encroach into the Hellman property. Chairman Sharp said this was strictly between the landowner (Hellman) and the developer (Mola) . . ~Jl.T.T.Y HIRSH - 1325 CRESTVIEW - lI'RPRR.C\ERTIIIG THE SAVE GUM GROVE PARK GROUP. Ms. Hirsh said the total needs of Seal Beach residents are not met by tennis courts and golf courses. She read a definition of a "Wilderness Park" and said Mola doesn't have a park planned. She urged the Planning Commission to save all of Gum Grove Park and said she had 1135 signatures plus 50 others collected at this meeting who are also in favor. JEFF DECKJIIER - 241 5TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Mr. Deckner said he was dissatisfied with the Mola proposal, feeling it diminished the quality of life in Seal Beach. He felt the proposal conflicts with the City'S Land Use Plan and the Coastal Act. He supported retaining and restoring Gum Grove Park. WALT SWINSKY - 1005 FATHOM - SEAL BEACH Mr. Swinsky said encroachment is a serious problem. The City Attorney, Quinn Barrow, advised Mr. Swinsky that the encroachment matter is between the owner and the developer. Mr. swinsky was advised by the Commission that the encroachment will not be a part of the 4.7 acres. . JAY BOMASH - 127 'RT.'RC'l'RIC - SEAL BEACH Mr. Bomash spoke in favor of developing the Hellman tract. He noted that he felt development is a privilege granted by the City -- not a right. He said he felt the value of the land is extremely important because we're discussing how much land will be devoted to houses and parkland and the public should know all costs. He said he favors cutting back, on units and devoting more land to parkland. ,. , ' . , ., . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 GAYLE KRAPP - 645 SANDPIPER - SEAL BEACH Mrs. Knapp introduced herself as a resident of Seal Beach and also the Chairman of the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB). Mrs. Knapp presented a four-point "wish list" to the Planning Commission: 1. Less housing. 2. A full length public golf course and public tennis courts. 3. Moving the driving range to a different area that would not be so close to houses on Crestview. 4. A minimum of 10.4 acres for Gum Grove Park. Mrs. Knapp said she felt the golf course was really too small and that the park was a ruff to the golf course. She recommended the Planning Commission listen to the public voices and start over for a good development. She asked the Planning Commission to tell Mola what the Seal Beach residents want. JOYCE RISHER - 845 nllTrrllUUD - SEAL R'RllMl Commissioner Sharp said he had asked Mrs. Risner not to speak at this meeting because she, as a City Council member, already had a voice representing her on the Planning Commission - Ron Jessner from her District. Mrs. Risner said she was speaking as a resident, a voter and a hard-working member of the City Council. JOYCE RISNER COMING TO THE MICROPHONE - TESTIMONY TAKEN VERBATIM I, as Gail, am a long-time resident of this community. If I weren't sitting on the City Council, you're right, I'd be out here with the full rights and abilities of a citizen to speak for what I want. I can't do that but I can do this. I can say and give you some information that you may not even want to open your minds to but please do this. You were brought a staff report to you tonight that said you were considering certain amendments. Now I am told and as a citizen and as a City Council member I could be told this and you could be told this if you asked, that once amendments are brought before you it opens up the whole plan. So you have really no right to say to people who come before you to comment on any aspects of this plan that they're out of order. Because any time this Plan comes back for amendment it opens up questions of density, of where lakes are, of where fences are, Mola is going to allow encroachment into the wetlands which Mola's not going to be operating. It will be operated, I assume, by some State agency --- we don't even know yet who. But I don't think Mola has the right to allow encroachment onto the land that's going to be wetlands. What happens to Gum Grove is another story. You must know by now, certainly, that this is in a Redevelopment Project area. Mr. Fife, maybe you're not aware of the Redevelopment Project area within the City. But the majority of this project is within " . . . ,. Page 14'- Planning commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 the Riverfront Redevelopment project area. This project also happens to be in District 3 which Mr. Jessner is also the representative for. And you must also know that if you take action tonight your actions will not conform to the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan. And you should know that all plans, the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, the City Local Coastal Plan (which has been adopted at the local level) must, and I repeat must, be in conformance. Long-term community desires have been expressed through General Plans in this City. Gum Grove Park has always been a very vital element of the General Plan --- the open space and recreation space of the General Plan. Any changes that have been made to the General Plan --- and you know, Mr. Jessner, that there were community sessions, community meetings in the mid-70's that changed the General Plan. But Gum Grove Park was still listed as a vital community asset. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1975, again with Gum Grove Park listed as a community asset. I hear Mr. Evans say tonight that there wasn't any consideration for a park in the Ponderosa Plan. I can show you that ponderosa Plan, it expanded Gum Grove Park. To me it would be proper, prudent and to adopt the most desireable planning procedures. And I think it just cries out right now for your consideration to review the General Plan, to review the Redevelopment Plan based on community needs not necessarily a developers needs. We are living in the late 1980's, we're not living even in the early 1980's. We're not living in a community that was the same as it was two years ago. We've seen on our streets the prices of homes quadruple. We can't even keep up with what's happening in our community with costs of housing. Now maybe I've stretched that a little --- it might not be quadruple --- at least since I've been in town they have. The public forums that were held at McGaugh School to adopt the General Plan had community input. Maybe we shouldn't just take the General Plan and say "O.K. Goodbye". You know we have something else we're going to put in its place. This golf course, as you know now, has been reduced we are told to 60-par. We were told before 66-par perhaps. This has a yardage (and I didn't realize how important yardage was) of 3347. In case you don't have that in your staff reports and perhaps you do. That's probably the smallest golf course in Orange County and the surrounding areas for an 18-hole course. I do want to say that I do think you have sincere people before you. I'm sincere. Having been a resident for so long in the community I've been proud of the changes that have been made in this community. But we always have to fight for what we think- (to) maintain the quality and charm of our small town environment. Why are we considering this at all? I voted for it last time. O.K., I'm going back to council. I supported the Plan. You supported the Plan. Everybody supported the Plan. There was not a great public outcry. Mr. Evans stated at a meeting on October 13th - in a City Council session that there . . . " Page IS - Planning commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 wasn't going to be any problem with the wetlands because (and I'm quoting from the Minutes) " . .. there's an interconnected lake system that has been designed to satisfy the wetlands" noting that "the state has agreed to allow the fresh water wetlands". The issue was solved; but was it? No. Now I know I've taken too long and I'm sorry. I'm sorry Mr. Sharp that you don't approve of my being before you but I'm a sincere citizen as well as a very hard working member of the city Council. I also have to give to you some messages from some constituents who asked me to represent them before you. Risner reads a letter from an unidentified constituent). of my (Mrs. Chairman Sharp: Joyce, we will consider those as someone's speaking. (This last word was not clear on the tape). Mrs. Risner: (Counts ten letters). I would like to copy these and give them to you. (There was discussion as to how she would submit these letters to the Planning Commission). Chairman Sharp: you a question. Mrs. Risner, I have a member who wants to ask commissioner Jessner: Joyce, I'd like to ask you a question. I'm not quite clear as to what your point is. Are you opposed to the entire project? You want it started over again? Or just certain aspects of it? Mrs. Risner: What I'm saying is, is you have an opportunity to make decisions at this point. Commissioner Jessner: What's your position? Mrs. Risner: I cannot give you a position now Ron. commissioner Rullo: What did you just do? know what you have just done? Young lady, do you Mrs. Risner: I've lived in Seal Beach thirty-one years and I have the right to give my opinion as a citizen. I have a right as a councilperson to relay opinions that have been sent to me in the mail. The only thing I'm opening up to you is that this is in a redevelopment area. That's the point Ron; it's in a redevelopment area. You can demand ten acres of Gum Grove Park. Forget Quimby money. Quimby money needs to be paid anyway. You can get it all. Commissioner Jessner: is. I'm trying to clarify what your position . . " . Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of september 7, 1988 Mrs. Risner: That's my position --- it's in a redevelopment area. My position is, you try to negotiate to get as much you can for the City of Seal Beach. CAPT. SAR PHILIPO - 801 AVJl.T.nW - SEAL B'Rllt'R Mr. San Philipo spoke in favor of the Mola proposal. He said that what has gone on in Gum Grove Park in the very recent years (even the recent months) is not desireable and is sometimes dangerous. He's noted that in the last few weeks there's a new gate and increased security and that Mola would be controlling a problem area. He said he felt the Mola development was a good mix of the property and would be a nice development. He didn't think the downtown traffic would be impacted. . JlIt'Rll'RT. t"Alln'R - 601 TAPER - SEAL BEACH Mr. Crade said "No" to development, "No" to condos and "No" to the attitude that citizens should not know what this land is costing them. JOHN NAKAGAWA - 320 12TH STlI'R'R'I' - SEAL BEACH Mr. Nakagawa asked the Commission if a buffer zone was required by law and if Mola could ignore this and still build? He was advised that a buffer zone is subject to the review and control of the California Coastal commission and it wouldn't be prudent of the City to second guess the Coastal Commission on what they feel is an appropriate buffer --- whether fencing is needed or a road can transcend it or if the golf course is an appropriate buffer. Mola will have to submit the wetlands and buffer to the Costal Commission for review and apply conditions. Mola must conform to the Coastal commission, Corps of Engineers and Fish & Game. JOHN CURL. PRO - 120 10TH STP'R'R'I' - SEAL BEACH Mr. Curl stated he holds a PhD in Environmental Ethics from Claremont Graduate school and has lived in Seal Beach for 10 years. Mr. Curl said he feels the moral and ethical values of land use can become obscured by short term economic advantages. He said a few people would benefit by this development in the form of developer financial profit, homes for well-to-do residents, golf course for golfers, a few jobs and increased City tax base. On the other side, he said he was not sure the tax based would increase or be off set by extra services, additional traffic, pollution and congestion, and for non-golfers, "What's in it for me?". Mr. Curl felt a superior alternative would be made available to the public via a park or wildlife habitat-- the greatest people would be served and the fewest harmed. He was in favor of restoring the wetlands. . . ,. . , ~ . . . Page 17 - Planning commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 SUZANNE ARDRE - 1300 CRESTVIEW - SEAL R'RJl.f'R Ms. Andre urged attention to the amending process. She said Mola was at noted variance with (1) the type of units, (2) decreased parkland, (3) commercial venture (golf course) and (4) insufficient wetlands. She spoke to the public outcry as to why we were amending our General Plan to conform to the Mola proposal? She urged we make our desires known as reflected in regulations and restrictions according to our General Plan to which any developer must comply. She urged the Planning Commission to give urgent attention to postponing amendment and vesting agenda and to take immediate action to start the process of getting public input needed for a redevelopment plan to reflect our community needs in 1988. It has not been substantially amended since 1975. After this revision is done it will facilitate decisions on the Hellman property. JIM SAINT - 641 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE - SEAL R'Rll.t"R Mr. Saint referred to Gum Grove Park as "Scum Grove Park" because he feels the acreage is an eyesore and favors development of Gum Grove Park into something nicer. AJI'I'OINBT'l'E LINDERMANN - 2459 IfcDOVA AVE. - LONG R'Rll.t"R Ms. Lindermann said she was in favor of the Mola proposal. PATTI t"Jl.II1>R'RT.T. - 4433 IRONWOOD - SEAL BEACH Ms. campbell introduced herself as a member of Care Organization for Measure F, which is for sensible growth. Ms. Campbell is concerned with increased density and resultant increased traffic. She referenced a Cuzner Report which said the Mola project would create 7,000 extra vehicle trips per day. Speaking about level of traffic service she noted the levels are designated "A" thru "F" with "F" being gridlock. She stated Westminster and Seal Beach Blvd. are now at "E" level. At the "D" level you can get your car through the intersection on one light. She said the Seal Beach Blvd./405 interchange needs pressure released and felt the Mola project would create more density/traffic that Seal Beach could handle. BRUCE STARK - NO Jl.nnll'RSS GIVEN - SEAL BEACH Mr. stark said Mola's Vested Tract Map is incomplete because (1) he checked with a title company and learned there's no agreement with the State that they've ever relinquished their claim to those tidal lands. And because the corps of Engineers, in dredging the San Gabriel River, dumped their dredging into the wetlands and that did not change the ownership of the wetlands. Mola has an option to buy if Mola can sell the City on their proposal. If Mola can't sell the city then Mola's option lapses and Mola goes on to develOp elsewhere~ (2) there's a strong possibility that the people of Seal Beach have a public easement on the 10.5 acres of Gum Grove Park by virtue of open and notorious use of that property for five years prior to amendment . , " .' ". . . . . Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 of the Civil Code in 1971. That doesn't mean they own it --- but that they have a right to use it. Mr. Stark said Mola is being allowed to build more units per acre on the Hellman tract that others are being allowed to build throughout the city. He said we don't have enough park land. In concluding, Mr. Stark noted he was in favor of the Mola proposal a year ago and made suggested improvements at that time. Now, he feels we shouldn't rush into something. He said he was concerned the condos would be rented out or time-shared. LEE RISNER - 845 DRIP'l'lIJOOD - SEAL BEAt"R Mr. Risner urged the Planning Commission not to act tonight but to look first at the Redevelopment Plans --- then go back to Mola and tell them what we want. He said the City can get other amenities but it can't if the Planning Commission agree tonight to the plan. Additionally, Mr. Risner referenced some 25 years of planning and official documents on Gum Grove Park and that he's in favor of keeping it as a public park. He said to look at the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan and it clearly shows 10.5 acres of Gum Grove Park. MR. SWARK - 1685 CRESTVIEW - SEAL BElt.MI Mr. Swank urged the Planning Commission to reconsider project density. He urged increasing the size of the condominiums, golf course and park. He said there is a serious noise problem because of sixty six-cylinder Buddha combustion engines. He urged the Planning commission to make Mola convert these to electric motors to reduce sound levels. RILEY FORSY'l'H - 523 RIVIERA DRIVE - SEAL R'Rlt.MI Mr. Forsyth introduced himself as a representative of the Gum Grove Park Restoration society. He submitted seven pages of mitigation measures to Chairman Sharp and asked they be included in the official record. He said he felt the Mola development would be collectively destructive impact on the community. STEVE MOREN - 467 HAZT.'R1lII1'I' - SEAL R'RJl.t"R Spoke in favor of widening the 405 southbound on-ramp. He asked who the intended owner of the golf course would be and was informed that Mola will lease it out. He suggested amending deed restrictions to prohibit the transfer of the golf course title to enable it become a private enterprise at a future time. RECESS Chairman Sharp requested a five minute recess. . . -, ~ . " " . . Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 REQUEST TO SUSPEND Chairman Sharp asked that this meeting be stopped and be resumed at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on september 21, 1988. Commissioner Jessner said that at previous hearings there has been several hearings on this matter. But the mood and input has changed. with the suggested changes we should look and discuss a little closer for everyone's sake. MOTION by Jessner to extend this meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning commission on Septe1llber 21, 1988, and to be held in a larger facility if possible. IIotion withdrawn by COmmissioner Jessner because an audience participant (he did not identify himself by name) requested additional time for public speakers. . ROBERT LA MONDE - 4808 RT.lI.CKHORRE AVENUE - T.nNt: A'RlI.CJI Mr. La Monde said he represented the Sierra Club in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. He stated wetlands have important ecological functions --- floor and erosion control and support of fish and wildlife. Destruction and degradation have destroyed most of our coastal wetlands. The Sierra Club policy is to protect wetlands where they still exist and restore degraded wetlands where possible. He said the Hellman property seems a desirable candidate for restoration if building plans can be held off or modified. He urged the Planning Commission/City of Seal Beach to return the Hellman wetlands to the depleted wetlands inventory. LORRAINE FABER - 700 MARINA DRIVE - SEAL A'RlI.CH Ms. Faber said she is the past President of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. She urges resolution of issues at the local level because if the City gets to the Coastal Commission with items that are non-conforming to the Coastal Act there's a legal way of handling the process and it's additional approval of an LCP or a Land Development Plan with conditions. The City would have to come back and start the process over to incorporate those changes. She said she reviewed our meeting materials and had the fOllowing recommendations for improvement: . 1. Specific Plan - by State law can incorporate many things more than the General Plan and should have a map of the open space showing the public parks. 2. There is no language on who is responsible for the restoration costs. Together with clauses talking about infeasibility of the project by what standards is it infeasible? Put something in as to who should be the judge of feasibility. . . . .' . , . . . ; . . . page 20 - Planning commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 3. Size of Gum Grove Park - the Planning commission/City can definitely add specifics on how wide at a minimum and how wide at an average the Park should be and what kind of facilities it should have. 4. Resolution 1517, re findings --- standards should be consistent with Resolution 15l6. highest performance levels should be accepted. should be set and They're not. The COMIIISSION C01lM'RN'l'S commissioner Jessner said he would request that staff summarize the major items brought up at this evening's meeting and that this summary should be made available to the Planning commission and anyone else who wants a copy. He requested commentary from Kirk Evans of Mola. KTlIlC BYARS - NOLA n'RV'RT .nPMENT Mr. Evans said he was a bit distraught and concerned about a continuance. He requested that at the september 21st meeting he would not make a presentation but would make responses only. MOTIOIII by Jessner to continue the Planning comdssion meeting of September 7, 1988 to the Planning Commission meeting of September 21, 1988; second by Rullo. MOTIOR CARRIED 5 - o. * * * JUl.TOURlOlERT Chairman Sharp adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Cio"'-t ~o-o-,....... Joan Fillmann Secretary THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLARNING COMMISSION * * * The Planning Commission of September 7, 1988 meeting were approved by the Planning Commission on C':lrotnhan ,q'!h 1988. ~ . . ( .' " -- - e e October 19, 1988 MEMORANDUM to: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission from: Department of Development Services subject: Minutes of September 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting The minutes of the Commission's meeting of September 7, 1988 were approved and adopted by the Commission on September 21, 1988. At that meeting, Commissioner Jessner indicated the he had received a request from Councilmember Joyce Risner regarding her testimony at that meeting. Commissioner Jessner requested that staff review the minutes and determine if the testimony of Councilmember Risner was correct as shown in the minutes. If the minutes were correct, the approval would stand, but if they were incorrect, the minutes would be returned for further consideration by the Commission. After due consideration, it is staff's contention that the fair approach was to prepare Councilmember Risner's testimony as verbatim and resubmit the minutes for Commission approval. In that way, there could be no question of whether or not the testimony is accurately shown. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the planning Commission adopt the minutes of September 7, 1988 as submitted.