Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1988-09-21 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1988 MINUTES The Planning Commiss1on of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session with Chairman Sharp calling the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. PLEDGE OF AT.T.EGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Jessner. ROLL C~T.T. Present: Chairman Sharp Commissioners Rullo, Fife, Suggs, Jessner Also Present: Ed Knight, Director, Development Services Department Greg Stepanicich, Esq., City Attorney's Office CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 Commissioner Jessner requested staff review of the tape of September 7 meeting (page 14, paragraph 1 of the Minutes) for exact language used by Joyce Risner. He requested that staff determ1ne if the wording was incorrect that it be removed. MOTION by Fife to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1988, with possible amendment at page 14, paragraph 1; second by Rullo. AMEHDED MOTION by Fife to incorporate Commissioner Jessner's request; second by Rullo. MO'TION CARRIED 5 - o. ~ Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - MOLA PROPOSAL ON HET.T.MAN PROPERTY ED KHIGHT - DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Mr. Knight introduced the following letters to be included in the official record: From Nancy Davis, Mabel Lyon and George Moreno supporting the Mola proposal. From Anton Dahlman, M.D. to the Planning Commission and City Council requesting (a similar) impact on the condominiums and single family homes thru density reduction. From Earl Carlson requesting the driving range not be so close to the homes, nor in this location. From the Sierra Club, stating the wetlands is a valuable resource. From Lee Risner, restating the history and changes to the Redevelopment Plan, Specifi~ Plan and Tentative Tract Map. e Draft recommendat1ons from the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Knight said he and Bob Nelson (City Manager) had met with Dept. of Fish & Game, Corps of Engineers and Coastal Commission in an effort to get a more clear definition/direction on the wetlands. They came away with no definitive recommendations or d;b.rections regarding wetlands and no general agreement between the separate agencies as to how much wetlands would be preserved. They could not provide directions or set limitations until the City completes its process. At that time the Coastal Commission will accept the project and begin its analysis. Mr. Knight said it may be that what we approve will need amendment. . 411 Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING continued ... GALER AMBROSE - 613 SEABREEZE - SEAL BEACH Mr. Ambrose said he was disappointed he was turned down for a video presentation on the wetlands. Chairman Sharp said the Planning Commission has no control over the wetlands, that the wetlands are controlled by the State of California. He urged putting off the Mola proposal until it is determined if this area can be redeveloped into wetlands, park and open space without costing the City any money. If it can't be developed as such then consider building/developing the property. C. J. SLAWSON - 712 SEABREEZE - SEAL BEACH Mr. Slawson said he favored the Mola development because the area itself would be improved. EARL CARLSON - 1535 CRESTVIEW - SEAL BEACH Mr. Carlson said the driving range should be moved further from the homes on Crestview. JEFF SCHRODER - 3121 CLAIRMONT ROAD Mr. Schroder said he likes the naturalness of Gum Grove Park. e BRIAN BERRETT - 110 SURF PLACE - SEAL BEACH Read a letter from Mark Riley and said he agrees with what Mr. Riley says. He said he favors low density and that single family homes are most sensible. JANE McCLOUD - 700 BltT.AnA - SEAL BEACH Ms. McCloud urged the Planning Commission to develop a plan that meets the City'S needs. She said she sees Gum Grove Park as a wilderness area which recycles itself. She recommended maintaining the Park at its full length and width, keeping the access road and suggested the organization of a citizen's group to maintain Gum Grove Park. Chairman Sharp said the Planning Commission knows how a certain group feels on Gum Grove Park because of a petition they submi tted. Bruce Stark, a resident of Seal Beach, said the Commission should not cut off the public debate. The City'S attorney said the Chair can control speaking time at a Public Hearing. e LOREN DOHLAP - 112 10TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Ms. Dunlap introduced herself as an Air Resources Engineer interested in the EIR. She said the mi tigat10n measures for emissions control from increased vehicular traffic are unclear in the EIR and (2) the carbon monoxide emission inventory predicated in the EIR are under just under one-half of the total carbon monoxide em1SS1ons inventory for the entire South Coast air basin for that same year. She said she was concerned about the extremely inflated estimate or miscalculation since that may it Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 lower the impact of any mitigation efforts which may be implemented on a percentage basis. And because of this possible miscalculation, she is suspect of any other emissions inventories presented in the EIR. LAIRD MUELLER - 142 11TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Mr. Mueller urged the Planning Commission to Mola proposal and to reexamine all issues. concerned about the small size of the condos as rental apartments, the increased traffic retaining Gum Grove Park as it is. vote "no" on the He said he was they might become congestion, and e ROBERT THAYER - 629 BEACHCOMBER - SEAL BEACH Mr. Thayer said the Planning Commission could not eliminate the wetlands but the Planning Commission could request they be increased. (Chairman Sharp said the Planning commission could only recommend). Mr. Thayer urged the Planning Commission to reject the Mola proposal and make a recommendation that there be a reconsideration of the General Plan for Seal Beach so a more realistic appraisal of 1988 needs (not the 1975 needs when the General Plan made for the Hellman property). He said that if the Hellman property were developed he recommended no more than 100 homes be built there because it would maintain the quality of life here. He said the wetlands should be increased and the Park be maintained at 10 acres. ALICE DAVIS - 224 4TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Ms. Davis said she represented the "Save Gum Grove Committee" and she presented 414 signatures for their pet1tion in favor of saving the Park in its current 10.5 acre size. SARA JONES - 214 17TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Ms. Jones said she felt that "... there is a decision made among you already ... that there is a recepti ve attitude displayed toward the proponent of this Plan ... that there is nQt always a recepti ve attitude displayed toward the ci ti zens . " Ms. Jones told the Planning Commission that she offered to circulate a petition to save Gum Grove Park and that 45 out of 48 people she met wanted to sign her petition without urging on her part. She urged the Commission to not vote for this proposal as presently presented. Chairman Sharp said the Planning Commission has had no meetings about this (Mola proposal) or anything else outside of the Planning commission meetings. That the Commissioners do not get together. That each Commissioner will form his own op1nion which can/will be expressed when the Public Hearing is closed. . CARLA WATSON - 1635 CATALINA - SEAL BEACH Ms. Watson spoke against the Mola proposal and asked the Planning Commissioners if they had read the Addendum Draft EIR and urged its reading. 411 Page 5 - Planning Commission M1nutes of Septemgber 21, 1988 NARCY DAVIS - 1720 EMERALD COVE WAY - SEAL BEACH Ms. Davis spoke in favor of the Mola proposal because it provides housing, recreation, open space and school students. She said the City of Seal Beach takes inter-district students to fill their classrooms to get funds. MEIER ROMERO - 517 RIVIERA - SEAL BEACH Spoke against high density and in favor of open space. she was concerned about the lines at the two grocery town, the lack of parking spaces and the possibility condominiums might become rental apartments. She said stores in the small . MITZIE MORTON - 153 13TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Ms. Morton said the Ponderosa Plan was "killed" due to Coastal Commission restrictions on the wetlands and not to citizen opinion. She urged preserving 10.4 acres of Gum Grove Park per the General Plan. She asked the Planning Commission to deny this Mola proposal until the citizens of Seal Beach and the other agencies involved can come to an agreement as to what the final plan will be. e CHRIS DAVIS - 1712 CORAL PLACE - SEAL BEACH Mr. Davis urged preserving the small town character of Seal Beach. RECESS - 5 MINUTES ROBERT POST - 1615 CRESTVIEW - SEAL BEACH Mr. Post spoke against the Mola proposal because the dri ving range being too close to his house. He would like to see the driving range moved at least 200 feet from the property lines. GAYLE OLSEN - 707 CENTRAL - SEAL BEACH Ms. Olsen spoke against the Mola proposal. MARK RILEY - 715 CARMEL - SEAL BEACH Mr. Riley spoke in favor of increasing the wetlands. MATT NICHOLSON - 125 SURF PLACE - SEAL BEACH Mr. Nicholson spoke in favor of retaining 10.4 acres for Gum Grove Park and lowering density substantially. . WENDY MORRIS - 1729 CRESTVIEW - SEAL BEACH Ms. Morris urged the retention of the quality of life 1n Seal Beach and a moratorium on the Mola proposal. She said she is opposed to the small size of the condo dwellings, night lighting, the driving range being too close to the homes, golf balls possibly entering yards of homes, interruption of existing views, increased traffic on Bolsa, reducing Gum Grove Park and the proposed architecture of the Mola project. 4IJ Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 NARCY KRAEDELL - 1633 SEAL WAY - SEAL BEACH Ms. Kraedell spoke against the Mola proposal saying that the units are too small. RAWLEY HAWK - 1025 CRESTVIEW - SEAL BEACH Mr. Hawk spoke about the golf course, saying the w1dth of the fairways appeared too narrow, not leaving much room for the trees shown. e MARY PARCELL - REPRESENTING EL DORADO AUDOBON SOCIETY Ms. Parcell said she represents the EI Dorado Audobon Society, a local chapter of the National Audobon Society which includes the surrounding areas of Long Beach --- including Seal Beach. The Hellman property includes wetlands which are the last remaining segments of the once-vast Los Alami tos Bay. This Bay once covered 2400 acres of mudflats, salt marsh and tidal lagoons. Wetlands are a vital public resource which are disappearing at an alarming rate. Restoration and preservation of degraded wetlands is a high priority of the Audobon Society. She stated we can't afford further wetlands loss. The Fish & Game Department has said the wetlands and Gum Grove Park are valuable wildlife habitats. The wetlands are a habitat for the endangered Building Savannah Sparrow and a potential habitat for the endangered California Least Tern. She said her group was in agreement with what the Sierra Club said at the Planning Commission's 9/7/88 meeting --- that since the area has been designated by Fish & Game as continued historic wetlands that they should be restored; it's possible there's more than 20 acres. There is another concern --- that of the golf course being built next to the wetlands and grass maintenance chemicals runoff. DOROTHY GEISLER - (NO HOUSE HUMBER) THUNDERBIRD - LEISURE WOPT.n Ms. Geisler said Leisure World would support a decent, not narrow, golf course. She urged the Planning Commission to wait and reassess its plans, represent the people of Seal Beach and reduce traffic gridlock. JOHH PULMAH - 620 TAPER - SEAL BEACH Mr. Pulman spoke against the Mola proposal and urged the saving of Gum Grove Park. (NO NAME GIVER) - 1709 CRESTVIEW - SEAL BEACH This woman spoke in favor of the Mola proposal. She urged animal control on Regency Drive. There is too much noise from the dogs. e tt Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 MARIO VOCHE - 730 CATALINA - SEAL BEACH Mr. Voche spoke for keeping 10.5 acres of Gum Grove Park and its preservation for restoration. He recommended restored wetlands. BRIAR KYLE - 148 1/2 HAIN STREET - SEAL BEACH Mr. Kyle said he knew this is a $19,000,000 project; that Mola put up $200,000 for an option and $100,000 for an extension on the option --- but that Mola doesn't own this project and that there are other developers who would like to develop this area. He urged the Planning Commission to wait and reconsider on this project. BRUCE BERRETT - 117 4TH STREET - SEAL BEACH Mr. Bennett urged the Planning Commission to table this issue, reconsider and then reconvene with additional Public Hearings. He said he felt the condominium units were too small at 600 square feet. e BRUCE STARK - OLD TOW (NO ADDRESS GIVER) - SEAL BEACH Mr. Stark stated the importance of costs to the City of Seal Beach from the building of the Mola proposal -- as examples -- (1) water for the golf course --- will the City have to drill a new well or build a new reservoir, or raise its water rates to provide water to this tract; (2) how many police cars and how many more police personnel will the City have to acquire; (3) will the City have to increase its sewer system? Mr. Stark said there was a conservati ve Ci ty staff est1mate (because it does not include hidden costs of a project this size) of a $30,000 per year shortfall but he thinks it is ten times that amount. The City may have to go into a bonded indebtedness if the find themselves in a bind to support this project --- that will cost all residents. He said that at the Project Area Committee (PAC) meeting the rezoned Gum Grove Park to residential. e JOYCE RISNER - 845 DRIFTWOOD - SEAL BEACH Chairman Sharp said to Mrs. Risner that at a meeting of the City counci 1 on Monday, September 19th, Mrs. Risner bypassed the Planning Commission and made a recommendation to the City Mmanager that he start something that shouldn't be started until all the other committees have reported to the City Council and they have all the recommendations. Mr. Sharp said he felt Mrs. Risner was overstepping her bounds speaking again but that he cannot stop her. Mrs. Risner asked the City's attorney if she could speak and Mr. Stephanicich said yes, it was O.K. for her to speak. Mrs. Risner asked Mr. Knight about certain letters from her constituents that she had given to Mr. Knight at the last 4It Page 8 - Planning Comm1ssion M1nutes of September 21, 1988 Plann1ng Commission for the official record. She noted they had not been read at th1S meet1ng but she wanted them reviewed and let everyone know they're on file. Mrs. Risner said that as a c1tizen she has spoken to various agencies (for example) the Coastal Commission representatives. Today she said she had a telephone conversation with Bob Radovich, ... a State of California Department of Fish & Game fisheries biologist located in Sacramento. He is responsible for reviewing environmental documentation for this di vision. He said additional environmental documentation is needed, including a restoration plan for the wetlands, feasibility of implementing such a plan, a map indicating existing wetlands with a buffer zone requirement. The amount of wetlands that may be required may be a little larger than what is presented on this map, especially if you consider that a 100 foot buffer zone apparently is one of the Coastal Commission regulations. Mrs. Risner said if the Planning Commission reviews the resolutions before them tonight, where is says that additional environmental no additional environmental documentation is needed that may not be so by State or Federal agencies. Also the buffer zone ... can be for people to observe and overlook the wetlands; the Coastal Commission has approved such action before. She sa1d the Commission could add that recommendation regarding observation lookouts, and people can access them thru passages to observe/overlook the buffer zone or walk around the buffer zone to overlook the wetlands. She understands also from Mr. Radovich that they are very concerned about retention of the existing Gum Grove Park. Research indicated the problems with the Eucalyptus Longhorn Borer show it can be defeated. e RECESS - 5 MINUTES (10:00 P.M.) KIRK EVANS - KOLA DEVELOPMEHT - HUHTINGTON BEACH Mr. Evans summarized that historically this project proposal has had 20 meetings, 14 of those meetings have been Public Hearings. e This project has been mentioned many times as 70% open space. The density on this site is 5.2 units per acre and that density is far less than the rest of Seal Beach. Seal Beach has roughly 11,000 acres with a population of 25,000 - this is l50 acres with a population of about l800. The City has taken into consideration what will happen from this site. This development is a fully self-contained development. The City isn't going to have to pay for any services for this site. This is a private e Page 9 - Plann1ng Commission M1nutes of September 21, 1988 sewer system. Nowhere else in Seal Beach, W1 th the poss1ble exception of Le1sure World, are the homeowners asked to pay to maintain their sewers. This project will pay for drilling its own water wells if needed. All the 1mprovements for traffic generated by this project will be paid for by the developer--- we're improving Coast Highway and First Street, Coast Highway and westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Bl vd., Regency, Forrestal we're paying our fair share of north-south connections to westminster Avenue ... The developer is paying for its own way. Wetlands. Kirk Evans said he would like to make an offer on the wetlands. If this is approved by the State, Mola Development would have no problem dedicating this land to the "Save Gum Grove Society". We don't want to keep the wetlands. We'd much prefer to dedicate it to a Coastal Conservancy-type organization. Animals. The EIR says Mola has to trap the animals. Gum Grove Park. Gum Grove Park and the wetlands will be improved at the time of grading but before the houses are built. He said Mola came to the C1 ty and said that based on the plan we have now, we can have roughly 6.8 acres. After the golf course was reconfigured and the loss of 20 acres for the wetlands that area got cut down to 4.7 acres. Golf Course. Was designed by Ted RObinson, a well-respected golf course architect and this course will be very challenging. Mola looked at the issue brought up by Mr. Carlson -- that the driving range was too close to Mr. Carlson's house. The driving did have a 50' separation between its end and the property line. Now Mola has reconfigured the driving range and there's a 100'- 150' separation at that point. Mr. Evans said the Hellman's don't want the driving range in an East-West direction because they don't want people near the oil wells. e Bolsa Avenue. This road is used as a shortcut for people who want to get to PCH from Seal Beach Boulevard. We know this is a problem because there's an elementary school and a supermarket in that vicinity. By building F1rst Street the way we have is that the traffic will be coming off of Bolsa. Also, the electric towers will come down and those homeowners will have the easements removed from their titles. Mola will have to pay Edison for those easements. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED e ~ Page 10 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 GREG STEPANICICH - CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Mr. Stepanicich reviewed the meeting process starting with the applicant, those speaking in favor and against, the applicant's rebuttal (the applicant has the right to make the last statement before the Public Hearing is closed), the Commissioner's deliberations. He said no decision is final but the Commission does recommend to the City Council. The City Council will give this a full hearing. City files can be rev1ewed for free but there is a photocopying charge. RON JESSNER. COMMISSIONER Mr. Jessner noted the many different interests in this Mola proposal --- the wetlands, the Gum Grove Park, the golfers, the City and Mola. Jessner: Knight: e Regarding the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, asked what comments staff had regarding proposal not being in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan. A portion of the site is in the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan which was noted in the EIR and the Specific Plan. The RRP is not a well-written document but after some thorough investigation by staff we felt it was more appropriate to go through an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to bring it into conformity with the adopted Specific Plan. This has been received by the City Council and a Public Hearing date of 11/7/88 has been set for the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council to consider that. As part of that process, the input from the Planning Commission was only in regard to the conformity of that amendment with adopted or antic1pated General Plan - whether that amendment would be in conformance with the General Plan. The General Plan was amended last year to address the Specific Plan. So the when the Commission receives that report the Commission will be asked to make a determination about that in regard to the General Plan and pass on your report in a resolution to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. he the Mola Riverfront Jessner: It is acceptable for us to act on this plan at this time if it's not in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan? Knight: Yes. e ~ Page 11 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of September 21, 1988 Jessner: Stepanicich: Stated they had been asked by the City Council to review the procedure that is being used to review the Plan. There's a number of different ways this could have been done. The RRD Plan could have been processed at the same time the General Plan and Specific Plan was processed in December of last year. At the same time, it was decided that legally the City's staff could legally delay bringing the RRD Plan before the agency until the Subdivision Plan was brought forward. The reason for that is that the City's Redevelopment Plan requires that before there can be any improvements within the project area the Agency has to specifically approve the improvements proposed. In this case, there were no actual improvements being proposed, or that could be constructed, until the Subdivision Map was brought forward. So for that reason the Subdivision Map could not be approved until the Redevelopment Plan was approved so that would still be in conformance with each other. So that was the last absolute deadline within which the Redevelopment Plan has to be amended. I think the reason ( as Mr. Knight pointed out) that th1s was done the way was to have a more precise development plan before the Council, Agency board and Planning Commission at the time that the Redevelopment Plan would be amended. Again, we believe that the process that has been followed (in this case) is legally permiss1ble. I have reviewed the housing element of the General Plan many persons have said this project (the Mola proposal) is high density. According to the housing element of our General Plan, it defines low density as 8 units per acre, medium density as 17-23 units per acre and high density as 32-45 units per acre. When we consider density, we should consider density of the entire project site. When considering the density of the entire project site it has a little more than 5 uni ts per acre. So in accordance with the housing element of our General Plan this project is within the low density requirements. I checked College Park East and the Hill area and from what I can determine, they're at about 8 units per acre. e e Jessner: I would like to discuss one of the (condom1nium) buildings on the project site. This is the condominium building at the farthest/westerly end. I would like to discuss suggesting that this building be eliminated. He said removal may be benef1cial if Gum Grove or wetlands need increasing. 4It Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 He said he is not happy with proposed site of Gum Grove Park and want to bring it to 6.8 acres. If the Park could be larger that would be fine too. Rullo: Kn1ght: Sharp: e Knight: Rullo: Knight: e Referring to a comment at the last C1ty meeting, he said they voted for the City to consultant for another study. He asked explanation of what the study was going to do. Council hire a for an The motion was to hire a marketing consultant to review this Plan, and possibly make some numbers on it and look at possible alternatives. One of the alternatives would be to incorporate some of the conditions/changes the Planning commission might make. They might look at different land use configurations. And basically allow the Redevelopment Agency to take a look at some of the dollar numbers that are associated with this project especially in regard to some of the items the Riverfront Redevelopment Agency might want to consider if at some time they direct the City Manager to begin negotiations with Mola Development. Didn't Mr. Evans agree to supply needed figures to that consultant as well? I have a lot of information on file but 1 t would be impossible to do the study without consulting with Mola. Even at that it's not going to be clear numbers because there are still some outstanding issues -- such as the relocation of the electric lines ... the final dollar figures aren't' known. I'd like clarification on the setaside on this for low and medium income people. State law says ... 20% , right? W1th most redevelopment project areas developed after 1976 there's a mandatory setaside of 20% of your increment to develop low income housing within the project area --- well actually outside the project area as well. Ours is a pre-1976 redevelopment plan so we are not required to set that 20% aside. But from recent laws that have been changed we have now been required to make findings that our Redevelopment Agency 1S sufficiently in debt ... to not have to put that 20% setaside. But if it's important to the community, which I have not heard it is to date, 1t is poss1ble to use some of that 20% incrementif the City chooses to make some of the condominiums affordable to low income housing. You'd have to use that 20% increment to write down the cost of a certain ~ Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 condominium unit to an affordable level and sell it to an individual who would meet certain income requirements which, in Orange County, range from $32,000 to $56,000 per year (income levels). Then you'd have to have an agreement that would run with the land for that unit for about IS years on resale that would state he could resell at a certain inflation rate each year that's tied to a certain index and it would also have to be sold to low income families upon resale. Rullo: Knight: Fife: Knight: . Fife: Knight: Fife: On this project, what are our responsibilities on setasides? We have none on this project because we are pre-1976 Redevelopment Agency. There is nothing that would hold us accountable for the setasides. If the Redevelopment Plan were amended would it then become subject to the setaside provision? My understanding from the City attorney would not. is that 1t What is the exact protection in the deed restriction or the CC&R' s to assure that the golf course remains a public golf course in perpetuity? wi thin the conditions of the vesting Tentative Tract Map there's a requirement that prior to the final map approval (which is the point where they can get their pink slips and beg1n to sell units) they have to have an agreement with the City approving the golf course as a public golf course. It will have to go on the property and be recorded with the County and cannot be removed from recordation without the written approval of the City of Seal Beach. How would the written approval be communicated in the future? Stepanicich: It probably could be done by a simple major1ty vote of the City Council itself ... a four-fifths vote of the Council. Likewise, there could be a voter approval requirement as a part of the deed restriction. F1fe: . I'd feel much more confident that the golf course would remain a golf course in the future if that were done and not face some change by some passing vote of a future City Council. 4It Page 14 - Planning commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 Fife: Knight: F1fe: Knight: Fife: e e What about the pUblic's easement rights with regard to the Gum Grove Park area? Once again, thai;.' s the same type of agreement which would be recorded against the property. And if the City Attorney said it's good for the golf course, I'll assume that it's good for Gum Grove Park as well. What would have to be done to the Plan to change the acreage of Gum Grove Park to 6.8 acres? During the approval process that would occur under the GPA 1a-88 and the GPA 1b-88. I philosophically don't like gated communities. We have two in this city already and I'm not keen on adding a third. I believe citizens in guard gated communities can cast votes that effect me but they can't be reached for political campaigning. I would like to see a restriction on the gated feature of any part of this residential community providing that not less than 60 days prior to any state, County or local election or while any referendum or initiative petition has been certified for circulation in this city that any person identifying himself at the gate of this community be allowed to enter it for purposes of political activity. Mr. Fife said he was not philosophically opposed to this project as a whole. . .. that he thinks we are committed to compromising. He doesn't like the idea of million dollar homes as the answer to our density/quality of life issue. He said he was concerned about the young people not being able to afford to live in this area --- people who are in their 20's now and can't afford a half-million dollar home as their first home. He doesn't give the developer negative points for having some smaller units; he thinks that's actually a plus. That's what most of our young people will be able to afford unless we plan to dri ve all our young people away (from this area) and make it a haven for us. He thinks the developer could develop the condos of less than 1000 square feet of living space and increase the golf course to a legitimate 70-par course. He said he doesn't like the idea of removing the proviso that "if the wetlands is not able of being developed as such, that it must be added back to the golf course." If, as the State suggests, this land will be developed and maintained as wetlands he sees no harm in a safety measure that if one chance in ten billion that doesn't happen, the ~ Page 15 - Planning commission M1nutes of September 21, 1988 issue come to us as to what's going to happen to the wetlands, is it going to be more condominiums? He thinks we should keep that provision in there ---that 1f for any reason the wetlands don't work ... it must come back to the golf course and be subject to the same restrictions that apply to the golf course generally. Suggs: Said he concurs with Commissioner Jessner as to what a difficult decision this is. He feels this is a first class project. He prefers 6.8 acres vice 4.7 acres for Gum Grove Park. Sharp: He would concur with Mr. Fife on the wetlands; that the wording should be left in. How much land space would be saved by remov1ng one condo? Knight: Approximately one-half acre. Sharp: e Re the deed restrictions on the golf course, he would agree that we want to be sure that without a vote of the people that anything could be done with 1 t. He said he is "on a fence" about the open gate for people being able to enter a gated community. There's a lot of safety due to the gated community. In Leisure World we pay for our streets -- the City isn't paying for anything. As a community we have to support any improvements. We also have our own police force. If something is drastic and we feel it is needed we do call the City pol1ce force. So this is not a big expense to the city. He said he hesitates on breaking with gate restrictions. Jessner: He suggested we remove that one condominium building. He was not sure how this would impact the developer. He was concerned with this building's closeness to the Hill area. I calculate this about 2 lot lengths away; it's not that far away. He said if the driving range was reconfigured he was not sure how much area would be added to Gum Grove Park. About 1/4 acre by tweaking the driving range. It didn't shorten the driving range just change its position. Jessner: We could get 6.8 acres in Gum Grove Park but perhaps more could be added. He said more thought could be given to this subject between now and when it goes to the City Council. Evans: tit Rullo: Asked Mr. Knight what percentage of 10.4 acres of Gum Grove Park was for parking? 4It Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 Knight: F1fe: Knight: Evans: 5.8 acres of it are trees ... and about 1 acre is for parking. There was some discussion about homeowners who houses backed onto Gum Grove Park and had intruded with improvements to their property lines. When we're talking about measurements of the acreage of Gum Grove Park are we basing this on measurements against legal property lines that are not observed or are we talking about measurements based on property lines actually used legally or otherwise by people whose homes abut the property? Said he assumed the acreage figures are based on existing property lines in the area. The applicant has made a statement that the 4.7 acres does not include any of the encroachments that may/may not exist in that area currently. Most of the encroachments are not in the Park area. Jessner: Another area of concern, is the proposed road between Regency and Westminster. He would like to see something opened up as soon as possible. A minimum of two lanes. He doesn't th1nk we should wait too long on this and feel it would be beneficial to this project. Another concern is the removal of a traffic light that now services Rockwell and placing that traffic light on Regency. He's concerned about this. Possibly it could be left there and used as the demand indicates. e Knight: See condition #22 of the General Conditions for clarification. It says the street light may be modified or removed. Jessner: Another concern is the long stretch running down First Street and not having any traffic control like "stop" signs. I would like to see traffic controls. Suggs: He said he was concerned about the 45 M.P.H. speed limit on First Street. END OF GENERAL COMMENTS . ~ Page 17 - Planning commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 PLANKING COMMISSION REVIEW - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM n An: 1. GENERAL PLAN AllEHDMEHT 1a-88 LAND USE ELEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 1513 Item 1a-88, change to the Land Use Element does two things: 1. It incorporates the 20 acres of wetlands that will be put into the Plan. 2. Establishes the amount of acreage for Gum Grove Park. When the Plan was changed last year the Land Use Element was altered to incorporate Gum Grove Park as having public access but included into the golf course. It was left at ten acres because there was never any resolution as to any size of that. The applicant has come back and proposed 4.7 acres. There has been general discussion from the Planning Commission that it be 6.8 acres. e MOTION by Jessner to add that as minimum 6.8 acres be reserved for GUDl Grove Park use; second by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 MOTION by Jessner that Resolution 1513 be approved with the amendment added; second by Fife. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 MOTION by Fife to remove the condominiUDl building at the southwest corner of the project; second by Jessner MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 e 4It Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 2. GENERAL PLAN AMEHDMEHT 1b-88 - OPEN SPACEIRECREATION ICONSERVATION RT.'RMRNT RESOLUTION NO. 1514 Mr. Knight said General Plan Amendment 1b-88 does two things: 1. The Gum Grove acreage is expressed as 4.7 acres and now will have to be changed to reflect your vote for a minimum of 6.8 acres. 2. It adds text talking about the 20 acres of wetlands located in the southwest corner of the Hellman property. MOTION to adopt Resolution 1514, as amended to conform to Resolution 1513 recommending 6.8 acres for Gum Grove Park; second by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 3. AMEHDMENT TO HRT.T.MAN SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 1515 This covers changes to the golf course acreage wh1ch is now less because of the wetlands, including the new section says that in the southwest corner of the Plan there will be wetlands and there's a description of those wetlands and what function they serve. There is also the permitted uses section. MOTION by Suggs to amend the Hellman Specific Plan in accordance with the Planning Director's comments. This motion was not seconded nor voted upon. MOTION by Fife to adopt Resolution 1515 subject to rev1s1ng the site plan to show 6.8 acres for Gum Grove Park and realignment of the driving range. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends to City Council the removal of the condominium building of 60 units closest to Avalon at the southwest corner of the project; second by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . . Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 4. PARCEL MAP 86-349 RESOLUTION 1516 Mr. Knight explained the Parcel Map 86-349 is a conveyance map that allows Mola Development to buy the land, allows development to occur, subdivides the land. It does require the Hellmans to give an irrevocable offer of dedication for the eighty (80') feet right-Of-way of "A" Street which would be dedicated at that time under the Parcel Map. The City would then own that. MOTION by Suggs to approve Parcel Map 86-349 by the adoption of Resolution 1516; second by Jessner. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 Correction by Mr. Fife to Resolution 15l6, page 2, paragraph numbered 3 - delete "excise" and substitute "exercise". 5 MINUTE RECESS . 5. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13198 RESOLUTION NO. 1517 Mr. Knight reviewed Mola' s objections to six (6) condi tions pertaining to Resolution No. 1517. They are taken from the Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1988 and are as follows: 1. Prior to Final Map Approval. 112: #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 w1th 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". . Mr. Knight said staff had no problem with this because the agency is outside the City of Seal Beach and if they did refuse to have this improvement (which they've indicated they wanted) it should not hold up the Final Map. ~ Page 20 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 2. Prior to Final Map Approval. 113: #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 Buildinq Permits ~proval. 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. Mr. Knight said staff does not have a problem with this. 3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance. 18: e #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 Occupancy 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. Mr. Knight said staff does not have a problem with this. 4. Prior To Certificate of Occupancy. 14. e #4. Prior to any Certificate of Occupancy, improvements to the wetlands shall be completed, along the implementation of the jurisdictional enti ty that maintain the wetlands and the maintenance program. Mola doesn't think they will have a problem but, Mr. Evans said, that when you have a Specific Plan, with very specific conditions, 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 the with will ~ Page 21 - Planning commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 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 wil11ng 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 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 that there will be practically no maintenance because the wetlands are to be in a natural state with natural growth. It amounts to locking the gate. Mr. Knight said staff has no problem with this. 5. Prior to Occupancy Permits. 15. . #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 pr10r 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 d111gence and they are proceeding with the golf course construction, that they not be held up on certificates of occupancy. Mr. Knight said staff has no problem with this. 6. General Conditions, 126. e #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 ~ Page 22 - Planning commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 on the total acreage of this project, the remain1ng 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 no 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 to 50% was arrived at --- 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. e Mr. Knight said he might asked the applicant to further provide information to you (on traffic impact), if you see fit to either leave that condition as it is or to remove it to a pro-rata share of traffic impact. staff is adding a further condi tion to the Prior to Grading Permit section: The project proponent shall notify the California Division of oil and Gas regarding the alteration, modification or abandonment of current or abandoned oil wells on site. Mr. Knight said he had received correspondence from the California Division of oil and Gas that they feel this is the most appropriate time to begin these discussions. Staff has had a chance to take a look at the configuration for Gum Grove Park and if the Planning Commission recommends, there are conditions in the map that talk about the Park in Resolution No. 1517 on page 20: e 1. The improvements to Gum Grove shall be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plans submitted by the project proponent and approved by the City of Seal Beach. At the time prior to viewing the 6.8 acres that was the 4.7 acre site that was located up above ... if the Commission is going to go with the 6.8 site, staff would recommend that you establish as ~ Page 23 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 minimum buffer area between the property line and the fairway of the golf course and that a trail system be incorporated from Seal Beach Boulevard to the one that is proposed. That securi ty measures will be included along Seal Beach Boulevard to the satisfaction of the Police Department included in the conditions. That mid-planting be put into this area at the same density as that is located in the existing Gum Grove area annd that shall be determined under #2, Pr10r to Grading Permit. So: Prior to Grading Permit the applicant shall submit a plan which shows how many trees will be put into this new area and how they reach conformance with that current density. The City of Seal Beach would use the services of the Golden Coast Environmental Services to be sure that plan is check and verified to assure that the plantings do reach the current density in Gum Grove Park. This is only for the area from Seal Beach Boulevard to the existing true line of Gum Grove Park. COMMISSION COMMEHTS . The Planning commission reviewed Resolution 1517,' with 108 conditions, beginning with the section Prior to Grading Permit. On the Resolution Itself - Resolution No. 1517: 1. Correction at #1: change "660" to "600". 2. Correction at #1: change the language from "a gross density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre" to "a gross density of not more than or less than ...". 3. Correct1on at #6: "acquired". change the word "acquires" to 4. Correction: there are two #10's; change one to #11. Section - Prior to Grading Permit: 1. Add1tion at #3: Add that red foxes shall be trapped humanely and released humanely in a environmentally compat1ble area. 2. Add1tion at #19: The results of the study shall be implemented and require bonds/surety to ensure that those improvements will be put into place. . 3. Addition of #26: Additional condition from the staff report: Prior to Grading Permit the project proponent shall notify the California Division of oil & Gas regarding the tit Page 24 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 alteration, mod1fication or abandonment of current or abandoned oil wells. section - Prior to Final Map Approval: 1. Addition to #12: Staff recommends a sentance be placed on this condition saying that if the City of Long Beach refuses to approve the project the map can st111 be approved as final and recorded. 2. Correction to #13: Developer is requesting that this be moved to Prior to Building Permit Issuance. 3. Staff has no concerns about this as it assures us that before any construction starts on site that Gum Grove would be completed. Addition to #16: Such easement shall not be modified or terminated without the approval of 2/3 of the voters voting of the at a duly called election. e Addition to #18: Such deed restriction shall not be amended or terminated wi thout the approval of 2/3 of the voters voting on the matter at a duly called election. 5. Correction to #18: In the last sentence, replace the word "of" with the word "for". 4. 6. Addition of #20: Developer be required to post security for the installation of traffic signals and left turn lanes to permit traffic to turn left into the residential areas or traffic from the residential areas to exit up onto that second street extension if a traffic survey conducted by the City Engineer (conducted within the first 36 months of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy) would indicate that's required for safety reasons. . Discussion of road between Regency and Westminster. Mr. Jessner feels a road connecting Regency or "A" Street to westminster is necessary. The right-of-way is in place. Mr. Knight said this 1S a primary road w1th the possibility of 4 lanes. Mr. Evans said you can't build a 2-lane road for half the cost of a 4-lane road. Mr. Sharp said the City Engineer felt this road is needed at this time. If and when it does go in, Mola will have to share their part of the financial burden; leave #19D alone and add #20. . Page 25 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 section - Prior to Building Permit Issuance: 1. Correction at #3: paragraph. 2. Correction at #8: Subdivider requests that this be moved to Prior to Occupancy. Mr. Knight said he has no problem with this as long as it's prior to the occupancy of the first unit when it's completed. Eliminate the last sentence of that 3. Correction at #19: F1nish the last sentence with "shall be enforced." Discuss10n ensued regarding limiting pile driving to a later starting time but it was decided that this would be discriminatory to other construction workers and is not the way the law is worded. 4. Correction at #20: Delete the second sentence which reads "The content of the statement shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to circulation". tit section - Prior to certificate of Occupancy: 1. Correction at #3.A: Delete part second sentence dealing with review and approval by the Director, so it will read "Such document shall be incorporated in the rental/sales literature". 2. Addit10n at #3.A to be added at Prior to Final Map, condition #10 item "M": Discussion ensued as to what protection will be afforded the resale buyer. It was noted that the homeowner and the realtor have the responsibility to disclose any known defects or problems. will the developer be required to record this disclosure along with the CC&Rs? This could be accomplished as an Exhibit to the CC&Rs. This is to be added: Section - Prior to Final Map, condition #10, item "M" to read: M. The disclosure document shall be attached to the CC&R's. e tit Page 26 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 19882 3. Addition at #4: An additional sentence to be added: . Knight: The developer will be responsible for maintaining the wetlands until a jurisdictional entity is identified and this entity :must be approved by the Coastal Commission. The City Attorney said he was sure the Coastal Commission was responsible to ensure that an entity is planned for. He was not sure how much authority the City of Seal Beach would have over this area. 4. Addition at #5: The developer is requesting that the certificates of Occupancy not be held up if the developer is showing due diligence in complet1on of the golf course. staff has no problem with putting that sentence in as long as the other components of the condition are altered which would require him, prior to any cert1ficate of occupancy, to (if the clubhouse is not completed) post a bond and show a schedule as to when that would be completed. "Due diligence" is sUbject to interpretation. There are two things happening here (1) building the clubhouse and (2) the golf course. The condition requires bonds and schedules showing when this would be completed. Mr. Knight said "due diligence" would be related to the completion of an 18-hole golf course, not to some portion of it. Evans: They have a problem with the word "improvements" and having that word clearly defined. The golf course building will start with the grading process and will be on-going. Add: If the golf course improvements have not been completed the project proponent can receive Certificates of Occupancy if he shows due diligence to complete the entire golf course area. This is subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Section - General Conditions: 1. 2. . Addition at #20: 2/3 Voter approval requirement added her (per City Attorney) Addition at #22: This improvement program shall be Subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the City shall consult with Rockwell as part of such review. ~ Page 27 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 3. Correction at #24 (1) : change the word from "land" to "lane". 4. Correction at #26: Delete second sentence and replace with: The road would not be built simply as a result of this project but would not be built until Rockwell initiates further development. The first decision to be made is what is appropriate road improvement for that area? Collector or otherwise? The developer would be required to pay h1s pro-rata share for that improvement. Mr. Knight said the EIR states this roadway could be constructed to collector roadway standards two-lanes undivided. Primarily because Regency is serving the area and coming in as a secondary road. Prior to grading permit a traffic study based on actual traffic generation shall be prepared by the City and funded by the developer to determine the pro-rata share for a two- lane collector road. That money would be put on deposit in an interest-bearing account until the road is ready to be built. . 5. Addition at #28: A study is to be made by the City Engineer at the end of thirty-six (36) months and if it is found that traffic signals are needed the developer would pay for them. The developer is to post a bond guaranteeing paYment. 6. Addition at #30.F: Require a trail system that goes to Seal Beach Blvd., (the section that addresses pedestrian access) there shall be pedestrian access at Seal Beach Blvd. and it shall be subject to the security measures, a minimum buffer of fifty (50') feet. 1?? Add the word nstuccon to masonry walls so it will read nstuccoed solid masonry wallsn. Recommendation for the City Council that there be discussion at the Ci ty Council level regarding securi ty of a gate guarded community and access for political activities. The City Attorney is to do more research on this matter. . tit Page 28 - Planning Comm1SS1on Minutes of September 21, 1988 7. Correction at #32.B: Insert the word "not" so the wording will read "... into consideration, but not limited to ..." 8. Addition at #32.D: Shall be allowed only after the item has been approved by the Planning Commission after a Public Hearing. And not limited to ... MOTION by Rullo to approve Resolution No. 1517 with the conditions revision; second by Fife. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 6. PRECISE PLAN 88-1 RESOLUTION NO. 1518 Resolution Itself - Resolution No. 1518: e 1. Correction at paragraph #3/WHEREAS: Change from "660" to "600" referring to condominiums. Section - Architecture: 1. Correction at #7: Where it talks about parking spaces, the number of parking spaces will be lessened by about 127 due to the removal of one condo building. Section - Noise Mitiqation: 1. Correction at #2.B: The wall height is to be eight (8') feet instead of six feet. 2. Addition at #2.B: Add the word "stucco" to the first sentence so it will read "Construction of a solid stucco masonry block wall." 3. Gate restrictions: Mr. Fife questioned where the provision for access for political campaigning would come in? Mr. Knight said he may have to go back to the vested Tentative Tract Map under the CC&R's to accomplish this. This is to be studied and brought back to the Planning Commission. MOTION by Fife to approve Resolution No. 1518 as modified; second by Suggs. . MO'TION CARRIED 5 - 0 .. 1It Page 29 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1988 SCHEDULED MATTERS ORAL COMMUHICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNJIEHT Chairman Sharp adjourned the meet1ng at 2:15 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, '=io~~~,- Joan Fillmann Secretary THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * . The Minutes of September 2~1~ 1988 Planning Commission meeting were approved on October -'~~988. ~ . -""" -- ~ . ( - , ~ ~ - . . . October 19, 1988 MEMORANDUM to: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission from: Department of Development SerVlces subject: Mlnutes of September 7, 1988 Plannlng Commlssion meetlng The mlnutes of the Commlsslon's meetlng of September 7, 1988 were approved and adopted by the CommlSSlon on September 21, 1988. At that meet lng, Commlssloner Jessner lndlcated the he had recelved a request from Councllmember Joyce Rlsner regardlng her testlmony at that meetlng. Commlssioner Jessner requested that staff review the minutes and determine if the testlmony of Councllmember Rlsner was correct as shown ln the mlnutes. If the mlnutes were correct, the approval would stand, but if they were lncorrect, the minutes would be returned for further conslderatlon by the Commisslon. After due conslderatlon, lt lS staff's contentlon that the fair approach was to prepare Councllmember Rlsner's testlmonyas verbatim and resubmit the minutes for Commission approval. In that way, there could be no question of whether or not the testlmony lS accurately shown. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the minutes of September 7, 1988 as submitted.