Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-08-02 . . / CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1989 MEETING The regularly scheduled meetl.ng of the Plannl.ng Comml.SSl.on was called to order l.n Cl.ty Councl.l Chambers by Chal.rman Sharp at 7:26 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegl.ance was led by Comml.SSl.oner Fl.fe. ROLL C/I.. J.J. Present: Absent: Staff Present: Also Present: Chal.rman Sharp Comml.SSl.oners Fl.fe, Suggs, Jessner Comml.SSl.oner Rullo Sandra Massa-Lavl.tt, Interl.m Dl.rector, Development SerVl.ces Department. Barry Curtl.s, Adml.nl.stratl.ve Al.de, Develmt. Srvcs. QUl.nn Barrow, Esq., Cl.ty Attorney's Offl.ce CONSENT CALENDAR The three Consent Calendar l.tems were consl.dered separately. 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 1989 MOTION by F1fei SECOND by Suggs to approve the M1nutes of June 7, 1989 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 ABSTAIN: Hr. Jessner ABSENT: Hr. Rullo 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1989 MOTION by Jessneri SECOND by F1fe to approve the M1nutes of June 14, 1989 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Hr. Rullo 3. MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1989 MOTION by F1fei SECOND by Suggs to approve the Minutes of July 5, 1989 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 ABSTAIN: Hr. Jessner ABSENT: Hr. Rullo ~ ---. ., . Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of August 2, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING 4. HELLMAN RANCH/MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PARCEL MAP 86-349 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13198 staff Report Sandra Massa-Lav1tt del1vered the staff report. (A copy of th1s ten page staff report 1S on f1le 1n the Department of Development SerV1ces for reference). Staff noted that on July 17, 1989 the C1ty Counc11 cons1dered and adopted the Supplemental ErR and the Hellman Spec1f1c Plan. Ms. Massa-Lav1 tt sa1d Mola Development had subm1tted plans to develop 149 acres 1n Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the C1ty'S Spec1f1c Plan and noted that th1s even1ng the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on would cons1der a tentat1ve parcel map (for conveyance purposes only) and a tentat1ve tract map (wh1ch spec1f1es the spec1f1c lots, parklands, wetlands etc.) Staff recommended the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on adopt Resolut1ons No. 1548 and 1549 w1th cond1t1ons of approval. Comm1ss1on Commentary . Mr. Sharp had the follow1ng comments: Gum Grove Park - he would 11ke to see the Parks & Recreat10n Comm1SS1on make a study of Gum Grove Park and have a def1n1 te say 1n 1 ts restorat1on. Th1S should be stud1ed W1 th other knowledgeable people to dec1de expl1c1 tly what tree spec1es should be there. General Park - the map we see now (W1 th 9 tenn1s courts etc.) 1S only an art1stic render1ng. He wants to see the Parks & Recreat10n Commiss1on had a lot of 1nput as to what goes 1nto th1s park before 1 t 1S bU11 t. There w111 be publ1C hear1ngs at Parks & Recreat10n Comm1SS1on meet1ngs on th1s 1ssue. Th1S 1S not locked 1n at th1s p01nt. Power L1nes - the power 11nes that go to DWP, along Bolsa and to Rockwell w111 be removed dur1ng th1s construct1on. . Encroachment - when we were f1rst cons1der1ng th1s proJect there was a golf course wh1ch bordered on most of the houses. Because it was a golf course not much was made of the persons who have encroached onto Hellman Ranch property. He had no obJect1on to the encroachments when 1t was a golf course but he has obJect1ons to the encroachments now because 1t 1S now pr1vate res1dences. There 1S no reason to g1ve people there, or any other place 1n the C1ty, a spec1al pr1v1lege of encroachment. .. . Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of August 2, 1989 Buffer Zone - the 30' buffer zone would be noth1ng more than a place for 11tter and a Po11ce problem for robber1es etc. It was also be a spec1al pr1v11ege. He thought the 30' should be part of each 1nd1v1dual lot. Each 1nd1v1dual owner would take care of the1r own property and 1t would not fall to one group of people to take care of property for other people. F1rst street - w111 be bU11t and ded1cated as the C1ty Engineer and Mola Development agrees on the S1ze etc. of 1t. There w111 be a 20' setback on Seal Beach Blvd. that w111 be landscaped so that those homes w111 be back 20' from the street. $1.000.000 - Mola Development will g1ve the C1ty $1,000,000 undes1gnated to be used at the C1ty'S d1scret10n. . Access for Po11t1cal Reasons 1f the people 1n th1s development would 11ke to have 1t, 1t should be ava11able. But I suggest that we allow the homeowners/Homeowners Assoc1at10n a vot1ng procedure whereby they vote whether they want 1 t open --- for example --- 2/3 to 1/3 vote. S1nce 1t 1S a gated commun1ty they should have the r1ght to dec1de 1f they want outs1de So11c1tat10n. They are paY1ng for the1r own streets, sewers, secur1ty etc. Entry Str1p - the lot Wh1Ch w111 be the entrance to the development along F1rst Street and Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway w111 be set aS1de and landscaped. 5 Acres on Hellman Ranch - he sa1d he talked to a C1 ty Counc11 Person today. There was a meet1ng today w1th the Hellman's attorney, Bob Nelson, C1ty Manager ... (he was not sure who exactly attended) the attorneys assured those present that by August 7, 1989 there w111 be f1ve (5) acres ava11able. The cannot assure where because they don't know; we have to trust them on that. 011 leases, extract10n and know1ng where equ1pment is needed are caus1ng the uncerta1nty. They have assured the C1ty that the 5 acres of land w111 be ava11able for purchase or lease. Mr. F1fe made the follow1ng comments: . 5 Acres on Hellman Ranch - he asked staff what guarantees the C1ty has that the C1ty w111 get the 5 acres at a pr1ce 1t can afford to pay and has the resources to pay 1t? And when acqu1red, 1t w111 be developed as baseball d1amonds? Ms. Massa-Lav1tt conf1rmed there was a meet1ng yesterday w1th the Hellman's. She sa1d they could not comm1t because they were the attorneys and not the Hellmans, they were able to assure the C1ty that agreement could be reached on the 5 . Page 4 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of August 2, 1989 acres. The 10cat10n of the 5 acres is in l1mbo due to 011 operat10ns. It depends on the act1v1ty of the wells 1n that area. The terms of the contract, the costs w1ll have to be worked out at a later date. The C1ty w1ll have the $1,000,000 funds from Mola wh1ch could pay for the park property. Mr. Sharp noted we w1ll also have $700,000- $800,000 per year 1ncomejfunds from the Redevelopment area once th1s property 1S bU1l t. Mr. Sharp recommended the $1,000,000 not be used to purchase for that but that an arrangement be made to use Redevelopment fees to buy and develop that property. . Are the Hellman's amenable to leas1ng the 5 acres to the C1 ty unt1l such t1me as Redevelopment mon1es have reach a p01nt they could be used for acqu1s1tion? Staff sa1d yes. The cond1t10ns and terms are very loose at th1s p01nt. We were not able to d1scuss costs per acre. Mr. F1fe was concerned that the pr1ce of these 5 acres across from fully developed commun1ty park versus the cost now, w1th no development. Mr. F1fe asked staff 1f there 1S anyth1ng we can do ton1ght that can better ensure that ult1mately we do w1nd up w1th that 5 acres ... at a pr1ce we can afford? Ms. Massa-Lav1tt sa1d "they were hop1ng they could come up w1th much more def1n1 te 1nformat10n by August 7, 1989. That would be 1n terms of 'Yes, we w1ll sell you the property' and not necessar1ly at what pr1ce." Mr. F1fe asked staff 1f they were 100k1ng for flex1b1l1ty to move that 5 acres around? Staff sa1d that was a pOSS1b1l1ty discussed - putt1ng temporary d1amonds 1n one 10cat10n and then mov1ng them at a later date. Staff sa1d 011 operat10ns w1ll be continu1ng there for the next 30 years. Our preferred s1te for the d1amonds 1S the close prox1m1ty to already owned pub11C property - the C1ty'S An1mal Shelter, the Po11ce Department and the Yard. If the C1ty needed land later on they could use that and acqu1re land someplace else for d1amonds. Mr. Suggs made the follow1ng comments: Build1ng Inspectors - he sa1d the proJect approval would stra1n the C1ty personnel hand11ng the 1nspect10ns etc. Has the C1ty made an analys1s to procure another bU1ld1ng 1nspector or what? Ms. Massa-Lav1tt sa1d "we have not as far as bU1ld1ng 1nspectors but we have for grad1ng operat10ns. Th1S would have to be taken up 1n the next budget - as to whether or not th1s would requ1re another bU1lding 1nspector." . Secur1 ty Gate - he asked 1f the gates would be manned or mechan1cal. Staff sa1d the gates w1ll be mechan1cal. . Page 5 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of August 2, 1989 . Mr. Jessner made the follow1ng comments: Buffer preference appears to be for a 30' landscape buffer to be part of each home and for 1t to be fenced 1n as part of the back yards of the new homes. What restr1ct1ons are placed on the homeowners for this area? staff sa1d the restr1ct1ons are no bU1ld1ng is allowed in that 30' setback --- no sW1mm1ng pools, no sheds, etc. The buffer must be ma1nta1ned str1ctly 1n a landscaped state. Is there a landscape plan f1led w1th the City Wh1Ch the C1ty has approved? Staff sa1d yes, 1 t would be approved by the D1rector of Plann1ng and would be 1ncluded 1n the landscape plan. The developer w111 1nstall the landscap1ng and the homeowner 1S respons1ble for maintenance. Should the homeowner become lax, the homeowners assoc1at1on (HOA) would be able to go 1n, clean it up and b111 the homeowner for the work. The PreC1se Plan w111 be seen by the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on 1nformally - th1S w111 1nclude the landscap1ng plan. Staff sa1d 1f the D1rector of Plann1ng was unable to approve the Plan 1t would come before the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on should the developer not reV1se 1t to the cond1 t10ns of the Planning D1rector. Homeowner changes- how would these be dealt w1th? What enforcement 1S there? Staff sa1d the C1ty w111 be a party to the CC&R's. For Code enforcement purposes the C1ty would be allowed to go in and beg1n QQgg enforcement procedures to replace, replant, ma1nta1n th1S easement. The C1ty would have to be 1nformed there was a problem. The plans for the homes w111 be 1n the PreC1se Plan. We don't have draw1ngs at this time. . Hellman Ranch Road - he sa1d he 11kes the name change from "F1rst Street" to "Hellman Ranch Road". The road w1dth w111 be two (2) lanes W1 th a b1cycle tra11, landscap1ng and sidewalks. It w111 not be 1mproved unt11 the rest of the property 1S developed. Shar1ng the cost of the Hellman Ranch Road w1th extend1ng 1t to Westm1nster - he asked staff to clar1fy. Staff sa1d Mola 1S only part1c1pat1ng 1n costs of "the1r fa1r share" of future 1mprovements. There are no plans for 1mprovement at th1S t1me and probably won't be unt11 the north part of the Hellman property 1S developed . .. neceSS1 tat1ng the need for that road. Th1S road w111 not go any further than Regency. He asked when/how the "fa1r share" would be determ1ned? QU1nn Barrow sa1d we are look1ng at page 19, Cond1t1ons #19 thru #23, General Cond1t1ons --- and clarify each one of those to specify the commitment made by the subd1vider that they are ob11gated to pay. Re #23, the C1ty Attorney's Off1cer would probably recommend that a bond be taken out to ensure the cost of the road extens1on. It's a common off-site 1mprovement bond. Mr. Jessner sa1d he felt considerat1on should be g1 ven to Rockwell w1th regard to them donat1ng the property for th1s I Page 6 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 road. Mr . Sharp noted Rockwe 11 donated the 1 and through thelr property, not down thru the Hellman Ranch. QUlnn Barrow sald we would probably add some language before Monday nl.ght' s Cl. ty CounCl.l hearing. But we still do not have the precl.se amount and thl.s needs to be worked out. So there wl.II be an agreement to agree. Constructlon Phasl.ng - we don't have a phaslng map at thlS tlme. Mola wll1 probably want to phase the proJect they wl.ll subml t subsequent maps. We wll1 know then how many houses wll1 go lnto each phase. I Anlmal Shelter lS the anlmal shelter exempt from the Clty's nOlse regulatlons? Staff sald yes, by ltS functlon. To keep the nOlse at a manageable level the anl.mals would have to be totally enclosed withln four walls and not allowlng them out lnto a run. A good deal of the nOlse lS created when the anlmals are out In thelr runs. They do have access thru crawl gates. The shelter was placed In ltS current locatl.on at a tlme when lt was a good dlstance from homes. Staff sald the mltlgatlon measures should sufflclently handle the nOlse lmpacts to the nearest homes. Mr. Jessner sald he thlnks the anlmal shelter should be restrlcted llke any other area wlthln the Cl.ty to the 55db level. Power Llnes - he sald he didn't see anythl.ng wrltten about power lines belng removed along Bolsa Ave. Ms. Massa- Lavl tt sald she had Just spoken Wl. th Southern Callfornla Edlson (SCE) and was informed by them that those ll.nes wlll be comlng down as soon as Mola deposlts funds wlth SCE to begln the undergroundlng. There should be a condl tlon In the General Condltlons re utllltl.es. This should be put in the General Condl.tl.ons, makl.ng them more specifl.c. Easements/Power Llnes - Mr. Jessner asked lf, wlth the power 11ne removal along Bolsa, would SCE rellnqulsh its easements and gl ve the property back to the homeowners. Staff sald they were not sure lf the property would be gl.ven back to the homeowners. Staff was not sure how SCE acqulred that easement. SCE cannot be a property owner, they are prohlblted from owning vacant land. When their 11nes are no longer there lt wl11 be up for sale (If they own lt In fee) or wlll be glven back to the adJacent property owner. Lot "G" /Entry Lot Mr. Jessner asked who lS gOl.ng to malntaln the lot used as an entrance? Staff sald the HOA would maintal.n l.t. , Wetlands - Mr. Jessner sald we must get further along wlth the varlOUS Federal agencles before we can do/say more. t Page 7 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 Access for Polltlcal ACtlvlty - Mr. Jessner sald the lssue of openlng the resldentlal area durlng certaln perlods of tlme needs to be studled more. He would not wants the gates to be open all day and night for 89 days. Ballflelds Ellmlnated - Said he felt the ballflelds have been ellminated. We need these ball dlamonds ln the Clty. PUBLIC HEARING Klrk Evans * Mola Development * 4699 Jamboree Rd.. New90rt Beach The condltlons of approval you have read ln thlS staff report are the same condltlons thlS body adopted last tlme that we had the golf course plan before you. I The baseball dlamonds were not taken away by Mola Development. At yesterday's meetlng, Mr. Nelson sald he was gOlng to put together a letter for the Hellman's. The Hellman's have sald they are deflnltely gOlng to sell 5 acres of land to the Clty. The big lssue is the locatlon of the flve acres and varlOUS alternatlves need to be dlscussed between the Clty and the Hellman's. We have been dlscusslng "appralsed values" and Joe Hunt dld offer suggestlons of optlons to purchase at a later date wlth today's appralsed values plus cost of 11vlng lncreases. The ldea lS the city wl11 get the 5 acres for the baseball dlamonds at a falr market value. The cost to build the baseball dlamonds ... was about $400,000. If the baseball dlamonds are moved, the current one would stay in place whl1e another was being bUl1t. We do not have the phaslng rlght now. The phaslng wl11 be based on the market. Today we would be starting wlth 40 houses in the first phase. The intent is to have 50% of the proJect complete when all of the park lS complete. At the 177 house the 15.2 acre park plus Gum Grove Park lmprovements wl11 be complete. The securl ty gates wl11 be mechanlcal, probably card actuated. They wl11 not be manned. It lS easy to change the code and lt would not be a hassle. The code lS a 24-hour code. , Re the landscape buffer, Mr. Flfe would prefer the HOA to homeowner malntenance. Could the City step ln and do the malntenance lf the HOA dldn't do It? Mr. Evans sald they prefer to keep the HOA dues low. All the streets, water, sewer systems, securlty are prlvate. All the landscaplng, lncludlng pUblic thoroughfares, lS gOlng to be malntalned by the HOA. As soon as you declde the HOA wl11 malntaln the landscape buffer you must provlde the HOA access. So, that's lndl vldual access on each lndlvldual lot or provlde a tral1 system (WhlCh the Pollce Dept. had concern wlth) to where they could enter from one end and go I Page 8 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 down to the other end. Mola has been conslderlng a block wall that would go to the edge of the buffer zone but not extend the 30'. The Hl11 homeowners was that a heavl1y landscaped area wlth a chaln 11nk fence from the rear of the property 11nejedge of buffer to the other extenslon of the edge of the buffer, blendlng the landscaplng. You'd have a see-thru fence. Mr. Jessner asked about power 11nes along Bolsa. Mr. Evans sald SCE lS governed by thelr own regulatlons Vla the PubllC Utl1ltles CommlSSlon. SCE must glve up the land underneath lf they don't have utl1ltles overhead. The 66KV 11ne must come down because lt'S too costly to underground It. To remove the 66KV 11ne would relocate lt along the retentlon basln. It goes to DWP slte, up Marlna Drl ve along Bolsa, up Seal Beach Blvd. That line only serVlces Rockwell. It's Rockwell's secondary transmlSSlon 11ne WhlCh Rockwell pays for themselves. If a car were to hlt the maln 11ne on Westmlnster they would have another source. SCE trled to get Mola to buy the easements and Mola negotlated a deal wlth SCE that Mola would provlde them a new easement --- we'd buy thelr land and provlde them 45' wlde easement on the hlghest portlon of the Hellman Ranch property. Mola has letters from SCE In wrl tlng statlng that that 11ne would be abandoned. Mola to get coples of these letters to the Clty staff. I The Parks and Recreatlon CommlSSlon wl11 meet on August 23rd to have a publlC hearlng to dlSCUSS what lmprovements they should have wlthln the 15.02 acres of parkland. If there were some maJor concern at that tlme that the ball dlamonds were not gOlng to occur you could certalnly flt one dlamond In there .... Mr. Evans sald "we have rendered a park and we have sald we are gOlng to develop that park. If you want somethlng done dlfferently all you have to do lS let us know. If the costs are relatl vely the same then there's no problem at all. All these thlngs we are talklng about tonight are gOlng to be set out In a Development Agreement WhlCh has been submltted to the Clty Attorney. We would hope to have that agreement before the Plannlng CommlSSlon wlthln the next few weeks .... It guarantees that what you see lS what we're prepared to develop. The Development Agreement spells out the budget, for the park malntenance for 10 years." Mr. Jessner sald he had speclflc concerns on certaln condltlons: Page 8, Prior to Flnal Map Approval, Res. 1549, #D: , D. Non-automotlve vehlcles, boats, tral1ers, or non- automoti ve storage shall not be allowed In any unenclosed parklng, drlveway or prlvate street area. Any vehlcle wlth a wldth In excess of 84 lnches shall not be allowed In any unenclosed parklng, drlveway, or prlvate street area except for purposes of loadlng, maklng dellverles or emergency repalrs. I Page 9 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 staff's lnterpretatlon agrees with Mola's lnterpretatlon of thlS condltlon --- that a boat could be stored wlthln the garage or wlthln the slde or rear yard lf lt would flt. Qu1nn Barrow sa1d th1S cond1t1on could be clar1f1ed by add1ng the word "unenclosed" before the word "park1ng". Mr. Evans sald the CC&R's wll1 be more restrlctlve than th1S phras1ng. Mr. Jessner sald the curb cuts should be looked at carefully to maxim1ze park1ng. Mr. Evans sald these lots are all a mlnlmum of 50' wlde and the streets are all 36' wlde. So there wll1 be parklng on both sldes of the street. * * * Page 15, Pr10r to Cert1f1cate of Occupancy, #3 I Mr. Jessner sa1d he wants stronger homebuyer notlflcat1on. ThlS would be approved by the buyer as part of the escrow. Mr. Evans sald everythlng mentloned In Condltion #3 would be a part of the Department of Real Estate's Wh1te Report. Mr. Jessner wants the wordlng changed to state that this 1S an item that would be approved by the buyer and someth1ng 1n writ1ng show1ng the buyer acknowledges rece1pt. QU1nn Barrow phrased th1S to read "buyers w111 acknowledge rece1pt" but was not sure 1f we could require anyth1ng more than that. Mr. Flfe wanted the dlsclosures to be called to the attentlon of subsequent buyers on resales Vla deed notlflcatlon thereby placlng them on constructive notice and refer them to the Clty Clerk's Off1ce for a copy of the orlglnal notlce. QUlnn Barrow sald the best way to ensure th1S is to have these as part of the restr1ct1ons to the t1tle report. It's common to have someth1ng at the County Recorder's Off1ce. He would not record 1nformat1on about the schools. The se1sm1C nature should be part of the recorded record of the property. We can reV1ew and see 1f there are other appropriate ones that should be part of the record. Mr. Evans sald that along Seal Beach Blvd. r1ght now the City'S ~ calls for a 6" curb, a 4.5' dr1veway, 5.5' of landscap1ng and Mola lS provldlng an addltional 10' feet of landscaplng. Would you 11ke a meander1ng sldewalk? Yes. Mr. Evans noted page II, Prior to F1nal Map Approval, Condition oWn and wanted wordlng changed: W. The PreClse Plan of development shall be revlewed by the Plannlng Commisslon with recommendat10ns to the Clty Councl1 for flnal approval. , I Page 10 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of August 2, 1989 The follow1ng language w111 replace the present Cond1t1on "W": w. Any substant1al deviat10ns or amendments from the PreC1se Plan (from the prev10usly approved Specif1c Plan) shall be rev1ewed by the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on. Sandra Massa-LaV1 tt said that W1 th th1S cond1 t1on, the Prec1se Plan would come to the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on w1th a recommendat1on from the Comm1SS1on to the Counc11 for 1 ts adopt1on. QU1nn Barrow sa1d h1s confusion is that S1nce we have the Spec1f1c Plan and we have the Map we are not really mak1ng substant1al changes to the PreC1se Plan --- S1nce we haven't seen the PreC1se Plan yet. What we're really saY1ng 1S that any dev1at1ons from what's being approved now should come back to the Comm1SS1on. The Spec1f1c Plan says the PreC1se Plan will be approved by the Plann1ng D1rector. The Planning Director is to g1ve the Plann1ng Comm1ss1oner's any maps and plans and, the Comm1ssioner's w111 get back to the D1rector/Mola 1nformally. I Page 19, General Condit1ons, Cond1t1ons #19 - #23: sa1d these cond1t1ons w111 become part of the Agreement and lay the costs to the developer. QU1nn Barrow Development Galen Ambrose * Represent1ng Wetlands Restorat1on Soc1ety Mr. Ambrose stated that he obJected to the ent1re plann1ng process. He c1ted gasoline taxes as a way of putt1ng the burden of crowded h1ghways on the c1t1zen and not on the developer. He sa1d 1f we d1dn't bU1ld houses people couldn't move here and that would stop the overcrowd1ng. Wendy Morr1s * 1729 Crestv1ew Ms. Morr1s spoke on her concerns for the buffer zone, subm1tted a pet1t1on for the Record (copy attached). She suggested a 30' grass str1p m1ght solve the buffer zone needs and Pol1ce protect1on needs. She urged workshops on the parks to ga1n c1t1zen 1nput. She asked staff to look 1nto the Pol1ce Dept. patrol problems in Gum Grove Park and the buffer zone and get back to her. On the wetlands she urged correct restorat1on to m1 t1gate the bad mosqu1 to problem we have 1n Seal Beach. She sa1d (for the Record) staff or C1ty Counc1l, not the c1t1zens, should check up the restorat1on. Mr. Jessner sa1d whatever plan came out should be checked by the Plann1ng Commiss1on and may requ1re a publ1c hearing. QU1nn Barrow sa1d he was not aware of any prov1s1on 1n the ~ that would requ1re a hear1ng before the Comm1SS1on. The best way to handle th1S would be to have a cond1t1on that would say: , , Page 11 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of August 2, 1989 Any plan for the wetlands 1S subJect to Planning commission review. If th1s 1S part of the Map 1t w111 exp1re at the t1me the F1nal Map 1S approved. If 1t'S made part of the Development Agreement the developer w111 agree and 1t w111 come back. Ms. Morr1S also asked about the underground1ng of the ut111ty poles 1n her back yard and was told they would not be affected. She asked when the Gum Grove Park restorat1on w111 be done? Mr. Evans rev1ewed that for her and sa1d he would put th1s 1n wr1t1ng. Ernest1ne McManus * 1745 Crestv1ew Ms. McManus sa1d her husband was s1ck and she was concerned about dust the developer m1ght create. The Cha1rman assured her the developer was requ1red to water down to reduce dust. She said she d1s11ked too many walls as they made her feel caged 1n. She preferred the golf course. I Carl San F111pO * 801 Avalon Mr. San F111pO sa1d he would 11ke to see the houses moved and the wetlands put next to h1s house. He prefers a golf course. He spoke on accountab111 ty on the Job and that he's worr1ed about C1ty 11ab111ty when bU1ld1ng on an earthquake fault. Kathy Kerr1 * 1753 Crestv1ew Ms. Kerr1 says she wants to keep baseball d1amonds near parks for the ch1ldren. She feels the least desireable lots back up to Crestv1ew. She doesn't 11ke cul-de-sacs com1ng near her back yard. Sally H1rsch * 1325 Crestv1ew Ms. H1rsch sa1d she's del1ghted w1th the parks and knows the Seal Beach Pol1ce Department w111 take care of secur1ty 1ssues. 5 MINUTE RECESS , K1rk Evans * Mola Development Mr. Evans addressed the comments from the Publ1c Hear1ng. He sa1d 1t 1S 1n wr1t1ng that the lots are 130' deep. Mr. Evans, speaking to the dra1nage 1ssue 1S also in wr1 t1ng. Pr10r to pul11ng a grad1ng permit we have to make a dra1nage study for the ent1re proJect and they spec1f1cally 1ncluded dra1nage from the H111 area. The mosqu1to problems are be1ng cons1dered w1th the wetlands restorat1on plan. Stagnant water now contr1butes to the problems. P1p1ng water 1n from the San Gabr1el R1ver w111 create a 3' to a 5' t1dal range wh1ch w111 ebb and flow w1th the t1des. Mola has no problem br1ng1ng back the restorat1on plan to show what the var10US Federal agenc1es have agreed to. One of the cond1 t10ns of approval 1S that 1f the Federal agenc1es dec1de wetlands are not needed here ... the property would revert to the C1ty of Seal Beach as open space. , Page 12 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 Commlsslon Comments to Appllcant Mr. Jessner asked about access to Gum Grove Park from both the development and the Hll1 area. Where wll1 thlS show? Mr. Evans sald this wll1 come thru the Parks & Recreatlon Commlssion thru the ultlmate park detal1 (not necessarlly on the PreClse Plan) WhlCh wll1 be thru publlC hearlngs. Mola has anticipated Gum Grove Park connectlng wlth the park system. Avalon access wll1 be there. There wll1 be an access that will tle Gum Grove Park In Wl th the rest of the communl ty park. Mr. Jessner sald he dldn't want to create a sltuatlon where the only access lS thru Avalon thereby creatlng a blg parklng problem at thlS Sl te . Adequate access must be from Wl thln thlS new development. Mr. Evans sald keyed gates are also a posslblllty for resldent access. Mr. Flfe asked lf park access over prlvate property would be galned through the CC&R's? Mr. Evans sald yes, easements would be galned by common area access. The prlvate streets are consldered common area. t Mr. Suggs asked lf they planned on removlng the chaln 11nk fence around the park? Mr. Evans sald the Parks & Rec Dept. would determlne the type of fenclng around Gum Grove Park. Mr. Suggs asked what provlslons would be made for emergency vehlcles at the mechanlcal gate? The Flre Department has an electronlc system to open the gate or some are the gates are deslgned to be crash gates. PubllC Hearlng Closed MOTION by Flfe; SECOND by Suggs to lncorporate the correctlons of the errata sheet In thelr entlrety as submltted to us and then further conslder the matter. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Rullo Mr. Jessner requested permlsslon to make a statement: When I voted for and approved essentially thlS B.2 plan at our prevlous meetlng, I approved a plan that had two baseball flelds. I do not see that on thlS plan. It's really dlfflcult for me to approve what we have before us untl1 I know whether or not these baseball flelds are gOlng to be a part of thlS entlre plan. , Mr. Sharp sald that by August 7 the Clty Councl1 should have the word from Hellman on the 5 acres. Would you agree to approve thlS lf we make lt a condltlon that we approve thlS only if the 5 acres lS made avallable from the Hellman property for the baseball dlamonds? Mr. Jessner agreed. . ~ , Page 13 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes of August 2, 1989 Qu1nn Barrow sa1d that S1nce the appl1cant doesn't have control over that other property perhaps the cond1t1on should include a prov1s1on that "1f for any reason the 5 acre deal falls through that 2 baseball diamonds w111 be prov1ded on th1s property". Mr. Sharp sa1d there's room for at least one d1amond and n1ght 11ght1ng must be cons1dered. D1Scuss10n of who should d1spense the gate's code was d1scussed. Mr. F1fe sa1d heads of Homeowners Assoc1at10ns are somet1mes are hard to reach because they are work1ng and travel1ng. So perhaps 1t should be a C1ty off1c1al --- perhaps the C1ty Clerk or the ch1ef pol1t1cal off1cer of the C1ty, 11ke the Reg1strar of Voters. Mr. Sharp sa1d the C1ty Clerk should dec1de when and to whom the gate's code should be glven out because she knows when elect10ns are be1ng held. Comm1ssion Cons1ders Cond1t1ons I The Comm1SS10n considered all cond1tions to Resolut10n No. 1549 on a page-by-page bas1s. Th1S 1ncluded the "Pr10r to Grad1ng Perm1t" sect10n w1th 26 cond1t10ns, the "Pr10r to F1nal Map Approval" w1th 15 cond1t10ns, the "Pr10r to BU1ld1ng Perm1t Issuance" w1th 22 cond1t10ns, the "Pr10r to Cert1f1cate of Occupancy" W1 th 6 cond1 t10ns and the "General Cond1 t10ns" 37 cond1t10ns. Changes to any/all cond1t10ns are 1n Plann1ng Comm1SS10n Resolut10n No. 1549. At page 11 of "Pr10r to F1nal Map Approval", Cond1t10n "W", QU1nn Barrow clar1f1ed that 1f the PreC1se Plan lS substant1ally 1n compl1ance w1th the Spec1f1c Plan the Plann1ng D1rector can approve 1 t and 1 t doesn't go before the Plann1ng Comm1ssion or C1ty Counc11. But 1f there are substant1al dev1at10ns 1t w111 go to both the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n and the C1ty Counc11. By MINUTE ORDER the Record lS to show that the Plann1ng D1rector w111 prov1de the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n w1th as copy of any plan at least one Plann1ng Comm1ss10n meet1ng before such plans go to the C1ty Counc11. MOTION by F1fei SECOND by Jessner to approve Tentat1ve Parcel Map 86-349 by the adopt1on of Resolution No. 1548 W1th the add1t1on of a fourth cond1t1on to read: 4. That as part of the Development appl1cant, the appl1cant shall the C1ty for 1tS purchase f1ve on the Hellman Ranch area develop1ng baseball f1elds. Agreement w1th the make ava1lable to (5) off-s1te acres for purposes of " MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Rullo . \ , Page 14 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 MOTION by Suggs; SECOND by Jessner to approve Tentatlve Tract Map 13198 by the adoptlon of Resolutlon No. 1549 Wlth the conditlons approved. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Rullo SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communicatlons. STAFF CONCERNS There were no Staff Concerns. I COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Flfe would llke the Zone Text Amendment re C-2 retall space to C-2 offlce space agendlzed. It was declded thlS would be put on the agenda for September 6, 1989. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Sharp adJourned the meetlng at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully Submltted, Joan Vi~~ - Secretary Department of Development Servlces THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL. * * * The Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 Plannlng Commlsslon meetlng were approved on ~ llo --:!::!:l 1989. f c "* 'I , July 26, 1989 We, the resldents on Crestview Avenue between Gum Grove Park and Seal Beach Boulevard, do not cons1der the proposal on the tentat1ve tract map by the Mola Company to have an adequate buffer In the current plan, the buffer zone 1S slmply the back yards and side yards of the proposed new homes Durlng the negotiat1ons, the 30-foot-wlde buffer was understood to be a wlde str1p wlth access by all adJoinlng prlvate properties ADDRESS ~______ a-~d~E.P~4 ~____12 r; L/() J7#-~tfUJ 7d7t}d J2~ ~~~hj/f.J~ faZi25 ~~~-:: ~~ ~~JK!) -1J.;LL C V- e d9~'-" ~ Ot c( ~ -L1L~----$:;7~O _0il_~ Sb2ff2 -UL Ctc-<; ~ ~7~k_ L7S ~ _-2Q 7WJ _____ _1Ls ~02~Q_ -! 1 O!.z.._~f-r"L(/<<A ,-;.__ 5' Q::LCZ:D /7~1 ~~r .9071-0 +1_15'7 _~~~_o1io /737 /7d5 ~__-!l.P_r-YO 1725 CrzeSTvlew t ~ ('