Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-05-09 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 9, 1990 MINUTES The regularly scheduled meeting of the Seal Beach Planning Commission was called to order at 7:29 p.m. on May 9, 1990 in City Council Chambers by Chairman Sharp. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Forsythe. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Sharp Commissioners Rullo, Fife, McCurdy, Forsythe Also Present: Quinn Barrow, Esq., City Attorney's Office Lee Whittenberg, Director, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admin. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Sharp separated the two Consent Calendar items as Mr. McCurdy was not present at the meeting of May 2, 1990. MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by Forsythe to approve the Planning commission Minutes of April 25, 1990. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Rullo, Fife, McCurdy, Sharp, Forsythe *** MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by Forsythe to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 2, 1990. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Sharp, Forsythe ABSTAIN: McCurdy SCHEDULED MATTERS Mr. Whittenberg reported there were no scheduled matters. . ,. . ~ , i ~ Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS HOUSING ELEMENT of the GENERAL PLAN staff Report Mr. Whittenberg reported this is a continued Public Hearing from the Planning commission meetings of 4/4/90, 4/18/90, 5/2/90 and a public workshop on 4/30/90. This is the fourth Public Hearing. The Housing Element document before the Commission tonight is dated 5/4/90 and reflects the changes based on input from 4/30/90 public workshop and 5/2/90 Public Hearing. Many of the changes were from Joe Rullo and Gwen Forsythe's suggestions. Mr. Whi ttenberg detailed the most recent changes to the Housing Element: Page 2: Table of Contents - Two new sections are added (4.4.4 and 4.4.5) to include state programs. Pages Jlrovision of addi tional informatl.on at the introduction, establishing purpose of having a Housing Element and state law requirements on the types of items that must be included. 1 Pages 37-38: Discussion of vacant sites: there l.S a brief discussion of three additl.onal vacant areas Rockwell, DWP and state Lands property. Zoning designations are not for residential purposes at the present time. Change of zone designations would require General Plan amendments and zone changes for allow residential development. Page 38: Footnotes re Bixby property. Indl.cates there are a number of constraints on site possibly making resl.dential building impossible. Page 40: At top of page "committed" was changed to "is already proposed through the approval of a specific plan ...". Footnote at bottom of page indicates Hellman remainder property may be appropriate once the oil extraction use ends. Page 46: Four additional paragraphs added at request of Commissioners Forsythe and Rullo at 5/2/90 meeting. Page 51: Last paragraph added at request of Commissioners Rullo and Forsythe at 5/2/90 meeting. Pages 55-57: New sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5 describing financing programs from state of CA. and establishment of priorities as to how available funds would be expended by the City in the future. ~ . . . ""' Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Page 58: Page 59: Page 59: Page 61: Page 64-66: Page 67: Page 69: Page 70: Page 71: Page 72: Page 73: Page 74: Page 75-76: Goals #1 and #2 closely relate to of the goals suggested by Commissioners Rullo and Forsythe. Did not need modlfication by staff. Third policy, re compatibility of residential areas with surrounding uses, is a combination of goals suggested by Rullo and Forsythe and are already in the document. Policy residential environments has additional wording added suggested by Rullo and Forsythe. Verbiage on 20% set-aside funds were added based on public input received at 4/30/90 workshop. Suggested programs considered by the City in the future if Rockwell, DWP and State Lands parcels remain as areas for potential housing development. This verbiage was based on comments from 5/2/90 Public Hearing. Program J. The words "non-profit agencies" is added. Based on 4/30/90 public workshop input. All four policies were in the Housing Element before the 5/2/90 meeting and staff feels these policies are closely related to several of the policies suggested by Rullo and Forsythe and don't need amending. Policy suggested by Rullo and Forsythe and has been added. Based on comments received at 4/30/90 public workshop re use of 20% set-aside funds. Additional policy added under Section 5.2.3.1 based on suggestions from Rullo and Forsythe. Program C, financing section, verbiage added re the 20% set-aside and availability of Section 8 rental assistance funds. Based on comments received at the 4/30/90 public workshop. Program D, regarding the use of the housing set- aside funds. Highlighted policies have been added based on suggestions by Rullo and Forsythe. ", . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Page 83: Program E has additional wording to clarify the use of the 20% set-aside funds based on 4/30/90 public workshop. Footnote *** for Table 20 is additional clarifying language which was added from Rullo-Forsythe suggestions. Page 78: staff feels the Housing Element has been revised in accordance with requests of the Commission, the public and meets state law. Commission Comments criteria/Vacant sites Mr. Fife asked staff to explain the criteria used to determine which vacant City sites would be 11sted as potentially eligible housing sites. Was it an inclusionary process? Or did staff start with everything, casting out certain sites? . Mr. Whittenberg referenced Table 14 on page 37, the Vacant site Analysis. Included sites are vacant at this time and range in size from one-half acre to 149 acres. Sites subject to Specific Plans were not initially included, i.e. DWP and state Lands. The Bixby property is conducting public input sessions regarding development of a Spec1fic Plan for future residential use. Rockwell was not 1ncluded because it's zoned for industrial uses. Rockwell, DWP and state Lands have now been included based on input received at the 5/2/90 that all the vacant sites should at least be considered. Greenbelt Mr. Fife asked why the greenbelt area was not included. Staff replied the greenbelt was not listed because it's a park facility owned by the Redevelopment Agency and it's not vacant land. It's zoned Public Land Use. Mr. Barrow, referencing Table 14, said the Commission's direction was for staff to examine other sites which included Rockwell, DWP and state Lands. It was unclear to staff whether the Commission felt these should be projects as well. Staff has no problem in including these three sltes into Table 14 but there are concerns that projects (page 65 "F", page 66 "G") should be included for these sites. . The greenbelt is Redevelopment Agency property. At the present time it can be used for park purposes. There are no restrictions on the Agency to keep the greenbelt as a park other than the zon1ng restr1ctions. The zoning could be changed at some time unless it 1S prohib1 ted in the agreement (s) under which the Redevelopment Agency acquired the property. A Redevelopment Plan amendment with public hearings would be necessary to change its use. Open space is a legitimate legislative intent, equal in the " . . . ~ -, Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 State's eyes. The Government Code and Constitution support preservation of open space. Mr. Fife asked J.f the designation of property as "open space" preserves it in that category in perpetuity? Or simply locks it in for some indefinite time until the City might change its mind? Mr. Barrow said properties zoned "open space" are always subject to change. There would be necessary public hearings and General Plan amendments unless there is some restriction on the property through an agreement. The Redevelopment Plan could be amended as well. Mr. Whittenberg noted the General Plan's goal to have five acres of park per 1,000 residents has equal weight with housing goals of the Housing Element. Grannv Flats Mr. Fife noted page 69, program L on "granny flats". He asked staff if, through the CUP process, if the "granny flats" to possibly be builtin the Old Town area would be preferentially allocated to low and moderate income users or are we just increasing density downtown? Mr. Whittenberg replied this program is nothing new and the CUP process has been existing. Assuring "granny flats" remain open to low/moderate income persons, some cities require an annual report back to the city indicating the nature of the unit's tenancy and income level. That aspect has not been decided at this point and the present municipal Code does not require that measure. Mr. Whittenberg said there is legal pressure from the state of California as it mandates cities to make provisions for this type of a unit. The cities have two choices: (1) adopt your own standards (how the units will be developed and what standards they will allow them to be built) or (2) accept state standards in the Government Code. The state's standards are fairly lenient --- the law says if an individual comes to the city and requests the unit the city must grant unit approval if it meets minimum state criteria --- unless the city already has its criteria in place. The state criteria are not slanted to favoring low/moderate income persons in "granny flats" but are minimum size requirements, reduced number of off-street parking spaces. Mr. Fife asked if the CUP process could carry a provision to steer the "granny flats" toward low/moderate income groups? Mr. Whittenberg said he thought so because a basic intent is to have units available usually for a family member (who cannot live alone). Ms. Forsythe referenced page 2, item #3 about what the Housing Element shall contain and asked if that paragraph could read "(3) An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites", leavJ.ng redevelopment and zoning out? Mr. Barrow explained this is a direct quote from the Government Code, Section 65583. There is concern over the work "re- development" as it's interpreted to mean the Redevelopment Agency. In this context it means changing the use, like the Hellman Remainder parcel, from oil production to residential. It could be changed to "recyclJ.ng" to make it clearer. . . . ;; . , Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Power of Eminent Domain Ms. Forsythe said she found no statement in this Element. Mr. Barrow said it was not included because at the 5/2/90 meeting he expressed his concerns about including that language in this document. After debate, lt was the Commission's request to see if he could produce language which would mirror the statutory language concerning the powers of the Redevelopment Agency. It proved to be very difficult and was not prepared nor recommended for inclusion. The Housing Element does not talk about the powers of eminent domain or the Agency's powers. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency are usually composed of the same people but they're two separate legal entities. The City Council nor the Planning Commission can restrict the powers of the Redevelopment Agency. Restriction of Agency powers can only be done by having the Agency adopt some by-laws after public hearings to restrict its own powers. Page 37 - Language Clarification Ms. Forsythe, referencing page 37, Table 14, under the Hellman Ranch it says "Specific Plan Application expected in 1990" and said the City expects specific plans on the DWP and State Lands properties and requested the language on page 37 to be changed to say "proposed specific plan". Mr. Barrow clarified to say for the status of the Mola project "Proposed Specific Plan Application for residential uses is Submitted" and for DWP and State Lands state "Existing Specific Plan for the uses that are permitted on both sites". No specific plan was found for the Rockwell property. Public Hearing Chairman Sharp asked the Commission for the power to limit the time people speak from 3 - 5 minutes, noting the Commission would be lenient when necessary. He asked that only one person speak until everybody that has wanted to speak has a chance. While discussing the Housing Element he asked that discussion be limited to only the newest changes that are underlined. He asked the audience to reference which page they wanted to speak on. with no objections from the other Commissioners it was decided to follow those guidelines. Laird Mueller * 235 8th Street Mr. Mueller said we should not be deciding major issues which have divided this community, saying the judge has not signed his order on the Houslng Element and we have 120 days after he signs it to complete the Housing Element. He urged letting the new Commissloners and Council Members make the decisions for the people who elected them. Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place Mr. Shanks requested to be sworn. Mr. Barrow said Mr. Shanks could request to be sworn but it would not be necessary and is only done at City Council meetings (upon request) at a quasi-judicial . . . ~ , Page 7 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 meeting. Mr. Shanks was assured his comments would be part of the record. He said he is the Chairman of the DWP Advisory Committee of the Clty but is not speaking as chairman; they have not met recently. He was speaking as President of the San Gabriel - Paciflc Park Society. He presented a letter, for the record, dated 5-7-90 stating the Board's urgent request to seriously consider removing the DWP site as a potential site for low income housing (attached to these Minutes). He noted the fifteen years of dealing with the Department of Water & Power, the City has negotiations going and anything that would jeopardize the City's standing with DWP is a serious matter. He noted the present Specific Plan evolved from a workshop with the Coastal Conservancy which is the action arm of the Coastal Commission. The compromise of the 70% open space - 30% hotel is imperative and part of the State's aim. Galen Ambrose * Wetlands Restoration Society * Seal Beach Mr. Ambrose said "since we seem to be worried about (using your own logic and the existing Council's logic) that we're going to have rampant low income housing in town" that more input and more time to review the Housing Element are needed. He said the Housing Element was "developed in about two days to rush it through before the new body sits". He urged delay adoption of the Housing Element for a couple of months Slnce the judge has not signed the order yet. Carla Watson * 1635 Catalina * Seal Beach Ms. Watson said she is very concerned that the DWP property is included in this Housing Element. The hotel was suggested for that site because it was maximum public usage. There were three workshops. Referencing page 65, "Anticipated Impact: The possible redesignation of approximately 9.9 acres of the DWP property to residential and other appropriate land uses, including pUblic park, to permit the development of up to 60 units of medium or high density residential (15/20 units per acre). She said there was a person in town very interested in the DWP property and who would like to develop it and this seems like an open door and she was suspicious of this inclusion in the Housing Element. Mr. Rullo asked Ms. Watson what her suspicion was? Was she insinuating that the verbiage on page 65 was put in the Housing Element to allow that development? Ms. Watson said the Specific Plan was for 70% open space and to her this is like an open invitation to infringe on that open space. The only reason a hotel was considered was because the CIP loan was lost due to President Reagan's policies and the Clty'S prior plan was lost for that site. Mr. Whl ttenberg commented on the placement of these particular items in the Housing Element. The Rockwell, DWP and State Lands sites were placed in the Housing Element based on direction from the Planning Commission at the last public hearing on 5/2/90. . . . Page 8 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Walton Wriqht * Consultant for Wetlands Restoration Society Mr. Wright, referencing page 1 at "shall identify adequate sites for housing" indicated we may be dealing with sites that are not adequate for housing. At page 66, regarding the 2.47 acre State Lands Site, he indicated it is subject to high liquefaction. He felt the Hellman Remainder parcel is more susceptible to high liquefaction than the Hellman project property. He felt the environmental checklist should reflect some the changes that could occur in the future. There are inappropriate areas for housing designated in the checklist which have not been assessed properly. Beverly Casares * Marvista * Seal Beach Ms. Casares noted this Housing Element is our fourth revision. Ms. Casares also noted the Comm1ssioners received the "Housing Element Questions and Answers", from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, June 1988. She said this 35 page document specifically mentions problems in our Housing Element. Ms. Casares indicated the point of presenting the document was to prepare the city to win the lawsuit (Wetlands Restoration Society v. City of Seal Beach) by preparing the Housing Element to go into court and win with. She requested the name of the Housing Element be changed to "The Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach" and Mr. Whittenberg said this would be alright. Ms. Casares went page-by-page demonstrating that the present Housing Element is lacking certain analyses. Chairman Sharp objected to the length of time this would take at page 4. Chairman Sharp asked Mr. Barrow for a ruling on whether to have Ms. Casares continue the page-by-page analysis of the "Housing Element Questions and Answers" for 35 pages or to restrict the comments at tonight's meeting to the most recent changes on this Element. Mr. Barrow said "it was the direction of the Commission at the last meeting to try to get the speakers to focus on the amendments since there have been three prior Public Hearings on this." Mr. Barrow said the decision would be at the commission's discretion noting this is new information although it is not focused on the amendments. Chairman Sharp noted this meeting was open to go through the amendments only. Ms. Casares indicated she had to work when the 5-2-90 Planning Commission meeting was held and said if the Commission denied her the privilege of testifying on this document she would file an amicus curiae brief with the court. Mr. Barrow indicated this is not the last Public Hearing on this item and the City Council has a Public Hearing scheduled at which Ms. Casares could testify. Mr. Sharp asked the Commission for a decision or motion on this issue. Mr. Rullo and Mr. McCurdy said they were inclined to stick to testimony on the new amendments to this Housing Element. Mr. Fife said he was inclined to stick to the amendments but to compromise by allowing one hour total discussion on this new information to be split among the speakers as to however they want . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 to share it. He noted that if the meeting was opened totally we'd be in a filibuster situation and may never gave a Housing Element. Ms. Forsythe said she had to learn as much as possible before casting a vote on any document that would affect the future of Seal Beach. Recess for five minutes. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Mccurdy to allow Beverly Casares fifteen minutes to conclude her comments. Other speakers will stay to five minutes. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Mccurdy, Sharp, Forsythe Charles Antos * Seal Beach Mr. Antos referenced the following pages: Page 62: Mr. Antos suggested rephrasing to say "Public meetings are currently being conducted to determine the total usage of the Bixby-Old Ranch parcel. Those uses might include residential". He suggested rephrasing would be telling the State that we're looking at this --- we're not handing in a laundry list of sites and sometimes we'll take a look and having Public Hearings to see "if we can shoehorn in some residential here to meet State requirements". Page 65: Mr. Antos said DWP should be in the Element but show that it is inappropriate for residential. Public Hearings have already been conducted on this site and the time the Specific Plan was adopted for that site. Asbestos has been found on that site. Regarding the Hellman Remainder Parcel, Mr. Antos suggested not rejecting the parcel outright but placing a footnote in the Housing Element saying "Maybe". Mr. Whittenberg commented that the DWP and State Lands sites were not included because of the previously existing specific Plans on them and ... they should be indicated as vacant sites under the site analysis on page 37 and it would be appropriate to place an additional footnote to that table indicating that those two sites are inappropriate for future residential consideration because of the currently existing specif ic plans which have gone through numerous Public Hearings in the past. Mr. Barrow said it would save time if a straw poll was taken. Staff is recommending to still list the DWP and State Land sites on Table 14, with an appropriate footnotes that they are unacceptable as residential use, but deleted as programs from pages 65 and 66. . . . , , Page 10 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Mr. Rullo said it was OK with him. Mr. Fife said it was not fine with him, saying not enough information exists to exclude any of these properties. The proper time to deal with that is when they come up (for projects). We have not adequately considered the safety hazards of the Bixby site. If we ellminate everything except the Bixby site, then we may box ourselves in to have to ignore the safety hazards. Mr. McCurdy said it was OK with him and that a footnote should be put in to show its designation as suitable at the present time. Ms. Forsythe said she was in favor of deleting them but agreed with Mr. Fife per Bixby's getting saddled with meeting the state requirements. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCurdy to recommend to the City Council project "F" on page 65 and project "G" on page 66 be deleted by the appropriate footnotes on page 37, Table 14 to indicate the basis of your decision. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 1 - 1 AYES: Sharp, Forsythe, Mccurdy NOES: Fife ABSTAIN: Rullo Environmental Checklist Ms. Forsythe asked about the environmental checklist where items were checked "Maybe" and "No" regarding noise, hazardous situations where in some instances they should have been checked "Yes". Would that have been our safeguard against these projects on toxic sites or hazardous condltions? Mr. Whittenberg said staff feels the environmental checklist does not give any direction regarding the potential suitability of a particular building site. That analysis would be done at the time a specific proposal is presented to the City. It would be difficult for the Planning commission to make a decision that the Hellman Remainder Parcel is not suitable for residential when you have on file at the City EIR's for the Mola property which indicate that those same types of concerns existed on that site and through the previous environmental analysis it was found those impacts could be mitigated to a point to allow for residential construction to occur. Ms. Forsythe asked Mr. Whittenberg in what instance would staff check "yes" on the environmental checklist? He replied, in regard to the Housing Element, you could not check any of those areas "yes". A future proj ect would most probably have a "yes" answer checked. Mr. Barrow explained the Project EIR and Supplemental EIR on the Mola project. Beverlv Casares * MarVista * Seal Beach Mr. Barrow reminded Ms. Casares that the Commisslon made a motion that was passed to restrict her comments to fifteen mlnutes more. Ms. Casares asked the Commissioners if they felt our Housing Element has to go back to the State for its review? Mr. Sharp said yes. Ms. Casares said it does not; it goes to the State for . . . Page 11 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 receipt and filing. Mr. Barrow said it has already gone to the state and they have made their comments. The City has responded to such comments. The court involved in the lawsuit has retained Jurisdiction accordlng to the proposed judgment and chances are good the court will be reviewing the Housing Element. Ms. Casares asked the Commissioners if they were aware that with a Negative Declaration Impact Declaration on the Housing Element that prevents the Housing Element from having to have an Environmental Impact Report. She felt a full EIR is needed on this Housing Element. Ms. Casares said she likes the Mola project but does not want a concrete canal. Ms. Casares said she felt the City has been discriminating against the Indians in that they have been deprived of the right to worship there but was reminded by Mr. Whittenberg that that subject has nothing to do with the Housing Element itself. State law does not require an Archaeological element as a part of the Housing Element. The impact of archaeological studies is not part of the Housing Element. Ms. Casares said the City has a sacred Indian burial ground; in 1980 the City commissioned a study and the City has the paperwork. Ms. Casares urged inclusion of a statement on the Indian matters in the Housing Element. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark said the Monday city Council meeting he said the Mayor got excited that the City would have a low income housing element lmposed on us by Mr. Ambrose or the Wetlands Restoration or "possibly the Communist element" ... Mr. Stark said "the Mayor has a point ... I have not seen an outpouring from the citizens for another Nickerson Gardens ... everything I hear is 'where in the devil are you going to put a low income housing unit in Seal Beach or Beverly Hills'?". Mr. Stark suggested the City of Seal Beach in their Housing Element declare there is no vacant land suitable for housing. He reviewed all the sites and their unsuitability for housing. Mr. Stark said there are problems in the Housing Element that nobody has bothered to correct. He expressed his concerns over "granny flats" due to the need for parking. He said this Housing Element needs more consideration. Ethel Rothland * Leisure World Ms. Rothland said she was speaking on behalf of ACORD, the Area Coalition of Responsible Development which includes Seal Beach, Los Alamltos, College Park East, Leisure World, Rossmoor. At the 5-2- 90 Planning Commission meeting ACORD made a position statement requestlng a delay in adoptlng this Housing Element to provlde time for further study. Slnce that meeting another revision was made to the Housing Element on 5-4-90, to allow four days/two working days, for review and study by the public. There are over 90 changes in the new document which are complex and require extensive review before a responsible decision can be made. She said she was concerned about the Bixby project and referenced page 38 of the Housing Element, saying this plan does not take into consideration . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 the input of the residents and page 38 shows that regardless of the people's input the Clty expects the developer to request a zone change. Is the City driving this development without regard to citizens? ACORD requests adoption of the Housing Element be delayed for further study and more citizen response. Mr. Sharp asked Ms. Rothland if she was saying that the Commission had any control over Bixby and what they would ask for? Ms. Rothland sald she was saying that one the one hand Bixby says they are going to have meetings for citizen input but on the other hand they layout they are already in the works for a zone change. Mr. Sharp said they have not applied to the City for a zone change and that matter would be considered by the City at that time. The Commission cannot stop anyone from making a request. Mr.Whittenberg explained why the language was included on page 38. The footnote explains the further analyses regarding land suitability. Referencing page 46, where is reads that the property in Seal Beach is too valuable to be considered for low income housing, versus pages 69 and 80 where the goals are outlined on what the City is going to be done for low income housing. These conflict and don't make sense. Mr. Whittenberg said the City recognizes with the cost of land in Seal Beach it's very difficult to provide housing at either a sale or rental price that is affordable to persons of low or moderate income. The Housing Element demonstrates there is difficulty in attaining those goals and indicates the numbers in the document are goals not a quota to be reached if it's possible to achieve them at all. Riva Olsen * Seal Beach She spoke on the amendment that was removed on condemnation/eminent domain saying she feels we really need to have it included because this legislation is dangerous to the property rights of homeowners in Seal Beach. Ana Christensen * Secretary. Native American Coalition of Southern California. Ms. Christensen appealed on behalf of the Rocha's (who could not be present) to read a statement they delivered to Mr. Whittenberg and the archaeologists on the State-wide interpretive guidelines of the California Coastal Commission. Mr. Sharp said this was not the proper time to introduce that statement and Ms. Christensen said her children were sick and she could not wait till midnight. Ms. Christensen said that Peter Redwine, in the 1950's, removed more than four human remalns from this site and Charles Antos says its the section of the hill they're digging on. Ms. Christensen said she was going to ask someone in the audience to read her statement into the record. Barbara Antoci * Ocean Avenue * Seal Beach Ms. Antoci said she could not talk specifically about anyone page of the Housing Element because pages 1 - 66 "were a farce". She said "the whole Housing Element is a lie". She congratulated Mr. . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Whittenberg saying "he's a genius at double-talk and genius at written-talk. It says absolutely nothing". no suitable building sites in Seal Beach. She said rumored allover town that this is a stacked deck". She there's a "secret meeting tomorrow night?", stating Council does not have meetings on Thursday nights ever. is also a There are it's been asked why the City James Funk * 215 1/2 Tenth Street * Seal Beach Mr. Funk discussed two ways to approach the draft Housing Element - one being a stalling act10n and the other being to add amendments to provide safeguards so we won't have premature, unwise development. He suggested eliminating the DWP property from residential development and the greenbelt area along the same lines. Regarding eminent domain and suggested that instead of listing it as a policy a clarification statement might help. Mr. Barrow indicated it was his recommendation not to include eminent domain in the Housing Element. Mr. Funk noted he was appealing to the Commission for inclusion of a clarification statement in the Housing Element. Since it can't be a policy that under "Governmental Constraints" or "Redevelopment Tax Increment Funding" to say "that under Cal1fornia State law the power of eminent domain cannot be used outside of a redevelopment project area for acquisition of sites for development of housing". Regarding the Housing Element, page 83, he urged keeping in the constraint language. Mr. Funk said if the safeguards and statements are included that we would have more safeguards prior to its adoption. Five minute recess. Mark Soukup * 315 Tenth st. * Seal Beach Mr. Soukup referenced the entire document by referencing the amendments at page 83, Table 20. Mr. Soukup said he wanted a qualitative analysis to go along with the quantitative analysis on page 83. He said he implemented probability studies as to the possibility that any of the programs would actually work in a five - ten year period. By using a quantitative analysis only, Table 20, you're saying there's plenty of inventoried land for low cost housing. When applying a qualitative analysis you find out that the 599 potential homes end up be1ng about 40 homes, and with the elimination of the State Lands property, that's about 20 homes in reality. He urged tabling the present Housing Element in favor of more study and preparation. State legislation could (1) make this a compliance issue for us and/or (2) demonstrate that we have unattainable resources. He said the people of this community want a good and truthful Housing Element and that leave's tabling it now. (Attachment for the Record) . James Goodwin * 425 Crestview * Seal Beach Mr. Goodwin, referencing page 46, said he is uncomfortable with the new information added. He dislikes the city's policy against low income housing. He noted Irvine is meet1ng this problem by companies that are building apartments to add on 1600 houses of . . . Page 14 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 which 300-400 are to be apartment units. He talked to SCAG who told Mr. Goodwin that their philosophy is to put the people where the work is. This would be good for environmental concerns. This is all inter-related. John Nakaqowa * 320 12th street * Seal Beach Mr. Nakagowa said he is an engineer and does impact and crash debris studies for rockets. He referenced the footnote on page 38. He said the AICUZ Study should be included in the Housing Element. This report is already done and should be evaluated before this Housing Element is adopted: "While the study has not been formally adopted, its findings and designations should be carefully analyzed at the time any proposal for development of housing on the Bixby property is under consideration...." The Housing Element could avoid wasting time and effort by looking at this study first; why wait? Who are we to say the engineers and the aerodynamacists who did the impact study are wrong? Are we waiting for more input? Are we going to do our own crash analysis? We are not saying we are nor are we saying we are not going to build houses in a Crash 1 zone. We should include the fact that there's a study that's been done and the City has areas which are included in the study that is in a Crash 1 zone and no we won't build there. Dorothy Whyte * Seal Beach Ms. Whlte said it appeared to her the Commission is creating a document to vote on why everyone in the audience has spoken out against in and in favor of more study and a better document. It appears the only reason it's being done is for Mola. Ms. Whyte said it's very dlfficult to be a City "watchdog" --- Tuesday night was the election, tonight there's a Planning Commission meeting, Thursday there's a City Council meeting -- "the way you operate we cannot even live". No one else wishing to speak, Chairman Sharp closed the meeting. The audience called out that there were other speakers wishing to speak. There was discussion between Mr. Sharp and the audience as to what he had sald regarding who could speak and how many times. Mr. Barrow said at this time the Public Hearing is closed. If the Commission wlshes to reopen it they must do so through a motion. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Rullo to open the Public Hearing for fifteen (15) minutes, limited to people who have not spoken previously. Each speaker to speak no more than five (5) minutes. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Rullo, Fife, McCurdy, Sharp, Forsythe . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of Ma 9, 1990 Dr. Robert Winchell * No address qiven Dr. Winchell said he is not a resident of Seal Beach but he was an interested bystander. Mr. Fife asked Dr. Winchell if he was a medical doctor? Mr. Winchell said he holds a Ph.d in geological sciences. Dr. Winchell referenced page 2 (a) (3) and page 37 referencing the vacant sites listed. He asked "have you determined if any of these sites are suitable for residential development or have a potential for redevelopment". He said that unless the Commission has done this they are out of order in considering this document at this time. This comment extends also to page 40. Lisa Lanqe * Dolphin Avenue* Seal Beach Ms. Lange said she pleads with the Commission to listed to the citizens at tonight's meeting. We're not asking to kill it completely -- we have the time -- we're asking for more of it. Chairman Sharp closed the Public Hearing at 10:42 p.m. Staff Rebuttal Mr. Whittenberg replied to the following concerns: Short-Time Preparation of Document. Staff began preparing the Housing Element in January 1990. The first PubllC Hearing on 4/4/90. A Notice was published in a local newspaper indicating an environmental assessment was available on 3/12/90. AQUIZ Study. Prepared by Dept. of the Army and is currently under review by the Orange County Airport Lane Use Commisslon. They are considering whether to adopt it as the regional land use plan for that particular air field facility. Until that determination has been made by the County, the document is basically an informatlon document for use by the city. Serious Pre~aratlon. Staff has taken the preparation of the Housing Element as a very serious charge. It's a requirement of State law. Commission Comments Ms. Forsythe said in the five-year quantified housing objectives It's call1ng for 795 new dwelling units could be constructed over the next 5 years --- what percentage of that of Seal Beach? Mr. Whittenberg said about 5%. Ms. Forsythe said then, according to this document, we're over 97% developed and if we add another 5%, we're over 100% developed and she thinks an EIR is needed to see what is happening to Seal Beach because at that point we're impacted. Mr. Whittenberg argued that not all parcels are developed to their zoning standards. . . . Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Ms. Forsythe referenced what Dr. Winchell was saying, noting inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, Table 14 lists land ostensibly suitable for residential building and then the AQUIZ study shows that land really isn't suitable. Mr. Whittenberg said the Housing Element does not say whether all or a portion of the Bixby site is or is not suitable. We're saying when a proposal does come before the City the suitability of that site will be evaluated. The AQUIZ study, noise, traffic, geological studies etc. The Housing Element document does not force the City to approve a particular proj ect. Based on existing designations there is enough existing, under utilized residential zoning capacity at this time for enough housing units to be constructed and add 800 - 900 housing units in the community. Ms. Forsythe said, regarding the lawsuit against the City, the Wetlands Restoration Society's attorney is pointing out a lot of problems with this Housing Element. She asked staff what was going to be done to address those problems? Are they going to be incorporated into this document? Mr. Barrow said staff has analyzed the comments made by the attorney for the WRS. First, the City's received HCD's comments (the body entrusted with reviewing the draft Housing Element and making recommendations to the City). HCD has seen this document and pointed out a few things they felt needed to be clarified. They did not go as far as the WRS attorney. The City is studying the WRS letter and is preparing a response which will be presented to the City Council. Referencing the 100 units on the Hellman Ranch" Ms. Forsythe said that document is asking for low income housing in certain areas and we're not complying in the Housing Element with that recommendation. If we don't do that and we're saying we're not going to in our document, are we liable? Mr. Barrow said this was an argument made in the lawsuit that the approval of the Mola project 1S inconsistent with the existing Housing Element that state 100 units would be developed for low and moderate income housing. That cause of action was dismissed by the court, indicating it was dismissed with prejudice. The approval of the Mola project did not foreclose the City's ability to put 100 units of low/moderate income housing on the Ranch. Ms. Forsythe asked staff where we are with the research on the two Senate bills? Mr. Barrow said they were no closed to being approved. But even if they were approved there would be enough flexibility in those bills to allow the City to make the findings on environmental grounds. . . . Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Mr. Fife, referencing page 40, asked staff about the language at the top of page 40: "Of these two vacant sites, one, representing the potential for up to 329 dwelling units, is already committed through the approval of a specific plan amendment..." There are actually 5 or 6 vacant sites now listed. Mr. Whittenberg said depending on which sites the Commission actually found suitable for inclusion ... this wording will need to be revised. Mr. Fife indicated there's a "couple of concepts of suitability". One is to include sites as suitable simply because they have nothing on them right now that has to be cleared away. Another one would be suitable within these suggested guidelines of the state and housing people when they describe land is suitable if it's free from flooding, seismic hazards, slope instability. He didn't think we could make those determinations at the Housing Element level. The money isn't there to do the studies. Suitability, within the mandate of the State law, doesn't contemplate you conduct a city- wide investigation to determine in advance of any proposal whether some site 1S suitable. If that is the case, we should probably state someplace. In listing these sites we should not imply any finding that geological, environmental and safety issues that may affect potential for residential development have been analyzed and that nothing implies that any properties 11sted have been impliedly rezoned. Mr. Barrow said there are a number of places in this document where statements to that effect have been made. Mr. Mccurdy said the every change has been put into this document and he felt the Commission should go ahead and send this Housing Element to the City Council. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by McCurdy that the Housing Element be adopted by the Planning Commission and passed to the city Council for its consideration and further action. (This motion assumes the straw vote for the elimination of those two goals with respect to on those sites). MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 1 - 1 AYES: Fife, McCurdy, Sharp NOES: Forsythe ABSTAIN: Rullo . Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 HELLMAN RANCH/MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Amendment of Hellman specific Plan General Plan Amendment 1.a-90, Land Use Element General Plan Amendment 1.b-90, open Space/ conservation/Recreation Element Tentative Parcel Map 86-349 vesting Tentative Tract Map. No. 13198 Precise Plan 1-90 Development Agreement - Hellman Ranch . staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report on the Hellman Ranch/Mola Development project. He indicated all the above- referenced items were combined together for purposes of the staff report and public testimony. All these items have previously been before both Planning Commission and city Council and the approvals for the Specific Plan, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement were invalidated by the court based on the non- acceptability of the Housing Element at that time. Since the Commission has taken action on the Housing Element tonight the Commission can consider this request. It is basically the same request that was approved in July-August 1989. The modifications were based on further approvals from the Coastal Commission at their hearings. The changes are: Reduction in units from 355 to 329 single family homes. Increased wetlands restoration to 41.4 acres in accordance with approval from the CA Coastal Commission. Increased acreage for Gum Grove Park and the community park from 24.7 acres to 26.0 acres based on a proposed reduction in the width of Hellman Ranch Road from an 80' right of way to a 56' right of way width. The reduction in the road width is based on the reduction from 773 unit proposal to a 329 unit project. Mr. Whittenberg requested all previous minutes and staff reports from both Planning Commission and City Council be entered into the Record. Public Hearlnq Tim Roberts * Director of Operations and Finance * Mola Development Corporation * 4699 Jamboree Road. NewPort Beach. CA Mr. Roberts noted the four and a half year process that everyone has been gOlng through. He noted approvals from the Planning Commission, City Council, Coastal Commission, State Fish & Game, Fish & Wildllfe, EPA, etc.: . 1987 The Planning Commission and City Council approved 773 units. . Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Environmental Phase Mola noticed plan needed an amendment to provide 20 acres of wetlands. During this second process of the 773 unit plan, the citizens of Seal Beach came out strong in opposition to the plan. We went through lengthy, enormous public hearings. Another design effort was made on the project and the City Council said we will look at alternative proposals before taking action on the review 773 plan. Mola spent months talking wlth citizens. There was a lot of energy and constructive input in these productive meetings. This resulted in a low density, high environmental plan with enormous park benefits. 6/14/89 6/22/89 7/02/89 7/19/90 8/07/89 . 9/25/89 1/14/90 . 3/15/90 B2 plan approved by Planning Commission. B2 plan approved by city Council by 5-0 vote at 3:30 a.m. Specific Plan approved by Planning Commission. Specific Plan approved by city Council. Vesting Tentative Tract Map approved. Development Agreement approved. This is a contract. Project approval from Coastal Commission by 11 - 1 vote. The one vote agalnst was against Mola reducing the 355 units to 329 units. Mola was conditioned to go back to the Commission with a designed/engineered Wetland Restoratlon program. It was submitted. Coastal Commission unanimously approved the Wetlands Restoration plan. Mr. Roberts said they are proposing nothing new except lower density, higher wetlands and greater parks from the first project approval. He said he would like to see action taken tonight. Ana Christensen * Secretary. Native American Coalition of Southern California Ms. Christensen spoke on behalf of Vera Rocha, Chairperson, Native American Coalition cannot be present but she has gone on record as being in opposition to this project because development is not the answer to the problems of this community. She said the archaeology work that is being done is being done illegally. Research is to begin to determine if this site would be ellgible for register in the National Historic Registry of sites and if it is, it becomes eligible for 50% funding by the federal government to preserve and protect sltes. She said Mola Corporation was not fully cooperating with the Native American people - Mola, the City Council and the . . . Page 20 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Planning Commission have been asked to help stop the dig that is going on. The dig is in violation of Coastal Commission regulations which she has presented to the Commission. The requirements specifically put on Mola by the Coastal Commission follow an unusual procedure but is to be met after their EIR and insists that the Native American Coalition select a local tribal group to review the EIR. That is a separate, independent condition of this project. The permit process that she referred to says: "Consultation with Effective Native Americans - Any application proposing excavation of more than two square meters of surface area shall include a statement that the appropriate native American groups have been consulted in the development of the proposed investigation and have reviewed the research design...". LSA sent Ms. Christensen the research design but have not had time to comment on it. Monitors on the site is not the same as having input. The restrictions apply if it was a know burial site or a know archaeological site or if it were a sens~tive habitat and it must be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The procedure demands dialogue with Native American tribes. Ms. Christensen said her group was given remains by a Seal Beach res~dent, Mr. Wilson, who found them in 1938; they are being tested now. She requested the dig be stopped until this permit process is followed. She asked Mr. Charles Antos to point out where Peter Redwine dug this site in the 1950's. Charles Antos * Seal Beach He stated he attended CA State Long Beach and studied anthropology and archaeology and it was very common knowledge at that time about the burials in the Seal Beach/Hellman Ranch area. Peter Redwine's work was known at that school by some of its instructors - Dr. Dixon and Frank Fanaga. The burials found by Redwine on the Hellman area (not the Hill) are on two areas of high ground near the City Yard and animal facility. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark suggested an indemnity agreement, a bond posted by the Mola Corporation, to protect the City from litigation in the event of subsidance, an earthquake, liquefaction. Mr. Stark said he had information that leads him to believe that the present Mola corporation that has presented this plan is a year old corporation. He felt the Commission should look into which corporation is making this proposal and how sol vent are they? Can they carry this project through? He also suggested a completion bond to protect the city. Mr. Stark said that Leisure World appeared to be the point people for pushing this project through which amazed Mr. Stark since, he said, the Commissioners are representing people who are supposed to be rather low income, retired persons living on a fixed income but yet the tax consequences to the City have not been determined with staff projecting a $90,000 shortfall which . . . Page 21 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 would have to be made up in new taxes. Mr. stark said Orange County has developed themselves into bankruptcy and perhaps Seal Beach is going to do the same thing in the name of progress. Mr. Stark said there is no case law to support the fact that a development agreement is binding on successive City Councils .... Barbara Antoci * Ocean Ave. * Seal Beach Ms. Antoci said Mr. Ambrose was right --- there are people who would like to purchase all of our wetlands. She read a statement by Jack Kaiser, Chief Economist, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce that referred to the twin ports and how they're trying to attract more trade and port growth. She stated it came to her attention that Mola owned Charter Savings & Loan. She asked if this was true and if lt failed? Mr. Sharp instructed this would be answered on rebuttal. She noted the gridlock traffic on Ocean Ave. this past Sunday. She said she realizes this "is a lesson in a pre-arranged City deal" and no one she has spoken to is in favor of this project and yet it is wondered "why we have such violent reactions in Seal Beach - it's because the people who represent us don't." Robert Winchell, PhD. * Cal State Lona Beach Mr. Winchell said he is a professor of Geology at Cal State Long Beach and a registered geologist in the State of California. He said he was asked to address this meeting by the Wetlands Restoration society. He dlstributed a single set of xeroxed pictures from geological literature which illustrate his discussion. The Newport/Inglewood Fault is the single-most dangerous fault in CA and it passes thru the Hellman Ranch. Two aspects of geologic hazards: (1) Seismic problems/the fault and (2) flooding hazards. Neither aspect has been properly addressed in the EIRs. The materials involved at Hellman Ranch are like materials along the CA coast --- they represent old lagoonal deposits from marine activity and some from stream processes. They are characteristically unstable materials and are highly saturated. About 5% of damages are associated with fault rupture. The developer will say this is mitigated by a 200' setback on either side of thls fault but the map appears to show less than that. The CA Division of Mines (responsible for earthquake hazard zones in CA) says they don't know what the fault width in that area is; it could be up to 2500 feet wide. until the width of the fault is known you should not approve development because of fault rupture standpoint. The rest of the damage is in seismic shaking damage which involves shaking structures apart because they are of unstable problems, liquefaction problems, differential settlement problems. We have run out of good, buildable land and are now building on marginal sites. He stated his professional opinion of the Hellman Ranch site "constitutes, like Bolsa Chica, ...one of the most dangerous kinds of areas that could be considered for development in California --- partly because of the materials that are there and because they are considered to be an active fault". The 1933 earthquake levelled Compton and Compton was built on materials similar to the Hellman site. It had man-made fill too . . . Page 22 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 and that amplifies the waves which pass thru that area. In the 1971 Silmar quake, slightly larger magnitude, there were buildings damaged that had been built to code. Those materials were thought to be stable and it was on a fault thought to be dead, not active. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) predicts 23,000 lives lost, $69 billion damage in an earthquake associated with the Newport Inglewood fault or an associated system. Most damage, lnjury, loss of life will occur on "poor ground" and that's what's here. You perhaps should consider indemnifying yourselves and/or the City of Seal Beach. If you continue to build these projects in the face of the best scientific information and best predictions you have you individually are responsible for every life lost, every dollar of property lost. And for what reason? To provide a profit for a relatively small number of people. He suggested to the Commission that they have a moral, ethical and perhaps legal reason for refusing to approve this project. Ms. Forsythe asked, if in his professional opinion, he thought this entire parcel was unsuitable or just parts of it? He replied the entire parcel. The high, bluff areas are some of the safest areas along the coast. The following bluff areas are very safe: Signal Hill, Marina Hill, Landing Hill, Bolsa Chica Mesa, Newport Mesa. Mr. Fife asked Dr. Winchell if he felt cities had responslbilities to bring to the attention of persons buying of the geological hazards they face? Dr. Winchell said absolutely, that he believes in full disclosure. Mr. Fife said his concern centered on preventing the development of another home "in a dangerous area concededly" while doing nothing about a home a few yards away built twenty years ago. He asked Dr. Winchell what should society do about those existing developments? Dr. Winchell said you should encourage, if not mandate, that those already built structures are brought up to maximum Code level. Dr. Winchell said he would go a step further with the disclosure idea and have all buyers sign a statement that the disclosure has been made to them and they understand the magnitude of the problem. Mr. Fife asked if a full study of Huntington Beach had been done of all areas subject to liquefaction? Mr. Winchell said Huntington Beach's Planning Department has produced a geological study and makes the information available. It would provide a disclosure basis. Dr. Winchell said "... this is supposed to be a Planning Commission and you're supposed to be planning these sorts of things and there comes a point at which time we run out of the ability to support and increased population unless we wish to put them at risk". Replying to Mr. Fife's comment that perhaps the State should dlsclose certain facts to homeowners/homebuyers, Dr. Winchell said lt seemed to him that local jurisdictions are always wanting more control and don't want the State to make decisions for them. Here you have the opportunity to make that decision. Mr. Flfe said the State is telling us to provide housing. Dr. Winchell said the Commission would have to decide whether that's possible or not. . Page 23 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Scott Whvte * 4416 Candleberrv * Seal Beach Mr. Whyte spoke about the Newport-Inglewood fault and quoted portions of State law from the Subdivision Map Act --- Planning, Zoning and Development Laws, 1988 ed., Government Code section 66474. Mr. Whyte asked staff who would ultimately be responsible for repaying a Mello-Roos bond should an earthquake devastate the development prior to final approval or sale of the homes? ReferrJ.ng to the Housing Element, section "G", Earth Sections ... he said this states an official POllCY of the City of Seal Beach and a lawsuit could be levied in that you violated Government Code section 66476. . Galen Ambrose * Wetlands Restoration Society Mr. Ambrose said the B2 plan was accepted because "that was what some of the people thought they could get at that point in time". LSA's people on the project --- LSA wound up using Walton Wright's map ... and "now they're uSlng incompetent archaeologists on the site". He welcomed Gwen Forsythe and Marilyn Hastings to the City Council saying that "now we will have a Council to listen to the people". He presented a Supreme Court decision which says a city has a right to zone a property as a hazardous area in order to protect its citizens. He read excerpts from court decisions. Mr. Ambrose submitted "When Has Regulation Gone Too Far" What Is A Taking?" for the Record (attached to these Minutes). He stated Mola is too dangerous a development to be built. Carla Watson * 1635 Catalina * Seal Beach Ms. Watson indicated meeting late at night was unconscionable. She asked what the rush was? She mentioned an event she attended where someone commented "Somebody has loved this City" and said that's true. Ms. Watson read from the 5/2/90 Los Anqeles Times with regard to regionalism and not allowing developers to build. Ms. Watson said to the Commission "don't you dare push this through". James Goodwin * 1405 Crestview * Seal Beach Mr. Goodwin said he understands Tim Roberts agony over making lots of plans and then having them changed. Mr. Goodwin explained he is an engineer and worked on plans but on plans you're practicing and want to come out with the best idea. Regarding Dr. Winchell's testimony, Mr. Goodwin agreed with him. He spoke as to why last August he wanted the B2 plan and now he's changed his mind. To have 100 acres of wetlands would wonderful for the City. It could be something for people to admire -- like a park. Also, we would reduce traffic in half because we would not have 329 homes but probably 150 homes on the Hill. We would also eliminate building on dangerous ground. He felt the City is right behind the developer in liability. . Recess from 12:42 a.m. to 12:52 a.m. . . . Page 24 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Walton Wriqht * Consultant. Wetlands Restoration Society Mr. wright sald the Mola proJect would have rip-rapped slope sides in the wetlands area and does not have the plantings as shown. He said the area was unbuildable for a number of reasons and reviewed Dr. Winchell's testimony. He added that we have not identified the fault line on this site and does not appear to have the steps or off sets. Tim Roberts mentioned Coastal Commission approvals "as though this was a unanimous decision" ... there was discussion at the Coastal Commission when they deleted the 26 homes removed from the old plan. The discussion was to remove more homes than that, it would have removed all homes from "the road through the wetlands". After a recess, a compromise was reached -- removing 26 homes and this was based on purely economic reasons but the real reason for removing the homes was high liquefaction potential in the area. Mr. Wright said aerial photos have showed flooding on the Hellman site. Charles Antos * Seal Beach Mr. Antos asked the City Attorney, through the Chair, if the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is approved for this, can that Vesting Tract Map be changed by the City? Or can the developer change it? Mr. Barrow said the vesting Tract Map is conditioned on approval of the Development Agreement and also the City's approval of the Specific Plan. He suggested this project be set aside to let the new City Council review it before voting on it. Mr. Antos said this history of this project is change and he would like to know exactly what we're dealing with. Ana Christensen * American Native Coalition Ms. Christensen said she noted people have been saying, "We've been talking about this for four years" but there's been no talk about this being a Native American site with portions that are eligible for registry in the National Register of Historic sites. She asked, untll you know what you've got there how can you go ahead and build? She said "democracy does not guarantee anything for the minorities". John Nakaqowa * 310 12th Street * Seal Beach Mr. Nakagowa said he would like to see this meeting continued to next week because there a persons who left due to the lateness of the evening. Regarding a statement that the state of California is forcing us to build homes, he asked if the Commission was trying to pass the responsibility of a lethal mistake? Are you saying "it's not our fault people are killed in an earthquake because the State forced us to build housing there"? will we continue making technically inept decisions like building on high liquefaction dangerous land? He suggested having the City Engineer state his views and doing more research. He said he wants to see technical backup. He said he felt the Commlssion is condemning the people ln those houses to death. . . . Page 25 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach Mr. Ambrose said we've had a water shortage for four years in a row --- why do we want to keep building more houses in Southern Callfornia? Dorothv Whyte * Seal Beach She asked the Commission, if, befo~e they vote, are they going to answer the questions asked tonight? Specifically Scott Whyte questions? She asked how long this meeting would last? Mr. Sharp said he didn't know. She said if the Commission didn't act on it tonight it couldn't go to Council tomorrow. Klrk Evans * Mola Development Corporation * Newport Beach. CA Native Americans - Regarding the native American archaeological sites on the Hellman Ranch, Mola is complying with every State and Federal mandate that they have been told to comply with. A sub- surface investigation is going on at the Hellman Ranch to determine if this site would be eligible for the National Registry. Mola has to find out what's out there. Mr. Evans said Mr. Antos told him tonight that the Redwine study (referred to in tonight's testimony) is not a published study and cannot be obtained by ordinary means. Mola is dealing with Vera and Manuel Rocha and have talked to them many, many times on and off site. Mola is talking with the Rochas re signing an agreement allowing them to have paid monitors on site by Mola Development. Two months ago Mr. Evans said he asked Mrs. Rocha if she had qualified archaeologist please call LSA and we'd be happy to hire your archaeologist. No call was ever received by LSA. Mr. Evans referenced a study that the Commissioners have which was compiled by the California Coastal Commission and the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers and tells who is out on the Hellman Ranch and what is going on. There is not one unqualified person out there. All persons have one year minimum field work, most have masters degrees and some have doctorates. The Coastal Commission permit application says "Prior to issuance of the permit of Phase II development, the applicant shall provide for the review and approval of the Executive Director a sub-surface archaeological study and mitigation plan for the site. The plan shall include methods for capping archaeological sites for recovery of significant archaeological materials and for monitoring the site dur ing construction". Mola has been in touch with the Native American Heritage Commlssion and they have a copy of the report and are aware of what Mola is doing. Mola has asked them who the local logical descendent will be for this area and they have chosen not to tell us who that will be unless we find a burlal. Calls were made by City staff to the Coastal Commission and Army Corps of Engineers and was told Mola is not violating the law. Dr. Winchell's testimony - The dlfference between when Dr. Winchell spoke last time and this time is that Mola has now gone to the Coastal Commission. Dr. Winchell chose not to appear at the . . . " Page 26 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Coastal Commission but he did send letters to the Commission. At that time the Senior staff geologlst and asked lf he has ever received any of the soils investigations that have been done by experts and Dr. Winchell said no, he had not. Mola has hired experts who know how to build on this type of property. Dames and Moore were a consultant to all the soils investigations. They were the company hired by the State of California to see what happened in San Francisco at the recent earthquake. Mola has spent in excess of $300,000 in soils studies. The senior staff geologist for the State of California made a recommendation to the California Coastal Commission in writing and verbally that based on the mitigation measures outlined in Mola's soils report that this site would be no more hazardous than any other site in Southern Callfornia. Mr. Evans said that every time you have a Coastal Commission approval you are required to have a deed restriction on your property. That is required. Mr. Evans read a statement "prior to issuance of the permit for Phase II development the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction ... (covering every house Mola would sell) ... as to Phases II and III in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director which shall provide that (a) the applicants understand that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from liquefaction during seismic events and (b) that the applicants hereby waive any future claims of liability against the Commisslon or its successors in interest for damage from such hazards". Mr. Evans recommended including the City of Seal Beach in that same language. The California Department of Real Estate requires, because of private streets, that a White Report on this property and will be a full disclosure form. It will say exactly what the soil conditions are, identify the earthquake fault and will state that if you don't have enough information you may go to the City of Seal Beach who will have that informatlon on file. Mr. Evans said Mola has a Coastal permit for Phase I of their application to the Coastal commission. A restoration plan was approved by the Coastal Commission. They also listened Walton Wright. They listened to their consultants --- the CA Dept of Fish & Game, the National Marine Fisheries, u. S. Fish & wildlife Services and they all endorsed this restoration plan. There is not concrete rip-rap in the wetlands, there is no problem with it not dralning. Engineers were hired to design it properly. Mola ln Business One Year - Mr. Evans said he 11stened to Bruce Stark's testimony and" ... I find it especially humorous that he would say we've been in business one year". Mr. Evans noted the citizens of Seal Beach have seen Mola for four and a half years at least. Mr. Evans said it was not "anybody's business whether or not we're involved in the banking business or anything else. If we weren't solvent we wouldn't be here". .., . . . Page 27 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Port of Lonq Beach - The Port has notified this City that they have no interest in purchasing this property. They made it very clear that if the city gave them the property free, they have no interest. It is too expensi ve. Mr. Evans said the Coastal Commission approved this project based on the fact that the least environmentally damaging alternative is the Mola project --- not letting it set by itself. That was the condition. What Plan?/Charles Antos - Mr. Evans said the plan we are looking at is the plan the Coastal Commission acted upon. There will not be any changes to it. When this project was approved the City Council chose to make some changes to it. They asked Mola to provide the city with some parkland, maintenance of parkland, a check for a million dollars ... that's what changed the numbers. The Coastal Commission decided to get rid of those houses which were affecting the wetlands the most and they happened to be in an area of high liquefaction the rest of the area was not high liquefaction. Mello Roos - Mola made it clear years ago that in the event Mola was to come back to this city for Mello-Roos financing the Development Agreement contains a statement which says that Mello- Roos is a financing tool. It never committed the City to any Mello-Roos. Mola has not approached the city on Mello-Roos. Wetlands - Would the wetlands really be improved? What if Mola avoids it? will be look at an eyesore? Who is going to do what? Now that Mola has an approval and a Coastal permit for Phase I the measures have taken place to where the wetlands shown (on the wall map) are going to be restored. Mola will not do any construction until the restoration has started taking place. The offer of dedication of the land will take place before Mola does anything out there. Mola is 'on the hook' for the total restoration and total maintenance and for flnding an agency (quasi-public, private etc) to glve the wetlands to with enough money to maintain it. Mr. Barrow sald there were two additional conditions that Mola has agreed to. Mr. Evans said yes, noting that Mr. Fife brought up Government Code, Section 65590 requiring a finding being made by the City that if Mola does not provide affordable housing to low/moderate income persons on site that they have to make a finding that it is not feasible to provide that housing off site. Mola are in agreement with staff at this point that Mola will provide 33 low to moderate income housing units as per Government Code Sectlon 65590 within a three-mile radlUS (or whatever the Code says) for this project. Mola is asking to come back to Seal Beach within twelve (12) months with the actual program (exactly how Mola is going to do it). Mola is asking for three (3) alternatives: . . . Page 28 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 1. Finding land within the city. It does not have to be one particular parcel. Acquir~ng it and developing units for affordable priced housing. 2. Mola to purchase existing housing un~ts as long as they are not existing affordable units that are already called that in the City's Housing Element. Those units could be subsidized if required. 3. A fall-back position which would be Mola's writing the City a check for whatever the amount would be determined at that time to provide that housing. This would be earmarked for the City's providing the low/moderate income housing for any other developer or the City that would come in and say "I want to provide that housing". The other condition is the indemnification agreement/assumption of risk which is in the Coastal Commission staff report which will change the language to make it include the City of Seal Beach. This will be put on the Tract Map. Grev Water Line Mr. Fife, referencing a water shortage, and about reclaimed/grey water for irrigation, asked if Mola Development would put the main feeders in during the initial construction phase. Mr. Evans said Mola thinks this would be prudent, "certainly for the parks". Mola has an offer to develop the parkland and to maintain it as well. We would not want the state to say 'don't water that park land'. It would be a greater cost to let that landscaping die than to put in a reclaimed water line at this time. Mola would have no problems having a condition added to the map that would require Mola to put in a grey line to provide for the future reclamation watering of all the parkland. Mr. Fife asked if the main would have the capacity for homeowners to stub in? Mr. Evans said he thought it could be designed that way. This would be worked out with the City Engineer. Possibly a sleeve system could be designed to go down the street so homeowners could stub in. A reclaimed water line would be stubbed to Gum Grove Park. Mr. Fife said he would like to see this considered as a condition. oil Wells Ms. Forsythe asked Mr. Evans about the oil well condition on electrifying the wells and building the walls, specifically aSking if the "and/or" language could be changed to "and". Mr. Evans said a noise study would be done to determine which wells need to be electrified. Mola has no problem with electrifying every well or building a wall around every well to get the sound attenuation to comply with codes. But Mola would have a problem with saying they would electrify all the wells because Mola doesn't own the wells ., 1" . Page 29 - Planning Commission Minutes of May9, 1990 and the property is not a part of this application. But Mola will electrify any well that is necessary to meet Code of the City. Indian Research Ms. Forsythe asked Mr. Evans how much time Mola would give the Gabriolano to do research on the site to find what they have to find? Mr. Evans said Mola is in the process of complying with what the Federal and state governments say Mola has to do. Mr. Evans would like to have an agreement signed with Mr. and Mrs. Rocha, representing the Gabrialano Indians, as soon as possible. LSA said they may dig as many as 103 test bits and 14 are done to date. Also, if a body if found the County coroner must come out first. When and if a burial site 1S found, then the state w111 tell Mola who they should be dealing with. At that time Mola will sign the agrement and will work out how the burials will be addressed. Either capping it on site, moving it, reinternment. . Buildinq Heiqht Ms. Forsythe asked if the building height limit is 35 feet for the homes would Mola be willing to reduce the height to 25 feet? Mr. Evans said the problem with reducing the homes down to 25 feet is that flat roofs are not pretty. There will be no dog houses/CRAS on this project. Mola's architect says lowering the height to 30 feet would be alright and Mola would be willing to do that. Ms. Forsythe said she wants this project to conform with the Hill. Mr. Evans said it was approved at 32 feet and he wouldn't have a problem reducing it to 30 feet. But less than 30 feet would not have a great look. Five Acre site Mr. Evans said the five acre park site for the baseball diamonds is still included in this. Mola has been talking with the Hellman's and an agreement will be signed with the City once the toxic study is done. The toxic study is being done r1ght now. The Hellman's have told the City they are in agreement to selling the land. Gradinq Beqin Mr. Sharp asked if this plan was approved by the City Council, what would be the estimated time when grading would begin. Mr. Evans said grading would being in late summer. A 404 permit is required to dredge wetlands. Having a 404 permit also requires a 106 permit, which is an archaeological finding permit. . Development Aqreement Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Evans if the Development Agreement still contains all the details of the previous Development Agreement? Mr. Evans said yes, it is exactly the same. When the 66KV lines are undergrounded along Bolsa Avenue the land will revert to the homeowners and not to the City. . . . ~ ~: Page 30 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 Traffic Analvsis Mr. Fife asked Mr. Evans if the traffic analysis study could be reviewed to analyze the potential impact of the development of the Hellman Remainder parcel and what it adds. Also, Mr. Fife did not see in the report an analysis of trips generated by people outside the project area who come to use those parks. Mr. Evans said Mola will update that report for the Commission. Mr. Evans said that 100 condominiums would generate 700 trips per day over a 24 hour period. A single family detached homes has ten trips per day. Subdivision Map Act Mr. Whittenberg said the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, in reviewing the sections of the code accorded to him and reviewing the environmental documentation which the City previously considered and certified both the Program EIR 1987 and the Supplemental EIR from 1989 the impacts regarding the geology issues have been mitigated to a point where it would allow the City to make the necessary findings that the project can be constructed without the necessity of making those findings that would prohibit the proj ect for proceedings. Those mitigation measures were clearly outlined both in the 1987 and 1989 EIR documents and also as part of the mitigation program which was approved by the City in June 1989. Mello-Roos Impact Mr. Whittenberg, referencing the impact of a Mello-Roos district being formed on the property, if that type of a proposal does come back to the City for consideration at that time a further detailed analysis would be provided re any impacts the City itself might have to take on if for some reason the debt service could not be retired through the sales of the homes and the normal taxes generated to repay the Mello-Roos bonds. proiect Path Mr. Fife asked if Mr. Barrow could go through the process of how this project, if approved here, would move through the present and future City Council? Mr. Barrow said "J.f the Commission acts tonight, the first hearing in which the Council can consider this matter is scheduled for 5/10/90, the second scheduled meeting is scheduled for Tuesday night (5/15/90). Two separate Council members stated at the Monday night meeting that if this matter is considered prior to reorganization on Tuesday night that they will wait for reorganization and then make a motion to reconsider the action on the two ordinances. If that motion passes, at that point the new Council will consJ.der taking action on the Second Reading of the two ordinances. The two ordinances are for the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement. State law requires that there be a meeting to swear in new City Council members the first Tuesday after the election. As is typically the case, the Monday night meeting (regular Council meeting) will be adjourned to Tuesday night at which tJ.me, depending on what happens tonight of course and what happens tomorrow night. There has been an indication on . . . . '. Page 31 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 the part of at least one Council Member that he would like to have the Second Reading considered Tuesday night prior to reorganization. Two other members stated publicly Monday night that if the Second Reading occurs prior to reorganization they will make a motion to reconsider such action after reorganization. They would need three (3) votes to successfully have a motion to reconsider." Mr. Fife said this matter is likely to have both Councils 'given a bite of it'? Mr. Barrow said that sounds like the way two Council Members want it to happen. He could not speak for the two new Council Members. WeIll probably find that out next Tuesday night. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by McCurdy to approve Resolution No. 1576, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the Hellman specific Plan" be approved as amended by the Planning Director. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Mccurdy, Sharp ABSTAIN: Forsythe *** MOTION by Mccurdy; SECOND by Rullo to approve Resolution No. 1574, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, Recommending to the City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment la-90, an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan Dealing with The Hellman specific Plan Area" as amended by the Planning Director. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Mccurdy, Sharp ABSTAIN: Forsythe *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to approve Resolution No. 1575, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City council Approval of General Plan Amendment lb-90, an Amendment to the Open Space, Recreation/conservation Element of the city of Seal Beach", as amended by the Planning Director. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Mccurdy, Sharp ABSTAIN: Forsythe *** " . . . t .., . .. page 32 - Planning commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 MOTION by McCurdy; SECOND by Rullo to approve Resolution No. 1577, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 86-349", as amended by the Planning Director. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Rullo, Fife, McCurdy, Sharp ABSTAIN: Forsythe *** MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Rullo to approve Resolution No. 1578, "A Resolution of the Planning commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving vesting Tentative Tract Map 13198 Located in the Hellman specific Plan Area", as amended by the Planning Director and the City Attorney except for requirement to change the height limit, leaving that to the City Council to act on that. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: RUllo, Fife, McCurdy, Sharp ABSTAIN: Forsythe Mr. Barrow mentioned three additional conditions: (1) the assumption of risk language from the Coastal permit application and ( 2 ) grey 1 ine and ( 3 ) the height would not exceed thirty (30') feet. *** MOTION by McCurdy; SECOND by Fife to approve Resolution No. 1579, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of a Development Agreement Between the City of Seal Beach and the Mola Development corporation for the Hellman Ranch project" as amended by the Planning Director. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Rullo, Fife, Mccurdy, Sharp ABSTAIN: Forsythe *** . . -~ \ . . ~ Page 33 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 1990 . . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sharp adjourned the meeting at 2:20 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~~~ Executive Secretary Department of Development Services THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE P~NING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 9, 1990 WERE APPROVED ON 5./.110 1990.