Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1997-09-03 . .' . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for September 3, 1997 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. Next Resolution: 97-22 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda; (b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 1997 2. Receive and File: Staff Memo on Sand Replenishment Budget Monies VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Resolution No. 97-19 13960 Seal Beach Boulevard * CUP 96-1 Denying Indefinite Extension The City of Seal Beach complies with the Amencans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting, thank you City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda * September 3, 1997 /.i.... . VIT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT . Certification of Final EIR; . General Plan Amendments; . Land Use Element Amendment 97-1; . Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element Amendment 97-1; . Bicycle Route Element Amendment 97-1; . Housing Element Amendment 97-2; . Circulation Element Amendment 97-1; . Noise Element Amendment 97-1); . Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Amendment 97-1; . Redevelopment Plan Amendment 97-1; . Repeal of State Lands Specific Plan; . Vesting Tentative Tract Maps No. 15381 and 15402; and . Development Agreement. . Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 711 Seal Beach Boulevard Hellman Properties LLC Hellman Properties LLC Request: A request to amend the General Plan and adopt the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan which will replace the existing General Plan land use designation and Specific Plan zoning designations within the boundaries of the proposed specific plan. The proposed Specific Plan would regulate all land use on the project site. The Development Regulations section of the proposed Specific Plan would provide guidance on the implementation of each Planning Area, including the permitted uses, conditional uses, and prohibited uses. Also provided are overall design concepts and general design guidelines for all the land uses that could be developed within the Specific Plan area. As shown on Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Hellman Ranch Specific Plan allocates land uses over the 231. 3-acre property into ten (10) distinct Planning Areas. The Planning Areas comprise five (5) conservation and five (5) development planning areas as follows: Conservation Planning Areas: . 2 The City of Seal Beach complies With the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting, thank you . . - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda * September 3, 1997 1. Saltwater Wetland - 23.1 acres of wetlands ecosystem with tidal connection to the Pacific Ocean; several tidal zones of biodiversity 2. Freshwater wetlands - 9.7 acres includes habitat values and drainage control; incorporated into golf course. 3. Gum Grove Nature Park - 10.2 acres of existing leased parkland. Includes an historic eucalyptus grove to be dedicated to the City of Seal Beach for a public nature park and open space use. 4. Hellman Ranch Reserve Golf Course - 100.8 acre golf course providing recreation and open space opportunities. Out-of-play areas to serve as habitat zones. 5. Los Alamitos Retarding Basin - 34.7 acres of existing flood control retarding basin that provides open space. Migratory and shorebirds can also use the Basin in winter months. Development Planning Areas: 6. Recreation/Commercial Area - 1.8 acres to include 16,100 square feet of visitor-serving commercial uses. A 3,900 square foot interpretive center would also be constructed. 7. Golf Course Clubhouse Facility - 6.7 acres to serve the project golf course. 8. Single-family Residential - 14.7 acres to include a maximum of 70 homes with a density of 4.8 homes per acre. 9. Existing Mineral Production/Future Development Area - 28.2 acres of existing oil production facilities. 10. Public Land Use - 1.4 acres of land that may be used for other public land uses. In summary, the proposed Hellman Ranch Specific Plan allocates 178.5 acres (77.2 percent) to conservation uses which include the restored wetlands, Gum Grove Nature 3 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting; thank you City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda * September 3, 1997 . Park, the golf course and the existing Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The remaining 52.8 acres (22.8 percent) will be developed with single-family residential, visitor- serving recreational! commercial, existing mineral production, the golf course clubhouse and ancillary facilities and public land uses. Recommendation: After review and consideration of the Final EIR, it is recommended the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adequacy of the EIR. After review and consideration of the proposed General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and Development Agreement, it is recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subject applications, or recommend approval with modifications of the subject applications, and forward the appropriate recommendations to the City Council. Planning Commission action should be through the adoption of Resolutions, which staff has prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission. e Vill. STAFF CONCERNS IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT . 4 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, thank you. . . . Not Scheduled City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda. September 3,1997 1997 AGENDA FORECAST CUP 97-7 3900 Lampson Avenue Marriott Senior Living Services facility SEP 17 OCT 08 OCT 22 NOY 05 NOY 19 DEC 03 DEC 17 Commissioner Hood will be absept. CUP 97-8 308 & 310 Ocean Ave.! New SFD. Commissioner Yost will be absent. Tentative: ZC 97-1 941 PCH PR 97-3 708 Central CUP 94-4 770 PCH Shorehouse Restaurant/Billiard parlor Klisanin/Enc1ose carport & site improves. Burger King indefinite extension. 5 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting; thank you . e . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda * September 3, 1997 AGENDA FORECAST - 1998 JAN 06 JAN 20 FEB 03 FEB 17 MAR 03 MAR 17 APR 08 APR 22 MAY 06 MAY 20 JUN 10 JUN 24 JUL 08 JUL 22 AUG 05 AUG 19 SEP 09 SEP 23 OCT 06 OCT 20 NOV 04 NOV 18 DEC 09 DEC 23 VAR 93-1 212 Main Final $7300 payment/in-lieu parking fees 6 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting; thank you. . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 Chairman Brown called the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. The meeting began with the Salute to the Flag. ftpU ((all Present: Chairman Brown Commissioners Law, Larson. Yost. Hood Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg. Director Craig Steele. Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis. Associate Planner Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Aaenda Aooroval MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve the Agenda as presented. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Brown, Law. Larson. Yost. Hood Oral Communications There were no oral communications from the audience. Consent Calendar MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve the Consent Calendar as presented: 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 1997; 2. Receive and File: Staff Memo on Sand Replenishment Monies. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood. Law. Larson, Brown. Yost . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . Scheduled Matters 3. MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No.97-19, denying an Indefinite Extension of CUP 96-1 for the Seal Beach Market at 13960 Seal Beach Boulevard. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Hood, Yost, Law, Brown Larson Mr. Steele advised the Planning Commission's action is final tonight and the ten calendar-day appeal period begins tomorrow morning. Pub'i~ t-iearinas 4. Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 711 Seal Beach Boulevard Hellman Properties LLC Hellman Properties LLC . Staff Report Director Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for inspection]. The applicant's request was to amend the City's General Plan and adopt the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed Hellman Ranch Specific Plan would allocate178 acres to restored wetlands, Gum Grove Nature Park, a golf course and the existing Los Alamitos RetarQing Basin. The remaining 53 acres would be developed with 70 single- family residences, a visitor-serving recreation/commercial area, mineral production, a golf course clubhouse with ancillary facilities and public land uses. Svlvia Salenius * P&D Technoloaies Ms. Salenius commented on the environmental document, saying it concludes that the kind of disturbance that could occur on the mesa (of this property) would create significant impacts on the archaeological resources there. There is some disagreement among experts on how significant those sites are and a program is being designed to study those resources to more accurately determine what significance they have and their ethnographic importance. There is the potential for up to ten sites in the development area actually being disturbed and destroyed by the project. There are five sites that will be preserved in Gum Grove Park. e 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . Ms. Salenius outlined changes to various mitigation measures as follows: · CR-3: the City's Archaeological Advisory Committee [AAC] recommended wording changes from a qualified archaeologist retained by the City of Seal Beach has conducted a literature search be changed to will conduct a literature search. · CR-4: the mitigation measure was updated to reflect the number of sites from seven to ten. · CR-5: there was a substantial change to the end of paragraph B that now says the details of the field investigation plan shall be determined by the archaeological firm retained by the City to perform this work included in their Research Design. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services before any fieldwork is started. · CR-6: the change reflects a qualified archaeologist would be present and conduct the test program and also a Native American monitor would be present on the site during all grading activities necessary to implement any test programs. . · CR-9: a modification reflects the monitoring and clarifies the measure to indicate that monitoring will occur during anv site activities. · Changes to the Historic Resources section added a Native American presence during the monitoring and a modification to the 4th and 5th lines that indicates the archaeological monitor will prepare a final monitoring report as reviewed and commented upon by the Native American monitor. Those are all of the changes recommended by the AAC. Regarding air quality, Ms. Salenius said any increase to air emissions in the Southern California air basin constitutes a significant impact. P&D recognizes that construction equipment and activity will be an unavoidable significant impact. The mitigation measures incorporate the Air Quality Management District's [AQMD] typical requirements with respect to construction activities. Air emissions can never be brought down to zero. Because the project would add population and activity to the area, there will be additional air quality emissions during the operations of the project. The City's existing General Plan is incorporated into the AQMD's provisions in its current plan because they recognize a certain Jevel of development will occur in the City. This project substantially reduces the number of dwelling units on site and will have less emissions. e 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e Mr. Whittenberg indicated that concluded staffs presentation. The Chairman asked if there were any questions of staff? Commissioner Hood asked to defer his questions to a later point. e The Assistant City Attorney explained the effect of the Development Agreement and a Vesting Map would have on the City. He discussed the concept of vested rights and the question of what does the applicant get out of this? He explained that in the context of a Variance or a use permit, the Commission has heard staff talk about the permit running with the land. This application requests legislative changes and they typically don't run with the land. The City is changing its documents - the General Plan, the Specific Plan, the zoning ordinance. Typically the City can change its documents whenever it wants to --- whenever the City Council decides it's in the City's best interest to do so. If things change mid-stream, property owners have to conform to that. In this case, this application has been structured so the developer would acquire some vested rights to develop the property under a certain set of rules. The Development Agreement provides that in exchange for the developer's promise to dedicate Gum Grove Park, pay for some infrastructure improvements, perform mitigation measures and make other improvements for the City's benefit, the City will agree not to change the rules regarding the development of this property for the term of the Agreement. Regarding the Vesting Map, the same concept applies. If the Vesting Map is approved, the developer acquires the right to develop that property and divide it in accordance with that Map over a period of time. The City commits to not change the mapping of that property while it's being developed. It recognizes this project may take some time to develop - perhaps a number of years. The developer has been given assurance up front that the rules won't change as time goes on. He wanted the Commission to be aware there is a certain amount of commitment that's being made in advance to allow the property to be developed over time -- if the project is approved in its current form. Commissioner Yost asked Mr. Steele if this applies to subsequent phases of the project when they come before the Commission? Things that are not on the table tonight? Mr. Steele said no, this applies only the General Plan amendments and the Specific Plan that's before the Commission tonight -- that's part of the Development Agreement. There have been no applications made or any commitments made for the remainder parcel, other than it's going to remain in use for mineral production for some number of years until it's depleted. Commissioner Hood asked if there's a time beyond which this Development Agreement does not pertain? For example, if they don't develop it for a thousand years do they still retain the right to develop it? e 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e Mr. Steele advised that the term of the Development Agreement is twenty-five years. The term of the Vesting map is seven years. Chairman Brown asked for clarification on the time line for this project. Mr. Steele said there is not a specific time line for each event. In most cases the Development Agreement is structured in terms of development milestones. For example, once certain permits are issued, certain things will happen. Once properties are offered for sale the infrastructure will be in. The most specific time line applies to the wetlands restoration, which has a five-year time line. The outside time limit is the seven-year time limit on the map. Regarding the five-year time limit on the wetlands, Commissioner Hood said it seemed the applicant would monitor the wetlands for five years but, after five years if there's no money and if the wetlands didn't work that would be too bad. Mr. Steele said the concept is for the wetlands to be dedicated before the end of those five years, the monitoring period. The agency to which the wetlands are dedicated in perpetuity will have the right and obligation to monitor and maintain those wetlands. Presumably, that dedication will include an agreement with the developer for some funding to be included for on-going maintenance. e Commissioner Hood questioned Mr. Steele's use of the word "presumably". Mr. Steele said if he was an agency that was going to have a wetlands area dedicated to him, he wouldn't accept it without that condition. Chairman Brown asked how successful is wetlands restoration? Mr. Steele suggested the biologist should answer that question. RECESS: There being no further questions, the Chair allowed a five-minute recess. Dave Bartlett and Jerry Tone, representing Hellman Properties, made the applicant's presentation. [Copies of the overhead displays on file in the Planning Department for inspection]. Mr. Bartlett made the following comments: e · Reaardina residential buildina heiahts, the applicant wants to build to 36', thus allowing three-story houses. Mr. Bartlett said the City's municipal code says that in a Specific Plan area you can build to 39'. Therefore, the application is consistent with the Code. They plan to leave a large buffer area, about 49' to 65', between the proposed residential and the existing residential on Marina Hill. Mr. Bartlett noted the Hill's architecture is about thirty years old and 5 II"""" City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3,1997 . there has been new innovation in product design. Therefore, they need to give the builder the flexibility to go to 36'. It also allows the applicant flexibility with topographical-sensitive site planning. · Reaardina front yard setbacks, the language as proposed by staff is acceptable to the applicant. · Reaardina aaraaes, the applicant is willing to make the change for the garages to be located in the rear one-third of the lot instead of being located in the rear portion of the lot. · Reaardina maximum lot coveraae, originally the applicant requested to be allowed to build on 60% of each lot. Staff suggested lot coverage be 45% and 5% - the same as Marina Hill. Mr. Bartlett said this project is not just an extension of the Hill. There is the greenbelt separation and a separate entrance. Mr. Bartlett said they need flexibility for executive-style homes. The consumer is looking for larger lots with larger homes. Mr. Bartlett made the following comments: e · The proposed project will reduce density, provide more open space, restore wetlands and open the area for public use. Currently only 6% of this property is open for public use. The project would open the property to 80% for public use. · The mitigation measures suggested by the Archaeological Advisory Committee are acceptable to the applicant. They agree with the mitigation- monitoring program as part of the Cultural Resources section. · The proposed entrance to the golf course off Seal Beach Boulevard is deemed by the traffic engineer to be a very safe entry. They are suggesting full turning movements be allowed. They need to have access to the golf course from Seal Beach Boulevard to separate oil production traffic, Public Works Department traffic, industrial traffic on Lopez for the adjacent uses. The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed project: e David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman said he was speaking on behalf of himself and two other members of the City's Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB), Mario Voce and Donna McGuire. He advised the Planning Commission the EQCB has not completed their review of the EIR, noting the EQCB has concerns with technical issues regarding wetlands restoration. He said they felt it would be more responsible on the Planning Commission's part to not act on the EIR for one week, until the EQCB meets September 9th, in order for the Commission to get the EQCB's input. The unresolved issues are (1) whether there should be an 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e alternate water supply to the salt water wetlands, for example the cooling channel, rather than the San Gabriel River because the river can be highly polluted; (2) marine biology issues regarding Vector Control and marsh mosquitoes and what processes will be used to ensure pests are controlled; and (3) how the wetlands area will be monitored and whether we need Nature Conservancy's services to be written into the proposal now. He said the reason the EQCB is not finished with their review is there were delays. The Director told the EQCB this would not present a problem in getting the EQCB's recommendation to the Commission. They were surprised it had been calendared for final approval before the EQCB's final action. He personally felt the project was a "good deal". Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks, comparing this proposal to prior proposals, said this proposal should be approved. He said there would inevitably be minor points of disagreement. He felt the City would have liked to have the housing in the Redevelopment Agency because then they would get 100% of the tax monies because of tax increment funding. For the City to give up on that --- a major issue for Ponderosa and Mola proposals -- is really something. The fact that this applicant listened to what the people wanted and got the housing out of the high liquefaction area and up, onto the bluff area is good. Two of the safest areas around us are Signal Hill and the bluff in Seal Beach. They listened and they did a good job. While not perfect, this is the best proposal we've ever seen and the best we're going to get; the Planning Commission should approve this plan. e Fran Johnson * Coastline Drive. Seal Beach Ms. Johnson asked how and when Lopez Drive would be used. Dick Mitchell * 110 Central Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Mitchell felt this plan should be approved for several reasons, most of which involve the exacting attention paid to environmental issues by the applicant. Most of the issues have been well thought out. He supports the project whole- heartedly. Terrv Scott * Island Villaae. Lona Beach Mr. Scott thanked the Hellman family for the right-of-way they've enjoyed between their property and Pacific Coast Highway. He noted there are a number of animals which visit the area frequently. Coyotes come through the property nightly. He didn't hear anyone address what's going to happen when the bulldozers come in and these animals begin to scatter. Someone needs to give thought to this problem. e Stan Anderson * Seal Beach Mr. Anderson said the site has been a dump for many years and to restore it to something like this project proposal is phenomenal. The environmental issues have really been addressed. Any minor issues, such as where are the coyotes 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . going, can be worked out. The applicant addressed the earthquake and the environmental issues. The following person spoke against the proposed project: Dave Hall * Huntinaton Beach Mr. Hall presented a letter to the Planning Commission and also read it for the Record. His concerns centered on Belding's Savannah Sparrow and the Western Burrowing Owl. He wanted the timing of the mitigation implementation to preconstruction. [Letter attached]. The following person spoke but neither pro nor con on this project: James Goodwin * 1405 Crestview. Seal Beach Mr. Goodwin questioned polluted soils on the site. He didn't think there was an accurate assessment of the amount of debris and oil/chemical pollutants on the site. He asked if the City has funds to make an accurate survey on the degree of pollution to be contended with? Can we get the flora and fauna growing properly on the golf course with the pollutants there or do they need to be cleaned up first? . Rebuttal: Dave Bartlett Mr. Bartlett made the following rebuttal remarks: 2. 1. Regarding Mr. Goodwin's comments on soil contamination, throughout the years, as mineral production uses have occurred on the property, there have been oil spills throughout the central portions of the property. It's all hydrocarbon-contaminated soil, a naturally occurring substance. Their environmental consultants have identified those sump areas and are currently working with the State Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies on a clean up program that will part of the development of this project. There are some soils contaminated from the City's Public Works Yard. It's a refined product from an underground storage tank. The City is taking action to clean those areas. Regarding Dave Hall's comments on Belding's Savannah Sparrow and the Burrowing Owl, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow habitat on the site currently is a very marginal habitat and that's why it needs to be restored; It doesn't allow for nesting. That was a key finding in the spring survey. The applicant can't create new nesting and habitat areas without destroying the marginal and degraded habitat that's out there now. The Burrowing Owl is in the same situation. One Burrowing Owl was found on the site during the spring surveys. It was determined that the Burrowing Owl was not breeding on the property as it wasn't suitable habitat. There's a mitigation measure in the EIR regarding the creation of Burrowing Owl habitat that the applicant is very comfortable with. .. 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e Regarding David Rosenman's comments on the EQCB, the board is scheduled to hear the EIR next week. The issues he mentioned are technical issues and will be worked out as part of the wetlands restoration program. This will continue to be refined as it goes through the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission, and the various regulatory agencies that will oversee the restoration plan and mitigation-monitoring program. This will have dozens of eyes watching this to be sure it's a successful program. The applicant wants this to be a success and feel they have the right components. Their engineer also designed the Anaheim Bay wetlands - which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge. 4. Regarding Fran Johnson's comments on Lopez Drive, the street now dead-ends. As part of the project the applicant will construct an entry into the property so Lopez Drive will swing into the property there and will provide a secondary access to the golf course and will be the primary access for mineral production traffic going in and out of the Hellman property. 3. e Rick Wier. Marine Bioloaist Mr. Wier said he is the applicant's consulting marine biologist for the project. Regarding the issue of Belding's Savannah Sparrow and whether the mitigation measures should be implemented prior to the construction of the project, the issue is we need to have the construction done at the same time. The builder can't save half of the degraded habitat and then construct the other half at another time. The sparrow depends on Pickelweed for its nesting habitat, habitat that is above the tide line. When there are large stands of Pickelweed that are lush, with height to them, you have a greater chance of nesting individuals. In the wetland now the Pickelweed is degraded in the sense of its biology --- it's structure. It won't support nesting individuals because of a lack of water circulation and lack of plant height for the species. Habitat is nesting success with foraging areas. We see it's more likely this animal does not breed here but does visit it on a regular basis. It probably has a stopover between Anaheim Bay wetlands and the Cerritos wetlands. We need to design, develop and implement the transplanting area to get the species of plant necessary for the success of the sparrow to survive. It can't be done in phases, it has to be done in one time period and in a concentrated effort. There we no other persons wishing to speak and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. e For the Record, Mr. Whittenberg noted that Dave Hall who spoke in opposition also submitted a letter to the City today. A copy was provided to each Commissioner. Mr. Hall read the letter during his comments; it is attached to the Minutes. 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e Commission Comments Commissioner Law said she felt this project has something for everyone and is very beautiful. She could not see anything against it. Commissioner Yost commented that the proposed project is a vast improvement over what has been proposed in the past. He was concerned about the source of water for the salt-water wetlands. He was hoping to get water from the cooling channel or some other way, knowing the San Gabriel River water is polluted from the winter rains. He was also concerned that the EQCB had not finalized their comments. He asked staffs direction on this concern. Mr. Whittenberg said both the EQCB and Planning Commission would make recommendations to the City Council. Each will be considered when they deliberate. Staff made it clear to the EQCB members that if they waited until after September 3rd to consider their evaluation of the EIR that they may not be making that recommendation to the Planning Commission because the Commission would have the option to take action. If the Commission feels it is more appropriate to wait to make their recommendations regarding the adequacy of the EIR until such time as the EQCB has made their recommendation that's a Commission choice. e Commissioner Yost said he had a few other concerns -- about the entrance and height limitations and wanted to defer those comments. Commissioner Hood asked the Chair how he would consider the resolutions? Mr. Whittenberg, responding to the Chair, said those are areas of concern regarding the Specific Plan provisions. If the Planning Commission determines to make decisions tonight and resolutions are adopted, it would be appropriate to wait until that resolution was being considered. If the matter is deferred, the Commission may want to give staff direction on whether the Commission feels what staff has recommended is appropriate. The resolutions could then be revised. Commissioner Hood said he was concerned with receiving a forty-page set of minutes from the Archaeological Advisory Committee (AAC) at this meeting. On page 38 of the minutes, paragraph 2, a motion was made to include Addendum A as a recommendation. He asked where that addendum from the MC should go? e Mr. Whittenberg said the AAC's recommendation is the changes to the Cultural Resources mitigation measures that were discussed this evening. If the Commission considers the EIR,tonight, the resolution would need to be revised to recommend modification of those particular mitigation measures. 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 :- Commissioner Hood noted that on page 54, it says the Cbmmission is charged with recommending the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures. It would be helpful if staff gave the Commission guidance on how and where to do it. Director Whittenberg explained that would be in Attachment 1, the resolution that recommends the adequacy of the EIR. He suggested the Commission look at Attachment 1 and staff would walk them through the proposed changes. Commissioner Hood said that Attachment A, which the AAC discussed, says that monitors are needed. He thought that was a part of the Native American Cultural Patrimony Remains Act [NACPRA]. He was surprised P&D did not include archaeological monitors in that. Isn't that part of NACPRA? Director Whittenberg explained that NACPRA pertains only to Federally owned property. There is no federally owned property in this application and therefore that law doesn't apply. There are provisions in there for monitors. The clarification was that monitors were to be present if some additional phases of grading had been completed --- after the actual field investigations for testing of significance of the archaeological sites. Commissioner Hood asked staff why California State University at Long Beach has an active NACPRA committee? e Mr. Whittenberg said he had no idea what structure Cal State Long Beach uses. Commissioner Hood said he thought NACPRA applied to more than solely federally owned property. Mr. Steel said State law directs which applies to Native American reburials. It handles the Native American Indian Heritage Commission and is substantially different than the Federal law Commissioner Hood referred to. It requires notification in the presence of a monitor after discovery of remains on the property. There is not an on-going monitoring requirement as there is under the Federal law. That's the difference between the two. Commissioner Larson said the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) came into effect and required Government to talk to people. This City and this application shows that CEQA does work. Everyone has had their say and this seems to satisfy everyone's needs and their concerns. He said he was ready to consider the resolutions tonight. On the issue of the AAC's recommendation, it will go to the City Council along with the Planning Commission's recommendation. The City Council can make their determination based on those facts. "I don't see that we should hold up our action based on the other committee's concerns". e 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e Chairman Brown said the staff, the property owners and the consultants have done a wonderful job of trying to balance diverse interests and have come up with a good project. Referring to the wetlands restoration, he said he hoped the plans work. This whole project makes things better, especially the wetlands. In terms of community response to this and prior project proposals, this is an underwhelming response - having few negative comments. That points to how well conceived this project is and how it satisfies so many different interests. He thought the Planning Commission should move ahead and noted they are an advisory body to the City Council and not a decision-making body on this issue. He suggested beginning to tackle the resolutions. Resolution 97-22 v MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No. 97 -22, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach recommending to the City Council the adequacy of the FEIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, with modifications and as amended by Archaeological Advisory Committee Resolution No. 97-2. This is to incorporate the Archaeological Advisory Committee's Exhibit A as the Commission's Exhibit A. e Before the vote, Commission Hood said he wanted to "incorporate" Exhibit A, not "attach" it. The MC's motion to the Planning Commission was to recommend approval if the mitigation measures presented in A were included. Mr. Steele noted for the Record that the slides shown to the Commission by P&D with regard to Cultural Resources included those changes suggested by the MC. So the Commission has seen those changes made in the document this evening. Commissioner Hood said he didn't know what to do about the Belding's Savannah Sparrow and the Western Burrowing Owl. He restated a few of the biologist's comments. Chairman Brown thought the Commission should express its concern for the birds. He asked if Mr. Hall's letter could be referenced, especially paragraphs 3 and 4? Mr. Whittenberg said if the intent was to forward those concerns to the Council for their consideration without making any changes to the mitigation measures? Commissioner Hood said that would be an "attachment" as opposed to an "incorporation" and he would be in favor of that. . Mr. Steele suggested the Commission take action on the resolution that includes the incorporation and changes to the archaeology measures. Then take a separate action to direct staff to look into the issues raised by Dave Hall during 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e the time between this hearing and the time the City Council makes a decision. To see if staff can come up with changes to the mitigation measures that will address this issue or reasons why those mitigation measures shouldn't be imposed. Let the Council decide at that time. Chairman Brown said Dave Hall's comments were not included in the Response to Comments on the DEIR, was there anything similar to them? " Mr. Whittenberg said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department made similar comments regarding the Western Burrowing Owl, particularly where they said if there's been a bird on the property in the last three years, it's considered a nesting site from their standpoint. The mitigating response was there would be activities undertaken to replace burrowing sites someplace else on the property. No number of sites was specified. Staff can review the DEIR and give the Council the number of sites if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Hood suggested the Commission could request there be a report by staff incorporating/investigating the suggestions made by Dave Hall. This should be present to the Council when the rest of the report is made. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Brown, Law, Larson e MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost for City staff was requested to present to the City Council a report with recommendations embodying Dave Hall's letter on Belding's Savannah Sparrow and the Western Burrowing Owl found on the Hellman Ranch. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Brown, Law, Larson Resolution No. 97-23 v MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 97-23, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach recommending to the City Council approval of Land Use Element Amendment 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Brown, Law, Larson e 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . Resolution No. 97-24 v MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 97 -24. a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Amendment 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood. Yost. Brown. Law. Larson Resolution No. 97-25 ./ MOTION by Hood; SECOND by to approve Resolution No. 97 -25. a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of the Bicycle Route Element Amendment 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood. Yost. Brown. Law. Larson e Resolution No. 97-26 ./' MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 97-26. a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Housing Element Amendment 97-2. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood. Law. Larson. Brown. Yost Resolution No. 97-27 v MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 97-27. a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Circulation Element Amendment 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood; Law. Larson. Brown. Yost . 14 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . Resolution No. 97-28 \/"" MOTION by Yost; SECOND Hood to approve Resolution No. 97 -28, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Noise Element Amendment 97 -1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Law, Larson, Brown, Yost Resolution No. 97-29 v MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No. 97 -29, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Amendment 97-1 with the following additions: (1) the building heights would be limited to 25' and shall not exceed two stories; (2) the lot coverage will be 45% plus 5% for patios; and (3) the garage will be constructed in the rear one-third of the lot. e Before the vote, Mr. Steele advised the Chair that at this time the Commission needs to discuss those issues regarding height limit and lot coverage et cetera. Mr. Whittenberg pointed out the pages involved and noted item #4 on page 123 is the lot coverage requirement. Staff suggested 45% lot coverage with 5% for patios. The Hellman's requested 50% with 5% for patios. Staff did not make a recommendation in the staff report on the height of the single-family homes; the applicant is requesting 36'. If the Commission wants to leave the height at 36' no changes are needed. If the Commission wants to changeihe height limit an additional sub-section needs to be added. The height limit for single-family sub- divided lots in Seal Beach the height limit is 25' --- for the Hill, College Park East and West. Both Surfside and Old Town areas do allow a 35' height limit on high/medium density lots when the lot exceeds 37.5 feet wide. The issue is a difference in standards. In Old Town and Surfside the lots are much smaller than 5000 square feet. The height is allowed to compensate for a smaller building footprint. College Park East, West and the Hill, with 5000 square foot lot minimums, are more comparable to this site. The lot sites on the Hellman Ranch are proposed at 5500 square feet. The developer is attempting to develop an executive-type-housing tract. . Chairman Brown said if the Citywide height limit is 25' then he would be in favor of keeping it at 25'. There has been some movement within the City to limit the heights of construction in Old Town, despite their smaller lots. Councilwoman Hastings proposed this about a year ago and later withdrew it. It may be a 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . Citywide consensus not to have the higher height limits. He asked what the size of the houses would be? Dave Bartlett estimated the houses would be 3600 - 4000+ square feet because the lots are bigger than anticipated. He said you couldn't build a house at 25' today. Thirty years ago the houses were built at 25' but that's not the case now. Commissioners Yost and Hood agreed that the height limit be kept at 25' to keep it consistent with the other homes on Marina Hill and in the College Park areas. Mr. Whittenberg said a modification will be added to the Resolution which will modify Section 7.4.3.6 to change the maximum building height from 36' to 25'. Commissioner Yost said he felt if that is to be altered, it must be altered at the City Council level, as they are the City's elected officials. The Commission discussed the lot coverage be kept at the recommended 45% plus 5% for patios. . Commissioner Yost asked staff why they decided on 45% + 5%? Mr. Whittenberg said that's the same provision which applies to College Park East. Commissioner Hood said that would keep the consistency. Mr. Whittenberg said the other change would be to item #3 on page 123, the side-yard and rear-yard setbacks for garages. Staff suggests an additional clause be added regarding garages located closer than 5' on the side or rear property line on the rear one-third of the lot. Commissioner Hood said he would agree with staff's recommendation and added that the height consistent with the rest of the City. Chairman Brown asked for clarification between the rear one-third versus the rear. Mr. Whittenberg said the lots are 110' deep or deeper. The applicant is suggesting three-car garages. About 30' of structure, taking about 1/3 of the rear of the lot to fit it in. Staffs felt this wording would limit it to that portion of the lot so the builder could not come in and say he wanted it in the middle of the lot, or back 30' from the front yard. e Mr. Steele said it would be more restrictive than saying the rear. As that would connote a front half and a rear half. Staff's concern is for the garage to come 16 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 further away from the property line. If it's worded the rear they have half a lot to work with. If you say the rear third, you further restrict the garage placement. Chairman Brown asked why staff cared about the garage placement? - Mr. Whittenberg said staff cares because the garage would be allowed to be built on the property line on the sides also. Staff did not want a garage visible from the street, with a separation between the houses with something more than a 5' setback. So you'd still maintain the minimum 10' setback from living area of house to living area of house and not have the possibility of a garage next to a dining room or living room windows 5' away. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4-1-0 Hood, Law, Yost, Brown Larson The Chairman asked Commissioner Larson if that was a deliberate vote? Commissioner Larson said yes, it was a deliberate vote. The Planning Commission had a resolution in front of it with a lot of discussion modifying it. He felt the order should have been to vote on each item separately and then vote on the entire resolution as amended. It was not done that way, so he voted no. . The Chair asked the other Commissioners how they felt. They agreed to vote on each item separately. MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Hood to change the height limit to 25', which is consistent with the rest of the City, and shall not exceed two stories. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4-1-0 Yost, Hood, Law, Brown Larson MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No. 97-29 as further amended: (2) the lot coverage will be 45% plus 5% for patios; and (3) the garage will be constructed in the rear one-third of the lot. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Law, Larson, Brown Commissioner Hood explained the Planning Commission backed out of its original vote, technically moved to reconsider. . 17 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 . Resolution No. 97-30 v' MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Hood to approve Resolution No. 97-30, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council repeal of the State Lands Specific Plan. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Law, Larson, Brown Resolution No. 97-31 v MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Hood to approve Resolution No. 97-31, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ./ Resolution No. 97-32 5-0-0 Hood, Larson, Yost, Law, Brown e MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No. 97-32, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps No. 15381. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Larson, Yost, Law, Brown Resolution No. 97-33/ MOTION by Law; SECOND by Hood to approve Resolution No. 97-33, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps No. 15402. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Larson, Yost, Law, Brown e 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3. 1997 . Resolution No. 97-34 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No. 97 -34, a resolution of the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission recommending to the City Council approval of the Development Agreement. Before the vote, the Chair noted the Commission was looking at a draft of the Development Agreement. Mr. Whittenberg explained it is a draft, the final decisions are the purview of the Council. The Planning Commission is required to review it and make recommendations to the Council. The Commission is looking at whether the provisions of the Development Agreement are in compliance with the Specific Plan and that the EIR issues it addresses are adequate to address the Development Agreement. Commissioner Hood had a question on page 16. It said the City should diligently remedy the hazardous materials discharge appearing on the property stemming from City-owned property. What is this referring to? e Mr. Whittenberg explained there is a leaking, under ground gasoline tank on the City Yard property. A plume of hydrocarbon has leaked out of this tank and a portion of it has spilled onto the Hellman's property. The Chair called for further discussion and there was none. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Brown, law, larson Mr. Whittenberg explained the Planning Commission's actions are advisory in nature. Recommendations from the Planning Commission will go to the City Council. The Council's Public Hearing has been scheduled for September 22, 1997. Notices will be mailed to all property owners within 300' of the subject site and notices will be in local newspapers. Staff Concerns Mr. Whittenberg said the October 8th meeting has scheduled a presentation by a consulting group to talk about Livable Communities. There will be a 45-minute presentation. Staff felt it would tie into considerations for the Main Street area concepts. Commissioner Larson asked if that firm is doing business with the City? Mr. Whittenberg said no, they were under contract with the Local Government Commission to provide this information. e 19 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1997 e Commission Concerns There were no Commission concerns. Commissioner Larson said at his first meeting he was told the Commission wouldn't get through the Hellman project in one meeting and asked what happened? Chairman Brown said less public input accounted for some of the time. On the Bixby Ranch project proposal there were four meetings, three of which were public testimony. That speaks to the developer's efforts to work with the community to come up with a plan that's acceptable. Commissioner Larson said he believed in the silent majority, noting that he assumed people who read about and studied the project and did not complain he assumed were satisfied. The Chairman said he thought that was a good assumption for Seal Beach. Commissioner Yost said the developer did do an excellent job in listening to previous complaints. . Commissioner Hood said this is a fine plan in comparison to the Mola plan. &jiournment The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: . ~ - Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department Attachment (Letter from Dave Hall, Huntington Beach) . 20 . . . -----. ~--_.......-- c r{ O~ s: ~ L to::' : Dave Hall 16291 Kim Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 [~ U91 .. D~?t-.RI': ::.~ - ~~.? , ___ t [\ E"JlLO f': . ~ "T ~ .:::. _ _ :- ~..-: September I, 1997 Dr. David Hood The Planning Commission The City of Seal Beach Dear Dr. Hood: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. The quality of our coastal environment is of utmost importance. Hopefully, the proposal for the Hellman Ranch will protect endangered species and provide much needed coastal wetlands. First, endangered and threatened species will be adversely impacted by the proposed project and the mitigation measures to reduce these impacts need to be strengthened. In particular, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow and Western Burrowing Owl will be harmed by the project. I call your attention to Table 15-2 of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan section B-4 regarding the Belding's Savannah Sparrow. The timing of implementation of the plan is post construction. However, to guarantee the continued survival of this species at this site the plan must be timed to be implemented during the preconstruction phase-otherwise there is no suitable habitat of prickle-weed for this bird to use as habitat in the meanwhile. Please change the timing ofthe Belding's Savannah Sparrow mitigation implementation to preconstruction to makt the mitigation truly effective. Likewise, please note again on Table-I 5-2 the timing of the mitigation measures for the Western Burrowing Owl. The timing of implementation of these measures is too late. Artificial'b~"rrows and dirt berms to provide roosting and foraging should be implemented before construction of the proj~ct. Also, it should be noted the numbers of burrows to be artificially constructed. Since there were fifteen burrows sighted in the spring of this year some fifteen burrows should be constructed to maximize the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. In addition, it should be stipulated that the Burrowing Owl Survey and Protocol Mitigation Guidelines will be followed. As you work toward improving these project please ensure that our endangered species are adequately protected. Respectfully, ~ 1$tJ-LL Dave Hall