Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1987-09-16 '. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, September 16, 1987 at 7:31 p.m. Vice Chairman Suggs called the meeting to order and led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Covington (arrived 7:35 p.m.) Commissioners Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Pamela Walker, Administrative Aide Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager CONSENT CALENDAR The consent calendar consisted of one item, the minutes of the Planning Commission regular session of July 15, 1987. Sharp moved to approve the consent calendar; Rullo seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Covington Motion Carried Commissioner Sharp asks that item B of the public hearings be heard at this time; Rullo seconds. . AYES: NOE S : ABSENT: Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Covington Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO HELLMAN SPECIFIC PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2b-87, LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2c-87, CIRCULATION ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2d-7, OPEN SPACE ELEMENT According to Mr. Knight, this item was a request to amend the Hellman Specific Plan to allow construction of 113 single family homes and 660 condominium units plus a golf course. Knight stated this item was continued from the September 2nd session and further presented a summary of current actions being considered by the City on this matter. He explained the environmental impact report (EIR) must be certified according to State law as it will be used for current and future actions and by the affected responsible agencies (State Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Commission, Army Corps of Engineers). The purpose of the EIR is to identify the effects of a development on the environment and propose methods to reduce or eliminate those effects. The amended specific plan outlines the project history, provides a policy guideline and development standards for construction of the project. In summarizing the issues and concerns raised at the September 2nd meeting, the following was provided: . . With regard to circulation Exhibit 11.10 will be amended to show First Street as a secondary highway from Pacific Coast Highway to Seal Beach Boulevard. A paragraph under Section II.2e was to be added which states "an alternative solution that could allow First Street to remain as a private road through the single family homes if further study is done on the Regency/Seal Beach Boulevard connection and an implementation plan is prepared and carried out. With regard to financing the project, the specific plan lists several options, with Mello Roos being given most research and comment at this time. With regard to the golf course design, staff recommended a condition be added that requires final golf course design to be presented to property owner to ensure safety from golf balls in flight. Commissioner Suggs felt the Commission should reconsider night lighting in the driving range as it would benefit the income derived from the golf course. Staff felt night lighting was not feasible, however, mitigation measures such as screening, diffused lighting and limiting hours of operation could be employed. Covington reiterated his concern regarding increased traffic/safety of children using the McGaugh School and the need to provide direct routes from the proposed Mola development as it is located near an earthquake fault zone. In answer to Commission's questions, Knight explained the Mola Development would be paying $1 million in school development fees. Chairman Covington declared the public hearing open. Kirk Evans, Mola Company representative, provided background on the development. Sixteen months ago Mola reviewed the Hellman Specific Plan as proposed by the Ponderosa Company and determined it was unsuccessful as it was not economical. Ponderosa had originally 1000 units on 110 acres and because of that they had offered to buy additional Hellman property and dedicate it to the City for a park although permission was never received from the Hellmans and was a contributing factor to the expiration of the tract map. Mola felt, given the environmental restraints of the property, an 18 hole golf course, decreasing the density and increasing the size of the land to be acquired from the Hellman would succeed where the Ponderosa proposal did not. A study session was set up with previous City Manager and Planning Director and City Council which was televised. Residents were invited to listen to the proposal. Mola wold not object to a condition to give residents preferential starting on the golf course. However, Mola felt the golf course should be classified as a recreational amenity to the City. Evans pointed out if the City did not feel that the golf course is a citywide benefit and if the City would prefer park fees, and not give credit the golf course, there could be problem with keeping the golf course public. Hugh Feeley, Leisure World, supported keeping the proposed golf course public rather than private to ensure that those many residents of Seal Beach who play golf have the opportunity to do so. Kirk Evans, Mola Company, indicated Mola has always proposed a public golf course. However, if the City feels that Mola will have to pay park and recreation fees in addition to providing a golf course then Mola . . 2 . will have to consider private rather than public course. He pointed out that a golf course is far more expensive to develop than a park. The American Golf Association is proposing to pay Mola $375,000 per year to lease and manage it while the cost of developing the course far exceeds that amount. Mr. George Kaloian, 1000 Driftwood, recommended the golf course over a community park as it provides recreation to all ages of persons. Kaloian felt the beach area was more than enough park area for this community. Ron Moore, 605 Tapir Drive, did not feel Gum Grove Park is a traditional park used by all the community. Mr. Moore supported the construction of four to six public tennis courts in the project area since the Zoeter courts will be lost. Mr. Paul Sickels, Leisure World resident, spoke in favor of the public golf course to serve this area. John Knopka, 1885 McKinney Way, supported the public golf course proposed by Mola Company. Mr. Knopka indicated the American Golf Association manages Sky Links, Meadowlark and other golf courses successfully. Ed Blair, resident of Seal Beach, strongly supported the public golf course. Brian Bennett, 110 Surf Place, recommended Gum Grove Park be kept and cultivated as a natural wilderness for children and adults who enjoy that park. Mark Riley, 715 Carmel Avenue, felt Gum Grove Park is best served as natural spot where people can bring their children. Donna Jaykill, 805 Avalon, supported the golf course proposal and recommended the course reach Avalon Street eliminating ~ Gum Grove Park. Tom Fashing, 409 Emerald Place, supported the golf course proposal, however, recommended a par 70-72 rather than the par 66 proposed. Mr. Fashing felt a par 66 golf course would not support a private club and would lose revenue as a public course. Rose Berg, Leisure World, strongly supported the golf course proposal. Carl San Filippo, 801 Avalon Drive, supported the golf course. Mr. San Filippo expressed concerns re Gum Grove Park, noise, dust, wildlife, traffic and sewers and water. Knight explained the mitigating measures outlined in the DEIR proposed to eliminate or decrease those concerns. Steve Williamson, 617 Island View Drive, expressed concern regarding the traffic on Bolsa Avenue and felt any decision that encouraged additional traffic on Bolsa should not be made. He supported the preferential starting times for Seal Beach residents, and was against night lighting of the driving range. Walt Sczawinski, 1005 Fathom, felt the developer should be allowed to go forward with his proposal with least amount of government interference. Ken Kroft, 1005 Crestview, adjacent to the entrance to Gum Grove Park, favored the Mola Development for its reduced density and green open spaces. He felt Gum Grove Park has been used both for pleasure and as a nuisance to residences. Since only 28 of the existing trees in the Park are healthy, and irrigation would be necessary to ensure that the Australian borer does not return, the Park may be substantially changed in the future. Kroft felt that erosion had occurred on the park site and should be considered along with City drainage from the Crestview area. Access for City cleanup crews should be considered. Kroft felt . . 3 . Gum Grove Park was a costly park for the majority of the citizens of Seal Beach. Robert Smiley, Leisure World resident, approved and recommended the amended Hellman Specific Plan. Mario Voce, 730 Catalina, would like the entire park preserved as it is now, surrounded by a golf course and including tennis courts. Bill Morris, 1729 Crestview was in agreement with staff recommendation on the security and safety of existing residential homes as it relates to the golf course and was against night lighting as being inappropriate for the area. Howard Proctor, supported the golf course proposal. Sally Hirsch, 1325 Crestview supported Gum Grove Park and recommended against night lighting. Chairman Covington surveyed the audience with following results: To the question should Gum Grove Park reamain as it is now or some reasonable variation of its present state, 18 responded. To the question, how many are against Gum Grove Park in its present state or any variation therefore, 12 responded. To the question, how many are in favor of golf course being public, 46 responded. To the question, how many against a public course, one responded. . To the question, how many in favor of a more traditional green park (not in place of the golf course), 30 responded. To the question, how many against a more traditional park, 13 responded. To the question, how many in favor of a balanced mix of some or all of the individual elements of open space, 30 responded. To the question, how many against, 4 responded. To the question, how many would be willing to pay some modest annual tax in the form of satisfying a bond obligation to achieve one or more of these items, 31 responded. To the question, how many against a bond increment, 12 responded. . Kirk Evans, Mola Company, stated Mola Company wished to achieve all the desires of the City. He reiterated, Mola is desirable of having a public golf course instead of an 8 acre park site or paying the in-lieu park fees. Covington felt one option that exists is to achieve a park site with a bond issue separate from the issue of the golf course. Evans pointed out that the next hurdle is to receive permits from Coastal Commission, U.S. Wildlife, Department of Fish and Game with regard to the wetlands issue. The State has indicated were saltland marshes to be preserved they would be fenced to not allow public access. A majority of the existing Gum Grove Park that is going to be part of the golf course is the parking lot. Evans felt Bolsa Avenue would not be used as a shortcut from residents of the project. Those residents would exit to Coast Highway or Seal Beach Boulevard with a direct access. With regard to the night 4 . lighting at the driving range, Mola would like the opportunity to light, limiting the hours of operation. He stated the City could condition that lights not impact residents and Mola would abide by that condition. During construction, Mola will do everything possible to eliminate the dust and noise and will comply with all conditions within the EIR as far as mitigation measures. The golf course is a preliminary design and homeowners will be taken into consideration so as not to have golf balls entering their property. Mola has talked to the City Manager regarding dedicating the golf course to the public. Before Mello Roos financing can be offered, the golf course must be public. Mello Roos would apply to the Mola property only. Evans felt the green fees were a fair way to make up for any shortfall in bond repayment. Knight explained that none of the costs for any of this proposed project would be borne by the citizens unless it was approved by a vote, that the City would be responsible for retiring the bonds, but it could not look to the citizens for assistance unless it went to a vote. Chairman Covington closed the public hearing at this time. . Knight explained that this process has been continuing for one year. The specific plan says the golf course will be open to the public and State law says the future tentative tract map for this process has to be in conformance with the specific plan. The City would place a condition that states the golf course must be public. Regarding parkland fees, the City has made it clear to Mola that there might be fees involved. The Quimby fees are a later stage in the project and should be discussed at that time, not in conjunction with whether the golf course is public or private. Regarding Mello Roos financing for public improvements on this site, Knight stated Mello Roos was enacted after Prop 13 when cities could not raise their tax rates to pay for public improvements. The developer bears the burden of providing public improvements. Deverloprs have used assessment districts borne by future occupants of those homes or a per unit fee assessment paid upon time of purchase of home that is put into a pool used for building public improvements. Mello Roos uses non-taxable low interest government bonds to fund public improvements directly or indirectly related to that subdivision. The people who receive the benefits of those public improvements retire those bonds. It is less expensive for homeowners.to pay for those improvements over a number of years on their tax bill rather than a one time assessment fee upon purchasing that home. Mello Roos can be used for the golf course and have those residents pay for the golf course. If it was used for the golf course, Knight explained the City would take a serious look at taking over the golf course and retiring the bonds with green fees and eventually owning the golf course rather than have future owners of that property pay for the golf course. Covington questioned the availability of using Mello Roos financing to acquire land that is designated for a regional park but is not proposed for dedication or development and immediate availability. Knight explained that is not . 5 . entirely related to the subdivisiont but would be useful to the subdivision. Covington suggested integrating with the County of Oranget Rockwell Corporationt the Redevelopment Agency itself in acquiring land for a community park. With the consensus of the Commissiont Chairman Covington continued the public hearing on this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on October 7t 1987. Chairman Covington recessed the meeting and reconvened at 10:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-86 - NONCONFORMING DISASTER CLAUSE Knight reported the Commission closed the public hearing on August 25t 1987 and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance reflecting the Commission's action. Staff therefore presented the draft ordinance recommending approval by adoption of Resolution #1473. . Staff discussed the draft ordinance in detail. Knight made it clear that this amendment only applies to legal nonconforming unitst that it has nothing to do with rebuilding of bootlegged units. With regard to Bl and B2t checks and balances are within the ordinance that control the rebuilding potential. Under general provisionst staff has addressed the Commission's concerns without putting a quantitative amount on it. Through the conditional use permit processt the Planning Commission will have the ability to balance each case separately. Section 3D talks about the use permit or plan review becoming null and void if it isn't carried out. Section 3E talks about the sunset clause reaching 60 years of age and also provides that those structures 50 years or greater can come before the Commission and have time period extended if certain findings are madet i.e.t structurally sound. Covington felt this clause would help financing problems which owners had experienced. Covington suggested a designation of historic structures should be addressed. Knight indicated that owner could apply for conditional use permit for a historical structure. He would research to ensure that historical CUP will supercede this clause. Section 3F talks about the use of replacement valuet defines what replacement value iSt ie. valuation tables used at the time of the disaster by the Department of Development Services. This section also provides the hiring of a licensed appraiser if the homeowner was not content with Development Services valuation. Commission agreed to adding wording "By licensed appraiser selected and paid for by the owner and subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services". The last section speaks to the owners of a nonconforming building requesting special investigation regarding structural integritYt subject to a fee for both internal and external inspection. The Department of Development Services will then issue a statement of finding certifying the structure as legal nonconforming property. Staff feels this would be very beneficial to the property owners to do thist but does not recommend that it be mandatory. The Council directed staff to . 6 . look at nonresidential units at this time also, therefore Knight fully explained that section which will be included in the draft ordinance. Commission suggested all fractional "units" to be included in both lD and 2D of the draft ordinance. Jessner determined that on a 117.5 x 25' lot, the maximum number of units that could be rebuilt was three; for a 100' x 25' lot, the maximum number is two units; on a 37.5 x 117.5,' four units could be rebuilt and on a 37.5' x 100' lot, three units maximum could be rebuilt. Knight suggested changing 3b to add "the applicable zoning district" in place of "this Chapter". Under 3(e), last paragraph on page 2, Commission inserted the words "through a plan review process." Page 3 (c), Jessner suggests adding paragraph "If a property owner chose not to use this course of action, it shall be their burden of proof to establish the lawful existence of number of units by presentation before the Planning Commission." Covington suggests adding word "voluntary" before "may" in the first sentence on page 3(c). It was the consenus of the Commission that the Council make this new ordinance known to all affected property owners to apprise them of this zoning text amendment. Commissioner Jessner moved to approve Resolution #1437 with changes as noted previously; Rullo seconds. . AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried SCHEDULED MATTERS AB 2020 is recycling law that was adopted last year through an initiative process and then adopted also through the legislature. It requires convenient zones and within those convenient zones certain recycling facilties have to be provided. The City cannot deny these permits, but it can prepare a zone text to regulate them. Staff requested Commission to initiate the zone text amendment to then hold a public hearing and prepare draft ordinance. With the consent of the Commisison, staff is directed to prepare such an amendment. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none at this time. STAFF CONCERNS There were none at this time. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were none at this time. . ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of September 16, 1987 at 11:07 p.m. 7 . THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. . . 8