Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-12-08 #R December 8, 2003 I STAFF REPORT 66) , To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ,/� A 1 0 Attention: John B. Bahorski, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services \1 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 & CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: CITY OF SEAL BEACH Owner: NOT APPLICABLE Location: ENTIRE CITY (GENERAL PLAN) Classification of VARYING DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE CITY. Property: Request: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 AND THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Environmental Review: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 ACCOMPANIES THE REQUEST. Code Sections: ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 AND THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FACTS • The City of Seal Beach has a series of adopted General Plan elements, including some mandated under state law. The Elements of the City's General Plan are as follows: Land Use, Open Space /Recreation/Conservation, Bicycle, Housing, Circulation, Seismic & Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways, Growth Management, and Cultural Resources. The-City has also adopted a series of specific plans. AGENDA ITEM A' Z. \My Documents \GENPLAN \CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP.doc \LW \12 -03 -03 1 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 • The proposed re -write of the General Plan affects the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space /Recreation/Conservation, Seismic & Safety, Noise, and Growth Management. • The Local Coastal Program has been drafted to allow the City permitting authority over various areas of the Coastal Zone, and sets forth goals and policies to help protect coastal resources within the City. However, due to ongoing discussions with the California Coastal Commission, the Local Coastal Program has been held back and is not before the City Council at this time. The Planning Commission will need to consider this matter after staff discussions with the Coastal Commission have been completed. • The subject area of the General Plan is the Entire City. • A City Council appointed Ad Hoc Committee met several times over the course of the summer to provide input and review /discuss the various elements of the proposed General Plan & Local Coastal Program. The proposed elements reflect the consensus of this Committee. Copies of the minutes of the committee meetings are provided as attachment 6 to the Planning Commission Staff Report of September 17, 2003. 1 DISCUSSION • Overview of Proposed General Plan: The General Plan is essentially the governing document of all future development within the City. This includes where development will occur, at what density -that development will be, etc. The General Plan includes sections which address where the roadways & public transit will be located, and other issues of public concern, such as noise, safety, and growth management. The only non -state mandated element within the General Plan that is being revised in this proposal is the Cultural Resources element, which addresses the sensitive nature of cultural resources which the City takes much pride in preserving /maintaining. These resources have been and always will be important to the City's heritage and continue to play an important part in decision making within the General Plan. A description of each element follows this section of the staff report. The main question that usually arises when this type of project is undertaken relates to whether or not various land uses are changing and what effects these changes will have on the surrounding residential areas. The proposed General Plan update will not change any land uses and will not increase any densities of development. The primary purpose for doing this update is that each of the elements of the General Plan were adopted separately and each has been amended over time with various language changes to reflect various project approvals. This creates a situation where the document does not flow and is not as cohesive as would be envisioned for this type of document. As such, the primary goal of this project is to create a General Plan that reflects the long term goals and beliefs of the citizens of the City of Seal Beach with respect to future development within the City. Further, as no material changes are being incorporated (with some minor exceptions to reflect changes in state laws in certain areas), the CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 2 City Council Su ff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 concept is to have a document where the average citizen will be able to come to City Hall, look at the document, and understand the long range goals and policies of the City in the various elements. Within each element of the General Plan, various goals and policies are put into place which help the City and future applicants for development projects understand the vision of the City with respect to the area that the goal is covering. These goals are not specific in manner. For example, the zoning portion of the Municipal Code has specific standards which must be met in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. These might include specific setbacks or height standards. In the General Plan, the policies are far more broad and overarching. These policies set the framework for which the implementing ordinance or Municipal Code can rely on to put into practice the goal and set a tangible standard that an applicant must meet in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. State law sets forth that the General Plan is the comprehensive, long -term guide for the future physical development within the City of Seal Beach. There is essentially a hierarchy of development guidelines. First is the General Plan. This document presents all of the long -range goals and policies for the future development of the City. Next is the aforementioned Municipal Code, which sets tangible standards by which the public at large must meet in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. As such, general comments about requiring more parking on a commercial project is better described in a change to the zoning ordinance, while a change in the manner in which the city handles traffic flow along a certain route (i.e., changing from a 2 lane road to a 6 land highway) would be addressed in the General Plan. Typically, the Municipal Code and the General Plan are consistent. Overview of the various elements of the General Plan: Land Use: This element designates the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of land uses within the City. It is the guide for decision making by public and private sectors to direct the growth of new construction and modernization of existing development. The goals and policies contained in this Element reflect the status of the City as nearly built -out and strive to maintain the City's character, while allowing for additional Specific Plan development to enhance and support the existing residential and commercial areas. Open Space/Recreation /Conservation: • This element combines three topical areas to define those areas within the City that support recreation, open space, and conservation uses. These three areas are closely related in providing the community with opportunities to enjoy diverse outdoor activities, in addition to managing and protecting natural resources. It also provides an updated discussion regarding conservation issues such as water quality, beach erosion, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and natural resources. CC Staff Report - Nea Dec and GP 3 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 Safety Element: This element's purpose is to put into place goals and policies to help reduce loss of life, injury, damage to property, and the effects of future natural and man-made hazards. In order to achieve these objectives, the plans and programs the City utilizes must be updated regularly to ensure that the most currently available information is the basis for such protection and prevention. Community -wide emergency planning and preparedness is an essential ingredient in promoting effective and intelligent responses to the wide variety of safety hazards. Noise: This element provides information to be used as a guideline for development and land use policies in the future. It also identifies areas of noise sensitive land uses and noise sources for the purpose of developing programs to ensure that residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The major noise contributors in the City of Seal Beach are transportation related. Freeways, major arterials, and collector roadways bring additional traffic to and through the City. The proximity of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base also results in noise from military aircraft overflights. The updated Noise Element provides goals, objectives and an implementation plan for the control and management of noise. Cultural Resources: This element discusses the purpose and function of preserving archaeological and historical resources. It also sets policies and procedures for protection and preservation of those resources. The discovery of archaeological and pale ontological artifacts during new development must be the subject of continuing consideration. No existing policies have been eliminated. However, the existing Cultural Resources Guidelines and Procedures have been relocated to the Appendix to provide a more logical and user friendly document. The policies have been included in order to ensure that immediate response and protection can be afforded these resources until the proper authorities can determine disposition. Growth Management: The purpose of this Element is to ensure that growth and development are based on the City's ability to provide an adequate traffic circulation system, public services, and facilities in order to maintain desirable levels of service standards. The' draft Element is consistent with the SCAG Growth Management Plan, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, and Measure M. Implementation of the goals and policies stated in this Element provide a means for inter - jurisdictional coordination/cooperation to fully address growth management concerns. Circulation: This element's objective is to outline plans and policies for the maintenance and ongoing development of a comprehensive circulation network throughout the City and the surrounding area. It is consistent with the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Highways and Congestion Management Plan and the County's Growth Management Plan and Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways to ensure regional goals and policies are met. Compliance CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 4 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 • with the Growth Management Plan, a requirement of Measure M, allows participation in the regional funding of transportation projects within the City. Housing: The housing element is not part of this request. It will come before the Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date. Overview of Proposed Negative Declaration: The negative declaration evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the "project" under CEQA. For the purposes of CEQA, the "project" is the adoption of the new general plan, and the CEQA document must analyze the environmental impacts associated with this change in development goals, policies, and standards. To the extent that there are environmental impacts from the "project," under CEQA, those impacts must be considered, and where possible mitigated. As the Lead Agency in this project, the City staff released for public comment a Negative Declaration, which indicates that no environmental impacts will be associated with the adoption of the proposed General Plan update. This determination was made after completing an Initial Study, and making findings that the "project" would not have any environmental impacts. - These findings are principally based on the fact that there are no material changes to the General Plan that would have an adverse environmental impact or a "significant" impact under CEQA. As such, no mitigation measures are being proposed. Please ,refer to attachment 5 of the September 17, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report to review the responses of the City to comments received during the Public Comment period regarding the negative declaration. Planning Commission Recommendations: The Planning Commission conducted public hearing on these matters on September 17, October 22, and November 5, 2003. At the conclusion of their public hearings the Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration 03 -1 and the proposed General Plan revision, including the revisions to the General Plan set forth within "Exhibit A, Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan" of Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -34. 1 RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the City Council, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing adopt resolutions that will take the following actions: ❑ Adopt Negative Declaration 03 -1 - C3 Adopt the proposed revision to the General Plan. These recommendations are based on the following findings: Negative Declaration: 1. Based upon the evidence presented, including the initial study, the negative declaration, any comments received thereon, and oral and written testimony, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration adequately discloses the potential environmental CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 5 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 impacts of the proposed revised General Plan, no new substantial adverse environmental impacts will result upon the approval of the subject project, and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City and the City Council. . 2. There are no substantive changes to the existing General Plan document which would cause environmental impacts which would be classified as "significant" under CEQA. 3. The project will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The City Council additionally makes the findings contained in the "Certificate of Fee Exemption," attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are available for public review in the Planning Department located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Planning and Community Development as the custodian of records for these documents. General Plan: 1. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the City, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of the City. 2. The proposed update to the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach will not be detrimental to the short term or long term goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as amended. NOTED A► D APPROVE& �� 0 / . � .1 f Ir Whi P n b erg ` . i r e ctor of Development Servic- Jo : : ahorski : C Manager - Attachments: (7) . Attachment 1: Resolution No. , A Resolution of the City Council of the . City of Seal Beach Adopting Negative Declaration 03 -1 in CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 6 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 conjunction with the Adoption of the City of Seal Beach General Plan Attachment 2: Resolution No. , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Adopting the Proposed Revisions to the • General Plan Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes of September 17, October 22, and November 5, 2003 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report re: Draft General Plan — Recommended Staff Revision, dated November 5, 2003 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration 03 -1, City of Seal Beach General Plan & local Coastal Program, dated September 17, 2003 Attachment 6: Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -1 (Previously provided to the City Council) Attachment 7: Draft General Plan (Previously provided to the City Council) CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 7 , City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 1 • RESOLUTION NUMBER , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 8 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption 'of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADOPTION .OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the City has prepared a "Proposed Initial Study and Negative Declaration 03 -1, City of Seal Beach General Plan and City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program ". The proposed project will set forth goals and policies for the city (General Plan) with regard to the general development within the City so as to provide for the orderly development thereof and the protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general citizenry; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared and circulated an Initial Environmental Assessment and proposed Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The comment period on Negative Declaration 03 -1 ended on August 27, 2003. As of August 27, 2003, the City has received 6 responses to the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS the City has prepared a "Response to Comments" document determining that all issues raised during the public comment period have been evaluated and no significant impacts have been raised; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2003 and continued to October 22 and November 5, to consider Negative Declaration 03 -1 and the requested adoption of the updated General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received into evidence the Staff Report of September 17, 2003, along with all attachments thereto, a Supplemental Staff Report dated November 5, 2003, and considered all public testimony presented; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 03 -34 on November 5, 2003 recommending adoption of Negative Declaration of Negative Declaration 03 -1 by the City Council, and CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 9 • City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on December 8, 2003 to consider Negative Declaration 03 -1 and the requested adoption of the updated General Plan; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council made the following findings regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1: 1. Based upon the evidence presented, including the initial study, the negative declaration, any comments received thereon, and oral and written testimony, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration adequately discloses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed revised General Plan, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will result upon the approval of the subject project, and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. 2. There are no substantive changes to the existing General Plan document which would cause environmental impacts which would be classified as "significant" under CEQA. 3. The project will not have an adverse effect, either - individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The City Council additionally makes the findings contained in the "Certificate of Fee Exemption," attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are available for public review in the Planning Department located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Planning and Community Development as the custodian of records for these documents. 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts Negative Declaration 03 -1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers • CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 10 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding- Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers . Mayor ATTEST: . City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } • I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003. City Clerk CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 11 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 EXHIBIT A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title /Location Name and Address of Project Proponent (include county): REVISIONS TO GENERAL PLAN City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street - Seal Beach, CA 90740 Orange County Project Description: This project is the adoption of a periodic revision of the City's general plan. The General Plan is a comprehensive, long -term plan for the physical development of the city. . An initial study and negative declaration have been completed for this project. When considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before the agency that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Findings of Exemption: The City, as lead agency, prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed project, which concluded that the project would have no significant direct or indirect adverse effects on plant or animal life or the habitat upon which they depend. The City declares that, when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City to indicate that the proposed project will have the potential for significant adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of substantial evidence, the City has rebutted the presumption of adverse impact to wildlife resources contained in Title 14, Section 753.5 (d), of the California Code of Regulations. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 12 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 Lee Whittenberg Director of Development Services Lead Agency: City of Seal Beach Date: CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 13 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NUMBER , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN CC State Report - Neg Dcc and GP 14 City Council Staff R'eport re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach has been reviewing and considering revising the General Plan for some time. As monies became available, the City staff proceeded, under City Council direction, to draft the proposed revisions to the elements of the General Plan. Those elements were presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15070, the City Council determines as follows: The application for adoption of an updated General Plan is adequately addressed through Negative Declaration 03 -1. Section 3. The Planning Commission held public hearings on September 17, October 22 and November 5, 2003 regarding the adoption of a revised General Plan, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 03 -40 on November 5, 2003, recommending adoption of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, dated July 2003, including the revisions to the General Plan set forth within "Exhibit A, Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan". Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on December 8, 2003 to consider the requested adoption of the updated General Plan; and Section 5. The record of the public hearing before the City Council indicates the following: a. The City of Seal Beach has been reviewing and considering revising the General Plan for some time for some time. As monies became available, the City staff proceeded, under City Council direction, to draft the proposed revisions to the elements of the General Plan. Those elements were presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April . and June, 2003. b. Specifically, the City is attempting to rewrite its general• policies for development within the City of Seal Beach and create a comprehensive document which puts forth the goals and policies to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Seal Beach. CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 15 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 c. The proposed project encompasses the entire City and will therefore affect the entire City. However, the General Plan is broken into elements, which may or may not have specific goals and policies for specific areas of the City. Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §3, 4 and 5 of this resolution, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The arnended General Plan will comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City. 2. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the City, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of the City. 3. The proposed update to the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach will not be detrimental to the short term or long term goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare 4. The proposed General Plan amendments are consistent with the goals, policies and standards of all elements of the General Plan and will further those goals, policies and standards. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council adopts the City of Seal Beach General Plan, dated July 2003, including the revisions to the General Plan set forth within "Exhibit A, Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan". The City Council furthers requests staff to incorporate all revisions set forth within "Exhibit A, Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan" into the final printed and electronic versions of the adopted General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Mayor CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 16 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, ,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003. City Clerk CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 17 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 EXHIBIT A STAFF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN The following revisions to the "Draft General Plan of the City of Seal Beach ", dated July 2003, are recommended by the Planning Commission for consideration by the City Council at a future public hearing: General Revision to Entire Document: 1. All references to Tables and Figures in the General Plan shall use the designation for the appropriate Element to reflect the following reference system: ❑ All Table references shall be "(Element Designation)- (Table Number)" ❑ All Figure references shall be "(Element Designation) - (Figure Number) ". Land Use Element: 1.. Delete bullet number 4, Specific Plans - "State Lands Specific Plan", page LU -7. This bullet should be deleted as the State Lands Specific Plan was•superceded by the adoption of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan by City Council Ordinance No. 1420 on October 27, 1997, and the "State Lands Property" was incorporated into the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan as "Planning Area 6 — Visitor Serving Recreational /Commercial ". 2. Delete "State Lands Specific Plan" discussion on page LU -13. This discussion should be deleted as the State Lands Specific Plan was superceded by the adoption of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan by City Council Ordinance No. 1420 on October 27, 1997, and the "State Lands Property" was incorporated into the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan as "Planning Area 6 — Visitor Serving Recreational/Commercial ". 3. Revise "Figure LU -2, Planning Area 2 Land Use Map" on page LU -15 to reflect the land uses permitted under the approved California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area. These changes are generally described as follows: ❑ Heron Pointe residential development area designated Low Density Residential ❑ Gum Grove Park area designated "Open Space" ❑ State Lands Property is designated "Commercial Service" ❑ 100 -acre wetland dedication area is designated "Open Space" ❑ 50 -acre oil extraction area id designated "Industrial — Oil Extraction" 4. Revise the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan" on page LU -16 to read as follows, with the following sentences of this paragraph formatted as a separate, following paragraph CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 18 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 "The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan consists of twevierntiltrareas five Conservation Planning Areas and five Development Planning Areas. The current provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. The City will work with the property owner to have an amended Hellman Ranch Specific Pan submitted for consideration that is consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit within 12 months after adoption of the General Plan." 5. Revise the first sentence under "• Single - Family Residential" on page LU -16 to read as follows: "The Hellman Specific Plan consists of a single - family residential gated community, that allows for pedestrian access into the community, situated along the eastern portion of the specific plan area along Seal Beach Boulevard." 6. Revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under ". Single - Family Residential" on page LU -17 to read as follows: "This residential community is set back _ _, - - = : = __ __ __ _ - __ ._ =_ - - - - - =_ = a minimum of 260 feet from the nearest jurisdictional wetland area." 7. Delete "• Saltwater Marsh Wetlands" and "• Freshwater Wetland Habitat" sections on page LU -17 in their entirety and replace with the following language: ". Possible Restored Wetlands A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area has been deed restricted by the terms and conditions of an approved Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission for 25 ears for sale at fair - market value to a public a • enc for the purposes of wetlands restoration. open space, and environmental education purposes. The lowlands area of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area contains approximately 27 acres of delineated, albeit severel de • raded wetlands and these existin . wetlands will form the basis for future restoration plans. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarly restricted, although the 25 -year period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. These areas will comprise a portion of a contemplated restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetland Complex and could lead to the eventual • restoration of tidal and non -tidal wetlands along the Long Beach /Seal Beach coastline." CC Staff Report - Neg Dec: and GP 19 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 8. Revise the paragraph following "• Public Access" on page LU -18 to read as follows: "A staging area and public parking for access to the el.t - a`er -----'' aten possible restored wetland area is provided in conjunction with public benefit uses at Pacific Coast Highway and First Street. _ - :_ __: - _ = = A pedestrian/bicycle trail link is also provided to the San Gabriel River trail, providing regional access to the area. Public access to Gum Grove Park is provided at Avalon Street and Seal Beach Boulevard." 9. Revise the paragraph following "• Flood Control Retention Basin" on page LU -18 to read as follows: "The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) operates the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The basin's function is to accommodate runoff from the surrounding watershed. The retarding basin also serves as a habitat for various bird species although the habitat value is very low. 10. Revise the 4th sentence of the paragraph following "• Oil Resources Production" on page LU -18 to read as follows: "The oil production areas shall be landscaped, screened, and properly buffered from other uses on the site in accordance with the provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan." 11. Revise the paragraph following "• California Coastal Act Compliance" on page LU -19 to read as follows: "The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan is situated within the Coastal Zone Boundary and a coastal develo ment • ermit has been issued b the alifornia Coastal Commission that approved a project that is in compliance with the goals and policies established in the Coastal Act of 1976. Implementation of theme proiect approved by the Coastal Commission is intended to result in the potential future restoration of a degraded saltwater marsh wetlands environment, : - -_ -- - .- - -_ _ _ _ _ _ :__ _ , increased emphasis on visitor - serving uses, increased public access and recreational opportunities, and increased public open space. The current provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. The City will work with the property owner to have an amended Hellman Ranch Specific Pan submitted for consideration that is consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit within 12 months after adoption of the General Plan." 12. Revise "Figure LU -5, Planning Area 5 Land Use Map" on page LU -27 to reflect the land uses permitted under the approved California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area as generally described in Revision Number 3, above. CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 20 • City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 13. Delete "State Lands Specific Plan" and the following discussion on page LU -35 and LU -36. This section should be deleted as the State Lands Specific Plan was superceded by the adoption of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan by City Council Ordinance No. 1420 on October 27, 1997, and the "State Lands Property" was incorporated into the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan as "Planning Area 6 — Visitor Serving Recreational /Commercial ". 14. Add a final bullet point under "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan" on page LU -37 to read as follows: "• Allow for the continued operation of oil extraction facilities on the property until such production ceases and the terms of the existing deed restriction are implemented." 15. Revise "Figure LU -6, City of Seal Beach Land Use Map" on page LU -43 to reflect the land uses permitted under the approved California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area as generally described in Revision Number 3, above. 16. Revise "Table LU -2, Land Use Summary Table ", on page LU -45 to read as follows regarding the "Industrial — Oil Extraction ", "Open Space — Open Space ", and "Open Space — Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge" columns: Proposed/ Designation Developed Undeveloped Total Acres (acres) (acres)' Industrial Oil Extraction 4=44A 50.0 0.0 19.2* 50.0 Open Space Open Space 0.0 485.0 85.0 @ 85.0 Wetlands & 100.0 900.0 - 1,000.0 - Wildlife Refuge 17. Revise "Table LU -3, Aggregated Land Use Categories ", on page LU -46 for "Planning Area 2 (PA -2)" to read as follows regarding "Open Space" and "Industrial — Oil • Extraction ", and add an "Open Space — Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge" column to read as follows: - Land Use Category Acres % of Total Planning Area 2 (PA 2) CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 21 • City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 Open Space 44=14 9.3 x$1.9% Commercial - General (0.8 4=Azu 0.2% Open Space - Wetlands 100.0 20.0% Industrial - Oil Extraction 4 50.0 2 79 9 % 10.0% 18. Revise "Table LU -3, Aggregated Land Use Categories ", on page LU - for "CITY OF SEAL BEACH" to read the same as "Table LU -2, Land Use Summary Table ", on page LU -45, as revised pursuant to revision number 16 above. 19. Delete first paragraph under "Public Uses" on page LU -61 that reads as follows: " _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.__ -_ - _- .__..__ • _ _ _ - - - --c -r _ te • - -: - -:- =- • .-- v-- -�-- -�_-- :;-_ -� == _ _ -- _-- ---- -- :-- c-- --:- -- ..- c :;- :- --. " 20. Revise the paragraphs under "Proposed Parks and Open Space" on pages LU -62 and LU -63, to read as follows: - - - - - •- - - - - • - - - - - - - _ - _ . - _ - - == -: _ : - • ._ _ -• . The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)_operates the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The basin's function is to accommodate runoff from the surrounding watershed. The retarding basin also serves as a habitat for various bird species, although the habitat value is very low." Adjacent to and south of the Flood Control basin is the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, -: - _ _ : -. _ : _ =_ _:: _ • _ :_ :: _ - _ ::_ _ rest.oratieft-A 100 -acre portion of this area has been deed restricted for 25 ear for sale at fair -m • rket value to a • ublic a • enc for the • ur • oses of wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education ur oses. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarly restricted, although the 25- ey ar period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. • Existing Wetlands In 1972, the United States Congress established the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The refuge contains 911 acres of marshland and 560 acres outside the slough area, which were restored to their natural condition. This wetland area is inhabited by more than 100 species of birds and 60 species of fish. The Naval Weapons Station has developed a wildlife management program for the protection and conservation of this ecosystem. The lowlands area of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area contains a 1 • roximatel 27 acres of delineated albeit severel de ' raded wetlands and these existing wetlands will form the basis for future restoration plans. CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP - 22 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 Possible Wetlands Restoration • ` :-= _— .-== _--= = - - -_- - -_ - -- - - -_ _. - - - - =- :- _- :- = - = - -:- : - -- _ —_ - . -_ - - - _ • : _ ..:. - : - -- _ : _ - '- - :: _ -- • : _ : - : • --. __ : - -. A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area has been deed restricted for 25 years for sale at fair- market value to a public agency for the purposes of wetlands restoration, Open space, and environmental education purposes. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarly restricted, althou h the 25 -year • eriod does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. These areas will comprise a portion of a contemplated restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetland Complex and could lead to the eventual restoration of tidal and non -tidal wetlands along the Long Beach/Seal Beach coastline." 21. Delete the following language under the "Implementation - Redevelopment Agency" section, page LU -69: • d _ - - r : -- -- c c == - - _ --- - ' O - c :. - _ - -_- : -- - - c: -- • • .,' n - a : o • • CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 23 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 • • - - - - - • ,, - - 22. Delete Figure "LU -10, State Lands Specific Plan" on page LU -74, and renumber "Figure LU -11, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan ", on page LU -75, and "Figure LU -12, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Specific Plan ", on page LU -75, to Figure LU -10 and LU -11, respectively. Revise page numbers as appropriate. 23. Revise new Figure "LU -10, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan", on new page LU -74 to accurately reflect the boundaries of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, as indicated on Figure No. 3 -2, "Local Area Map, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan", page No. 3 -3, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. Circulation Element: 1. Revise the "List of Figures" on page C -ii to delete "Figure 16, City of Seal Beach General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections"; re- number all following Figures and page numbers in the "List of Figures" appropriately 2. Revise the following language under the "Future Circulation Recommendations" section 3, on page C -3 to read as follows: "- Seal Beach Boulevard (NS) at Westminster Avenue (EW): - Northbound Left Turn Lane and Three Through Lanes" 3. Revise discussion under "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ", on page C -9 to read as follows: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---------------- _ = =: _. - _ _ :: - . ._ - — - : _ _: -. : _ :: _ _ _ =_ _ ::-. All Tables and Fi . ures in the Circulation Element reflect information obtained b conducting a detailed traffic analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates in March 2003 for the City. Where daily traffic counts were not available and where peak hour counts were available, daily traffic counts were estimated by Kunzman Associates from the peak hour counts." 4. Revise "Table C -1, Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios" on page C -10 to read as follows: Roadway Segment of Capacity ADT V/C LOS CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 24 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 Lanes Ratio Seal Beach Bradbury 6D 56,300 35,100 0.62 B Blvd. p Way to St. Cloud Dr. 5. Revise "Table C -2, Roadway Capacities" on page C -12 by adding a "Note" to read as follows: "Note: These are generalized capacities, to be used for planningpurposes only, and do not consider specific measures such as peak hour factors." 6. Revise "Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways" on page C -13 and C -14 by deleting the last sentence of the following paragraph. The sentence to be deleted reads as follows: -- - - - 7. Delete "Figure 16, City of Seal Beach General Plan Roadway Cross - Sections ", on page C -29 and re- number all following Figures and page numbers in the Circulation Element appropriately. Open Space/Recreation /Conservation Element: 1. Revise the paragraph following "Natural Resource Land" on page OS -8 to read as follows: "Areas within the City have been designated for the preservation of natural resources. Natural resource areas would include land set aside for the preservation of plant and animal life, areas required for ecological and other scientific purposes, bays and estuaries and coastal beaches. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge habitats are typical of this category. A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch S • ecific Plan area has been deed restricted for 25 ears for sale at fair - market value to a • ublic a enc for the • ur . ose of wetlands restoration open space, and environmental education purppses. The adjacent oil roduction ' ro • e a • s roximatel 50 acres has been similarl restricted although the 25 -year period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities." 2. Revise Table OS -1, on page OS -9, "Parks /Open Space" to add the following information to Planning Area 2 and 4 as follows: Planning Name Acreage Use Designation Area PA 2 Heron Pointe Park • 0,2 NP CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 25 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 PA 4 Old Ranch Neighborhood 2.2 NP Park Beaches 6290 80.3 RB 3. Revise the fourth sentence of the paragraph on page OS -10 to read as follows: "However, the City benefits from non - Quimby Act recreational amenities within its boundaries, including 80.3 acres of beaches, the 28 -acre Sunset Marina Park which is operated by the County, and the National Wildlife Refuge within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, each of which provides unique regional recreational opportunities." 4. Revise Figure OS -1, Existing Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Areas" on page OS -14 to include a graphic representation and numerical reference to "Old Ranch Neighborhood Park ". 5. Revise the language regarding "Planning Area 2 — Hellman Ranch/Marina Hill /Boeing" on pages OS -13 and OS -15 to read as follows: "Existing Parks • Gum Grove Park Nature Park (14.9 acres) • McGaugh Gym, Pool/Park (4.7 acres) Gum Grove Park contains a dense grove of over 800 eucalyptus trees. This park, which will be extended to Seal Beach Boulevard as part of the Hellman Ranch project, itas4eeri will be dedicated to the City for the enjoyment of the residents of the community. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan provides for potential additional recreation/open space areas that wi44 may be developed as part of the total planned community. These areas /uses include: • Los Alamitos Retarding Basin — 34.7 acres retarding basin/open space. • Hellman Ranch Lowlands — 100 acres on Hellman Ranch for future restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. • Oil Production Acreage — approximately 50 acres on the Hellman Ranch that is currently used for oil production operations for future restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes upon the cessation of all mineral production activities. distribution was dccd rcstrictcd by the Coastal Commission pcnnit condition3 -fef future wetlands restoratiee, epcn space, and environmental education purposes, CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 26 • City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 A pedestrian trail is planned to link to the Class I San Gabriel River Trail through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power property adjacent to the west boundary of the Specific Plan site." 6. Revise "Planning Area 4 - College Park" on page OS -15 to add "Old Ranch Neighborhood Park (2.2 acres)" as the last bullet point under the "Existing Parks" category". 7. Revise the third, fourth and fifth sentences in the first paragraph following "Forests" on page OS -26 and OS -27 to read as follows: - "In the early 1900's, merrthers-efttere Hellman Ranch employees planted blue and red gum eucalyptus trees that were used for cooking and heating purposes. Since then, the second and third growth forest of approximately 500 trees has become a natural resource area that is now used for passive recreation. Gum Grove Nature Park iteMoeert will be dedicated to the City as part of the development outlined in the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan." 8. Revise the paragraph following "Wetlands" on page OS -28 to read as follows: ".— ee _- _- _ - - _- �- = = _ _ -_— _ -___ -- - • - .. A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area has been deed restricted for 25 years for sale at fair - market value to a public agency for the purposes of wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarl restricted althou h the 25- ear deed - restricted time period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. It is the intent and goal of the City to address future uses for his -arcs these areas and cooperate with the property owner, state, local, and private agencies, as well as the community, to provide the means to accomplish this goal." Safety Element: 1. Revise Policy 6D on page S -79 to read as follows: "6D. Enforce current building setback standards on local beaches to prevent exposure of structures to large sea waves of seismic or storm origin." CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 27 • City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 2. Revise the second bullet point under "Development Services Department/Engineering Department" on page S -82 to read as follows: Maintain • and update as appropriate a Master Plan of Drainage for the entire City, providing for a minimum protection objective of 25 -year flood through the use of flood water conveyances, retention and holding facilities, including a prioritization of projects." 3. Revise the third bullet point under "Development Services Department/Engineering Department" on page S -83 to read as follows: "- Maintain and update as appropriate Areparitir an information pamphlet on flood hazard and protection measures." 4. Revise the second bullet point under "Police Department (in cooperation with Fire Authority)" on page S -83 to read as follows: Maintaining the Emergency Operations Center, ' 5. Revise the ninth bullet point on page S -85 to read as follows: "Enforce current building setback standards from beaches and bluff tops." 6. Revise the fifth bullet point under "Engineering Department" on page S -85 to read as follows: "Provide for ongoing maintenance and inspections of all public drainage facilities and remind encourage property owners to maintain private drainage structures." Growth Management Element: 1. Revise Policy 2.9 on page GM -13 to read as follows: "Policy 2.9 — A seven -year capital improvement program shall be adopted and maintained in conformance with the provisions of Measure M for the purpose of maintaining adopted level of service standards established in this Element. The City currently priwities adopts a seven -year capital improvement program for Measure M funded programs and projects and a 5 -year Capital Improvement Program/Budget for non - Measure M funded projects." 2. Revise the second paragraph under "Capital Improvement Program" on page GM -18 to read as follows: "The City will determine the capital project needed to meet and maintain the City's adopted traffic level of service and performance standards. Capital; financing programming will be based on proposed development to be constructed during (at a CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 28 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 minimum) the following seven year period. " — • = :: _ - : - = = : =- -- * * * * CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 29 I I • City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 3 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, OCTOBER 22, AND NOVEMBER 5, 2003 CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 30 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2003 1 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 3 NOES: None 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03 -33 begins a 10 -day calendar 7 appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the 8 appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 9 10 11 3. Conditional Use Permit 03 -5 12 12489 Seal Beach Boulevard (Marie Callender's Restaurant) 13 14 Applicant/Owner: Bob Barger /J. Brian Gibbons 15 Request: Interior remodel with a proposed 684 square foot addition to 16 the existing restaurant, a proposed 880 square foot open 17 outdoor patio dining area, a proposed 290 square foot 18 covered patio dining area, a proposed 296 square foot 19 service yard area, a proposed . 332 square foot front 20 porch /entry area, and to change the existing on -sale beer 21 and wine license to an on -sale general license. 22 23 Recommendation: To be continued to October 8, 2003. 25 Public Hearing 26 27 Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. 28 29 Mr. Abbe recommended that if any member of the public present tonight desires to 30 speak on this item that they be given the opportunity to do so tonight. 31 32 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to continue Conditional Use Permit 03 -5 to 33 the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2003. 34 35 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 36 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 37 NOES: None 38 ABSENT: None 39 40 . 41 4. Negative Declaration 03 -1 42 City of Seal Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Program _ 43 Citywide (General Plan) Coastal Zone (Local Coastal Program) 44 45 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach . Page 7 of 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2003 Request: Adopt resolutions recommending that City Council adopt: _ The Draft Negative Declaration, The General Plan 3 Amendment, and the proposed Local Coastal Program. 4 5 Recommendation: Approval by adoption of Resolution Nos. 03 -34, 03 -40, and 6 03 -41. 7 8 Staff Report 9 10 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 11 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 12 noted that the City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan (GP) and 13 adopting a Local Coastal Program (LCP). He said that when the City adopts these . 14 types of documents the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is the State 15 environmental legislation, takes effect and requires environmental review, which is why 16 a Negative Declaration was completed. He stated that the Planning Commission (PC) 17 would serve as a recommending body to the City Council (CC) on these three 18 documents. As such, the PC will adopt resolutions either recommending approval or 19 approval with some changes or denial of the documents. Mr. Cummins recommended 20 that the PC first consider the GP, followed by the Negative Declaration (ND). He 21 introduced Ms. Andi Culbertson of Culbertson Adams & Associates (CAA), the City - 22 selected firm for consulting on this project and noted that Ms. Culbertson would provide 23 a brief review of the various elements in the GP followed by review the ND. For the LCP, Staff recommends that the Commission not take any public testimony tonight and 25 any discussion be held until the October 22, 2003 PC meeting pending further revisions 26 on the document. 27 28 General Plan (GP): 29 30 Mr. Cummins described the GP as the principal governing document for the City as it 31 relates to development and future development. He stated that the current GP is very 32 lengthy and difficult for the general public to comprehend. He said that each of the 33 Elements within the GP was individually adopted over time, and the complete GP has 34 never been adopted comprehensively as one document, making comprehension of the 35 GP difficult. He emphasized that the principal goal is to provide a document that can 36 easily be understood as it relates to all aspects of development within the City. He 37 indicated that a 15- member Ad Hoc Committee made up of local residents had 38 reviewed each of the draft GP elements and provided recommendations for revisions. 39 He noted that the graphics for the GP are available in digital format. 40 41 Ms. Andi Culbertson, CEO of CAA, stated that prior to 1973 the State of California did 42 not have a mandatory requirement for a GP for cities. She said that originally GPs 43 consisted of 9 elements, and now there are 7 as follows: 44 45 \ . Land Use Element — Establishes population density and building intensity standards.for the City along with objectives and policies. Page 8 of 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2003 2. Circulation Element — Deals with all means of getting around within the City. Is required to be consistent with the Land Use Element. 3 3. Open Space Element 4 4. Conservation Element 5 5. Noise Element 6 6. Safety Element 7 7. Housing Element (not before the Planning Commission tonight) 8 9 Ms. Culbertson emphasized that it is important to bring forward all of the decisions the 10 City has made and ensure that they are internally consistent with the other elements. 11 She stated that no changes were made in the Land Use Element, but the Circulation 12 Element went through an extensive traffic study to ascertain updates on circulation 13 within the City and to make appropriate recommendations for reconciling the Land Use 14 Element and the Circulation Element. She said that State law allows combining of 15 elements such as the Conservation and Open Space Elements, and this was done in 16 the City's GP. She stated that the Safety Element is very important, as its primary focus 17 is keeping the citizens of the City free from hazards. Ms. Culbertson then'explained that 18 the Noise Element covers all noise including airport environment land use plan noise for 19 aircraft nearest the City and an update to the Noise Ordinance objectives. She 20 indicated that two optional elements have been included: The Growth Management 21 Element, which is required in order to receive funding under Measure M and congestion • 22 management, and the Cultural Resources Element, which grew out of the City's interest 93 in archaeological /paleontological /historical resources. She noted that the elements were not changed in any material way that would increase or decrease the building 25 intensity within the City, but simply makes the City's goals and objectives more clear. 26 27 Mr. Whittenberg called for recognition of the efforts of CAA, City. Staff, and the Ad Hoc 28 Committee for the work completed on this document. He indicated that Staff had 29 attempted to incorporate the comments and concerns of the Committee .while still 30 maintaining the flavor of the City's goals. He stated that Staff believes that what is 31 before the Commission is an accurate reflection of the City's goal's and policies, but any 32 recommendations will certainly be taken into consideration. 33 34 Commissioner Questions 35 . 36 Commissioner Ladner asked if flight patterns of aircraft from the Long Beach Airport 37 were included in the Noise Element. Ms. Culbertson responded that the requirement in 38 the Noise Element is to take into account the over flights that are nearest to the City. 39 She said that the overflights from the Long Beach Airport were considered, however, 40 they do no exceed the noise criteria that would normally be governed by a state - 41 mandated Noise Element. Commissioner Ladner asked what the noise criterion is. Ms. 42 Culbertson stated that it would range from 60, 65, 75, and 80 CNEL. 43 44 Commissioner Shanks asked if consideration had been given to the Department of 45 Water and Power and the Edison power plants when they "blow their stacks" and the noise levels emanating from these locations, in particular in relation to Leisure World? Page 9 of 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2003 r Ms. Culbertson said that this was not addressed, as typically in a Noise Element you _ are not dealing with single event noise. She stated she would look into this. 3 4 Commissioner Shanks stated that the noise from the stacks occurs only when they are 5 being cleaned. 6 7 Commissioner Ladner asked if this noise was to continue even after the stacks are 8 _ updated? Ms. Culbertson said she would find out. She stated that usually in Noise 9 Elements, the focus is on new development and how to mitigate or avoid the noise 10 altogether. She said that with existing developments the City would have no regulatory 11 authority over that activity. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the power plants are located 12 within the City of Long Beach and the City of Seal Beach would not have any control 13 over this situation. He indicated that at the Haynes facility, once the stacks are 14 updated, this procedure for cleaning the stacks would no longer be necessary. 15 16 Negative Declaration (ND): 17 18 Mr. Cummins stated that the ND is a State mandated disclosure of any environmental 19 impacts associated with what CEQA defines as a significant impact. He said that as 20 Staff has reviewed the adoption of the new GP as it is changing from the old GP, they 21 have identified no impacts that would be deemed significant under-CEQA. He indicated 22 that Staff is not recommending any mitigation. 23 Mr. Whittenberg noted that included within the Staff Report are the responses to 25 comments received from various agencies regarding the ND 26 27 Commissioner Questions 28 29 Commissioner Sharp inquired about the LCP document. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff 30 recommends waiting until the final completed document is presented. 31 32 Public Hearing 33 34 Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. 35 36 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. 37 38 Mr. Abbe advised that rather than closing the public hearing that it be recessed to allow 39 for the continued review of the LCP document. 40 41 Commissioner Comments 42 43 Commissioner Ladner again inquired about the noise from the Long Beach Airport. Ms. 44 Culbertson referred to Page N -19 of the GP where it is noted that a 65 CNEL contour, 45 which is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable noise levels for residential areas, lies three miles outside the City boundary. She said that from a Noise Page 10 of 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2003 4 Element perspective, not an operations perspective, this would place areas outside the 65 CNEL Zone in a normally acceptable category from a noise standpoint. She stated 3 that this does not mean that the State intends to regulate this or that you won't find the 4 noise annoying, even though it might fall below the normally accepted thresholds for 5 regulation. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that there has been some recent discussion by 6 City Council regarding experiences where it appears that sometimes aircraft are not 7 following the normal flight paths into Long Beach Airport. He said that he believes the 8 City has sent a letter to Long Beach Airport complaining about this issue. He said he 9 would follow up and provide information to Commissioner Ladner. 10 11 Commissioner Deaton asked if there are decibel requirements even if the planes are in 12 their flight path. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the criterion for a GP is a 65 CNEL level, 13 which is a 24 -hour time rated standard, so a high single event noise level at one point in 14 time doesn't apply to the GP issues. Commissioner Deaton asked what the standard 15 as outside the GP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that aircraft generated noise is controlled 16 and monitored by the federal government. - 17 18 Commissioner Shanks stated that this has been an ongoing problem throughout the 19 years. He said that when a complaint is filed, the frequency decreases, but then 20 gradually begins to recur with more frequency until the next complaint is received. 21 22 Commissioner Deaton recommended that residents call the Long Beach Airport 23 whenever aircraft that appear to be outside the normal flight pattern creates excessive noise. 25 26 Chairperson Sharp recessed the public hearing until the October 22, 2003 meeting. 27 28 _ 29 STAFF CONCERNS 30 31 Mr. Whittenberg reported that he would not be present at the meeting of October 8, 32 2003, as he would be on vacation. 33 34 35 COMMISSION CONCERNS 36 . 37 None. 38 39 40 ADJOURNMENT 41 42 Chairperson Sharp adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 43 44 _ 45 Page 11 of 12 , City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2003 ' i 4. Negative Declaration 03 -1 (Continued from September 17, 2003) City of Seal Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Program 3 Citywide (General Plan) Coastal Zone (Local Coastal Program) 4 5 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 6 Request: Adopt resolutions recommending that City Council adopt: 7 The Draft Negative Declaration, The General Plan 8 Amendment, and the proposed Local Coastal Program. 9 10 Recommendation: Continue to November 5, 2003. 11 12 Chairperson Sharp stated that the public hearing on this item would be opened and 13 anyone present tonight wishing to speak on this item could do so tonight if they are not 14 able to be present at the hearing scheduled for November 5, 2003. 15 16 Public Hearing 17 18 Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. 19 20 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to continue Negative Declaration 03 -1 and the 21 City of Seal Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Program to November 5, 2003. 22 21 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 25 NOES: None 26 A BSENT: None 27 28 29 STAFF CONCERNS 30 31 Mr. Whittenberg stated that traditionally during the holiday season the Planning 32 Commission does not convene for the second meeting in November or December. He 33 said that the next meeting agenda would include an item that will take an action of the 34 PC to formally cancel the meeting of November 19 and December 17, 2003. 35 36 Mr. Cummins stated that regarding Sav -On Drugs, they have posted a sign stating that 37 on -site consumption of alcoholic beverages inside or outside the store is prohibited. 38 Commissioner Shanks asked whether Staff had visited Target to see if signs were 39 posted. Mr. Cummins stated that Target has not been checked. Chairperson Sharp 40 interjected that Target probably does not yet have its liquor license. Commissioner 41 Eagar stated that he recently visited Sav -On and no sign was posted. Mr. Cummins 42 stated that the sign is posted on the front left side of the building as you enter the store. 43 Commissioner Deaton asked if the notice is to be posted in the parking lot. Mr. 44 Cummins stated that the sign is visible from the parking lot as you approach the 45 entrance to the building. Chairperson Sharp noted that a sign was to have been posted inside the store where the alcoholic beverages are located. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Page 9 of 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2003 1 Mr. Whittenberg suggested adding the following condition to Resolution03 -38: 2 3 `The east and north elevations of the restroom area also have a 4 minimum of louvers or some other opening suitable to the Director of 5 Development Services for public safety noise monitoring." 6 7 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to approve Conditional Use Permit 03 -6 and 8 adopt Resolution 03 -38 as amended. 9 . 10 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 . 11 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 12 NOES: None 13 ABSENT: None 14 15 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03 -38 begins a 10 -day calendar 16 appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the 17 - appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 18 19 20 7. Negative Declaration 03 -1 (Continued from September 17, 2003) 21 City of Seal Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Program 22 Citywide (General Plan) Coastal Zone (Local Coastal Program) 23 24 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 25 , Request: Adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt: 26 The Draft Negative Declaration, The General Plan 27 Amendment, and the proposed Local Coastal Program. 28 29 - Recommendation: Approval by adoption of Resolution Nos. 03 -34 and 03 -40, 30 regarding approval of Negative Declaration _ 03 -1 and 31 approval of the Draft General Plan with revisions. Table 32 consideration of the Draft Local Coastal Program. 33 34 Staff Report 35 36 Mr. Whittenberg stated that a Supplemental Staff Report was prepared and distributed 37 to the Planning Commissioners. He stated that at the September 17, 2003 public 38 hearing Staff had reported that they had received an 11 -page letter from the California 39 Coastal. Commission (CCC) expressing a number of concerns regarding the Local 40 Coastal Program (LCP). He noted that at that time Staff requested that the Planning 41 Commission (PC) continue the public hearing until tonight so that Staff could have the 42 opportunity to meet with CCC Staff to determine how the issues raised in the CCC letter 43 might be addressed this evening. He reported that Staff did meet with representatives 44 of the CCC with the outcome that additional meetings must be held to finalize issues , 45 and draft language revisions to the Draft LCP. He stated that Staff is recommending 46 hat the public hearing on the General Plan (GP) be continued tonight with public Page 8 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2003 1 testimony and once action on the GP is taken, that the LCP be tabled until such time as it is ready to again be placed on the PC Agenda and be re- noticed. He indicated that 3 the Supplemental Staff Report proposes a number. of revisions to the GP document 4 based upon further review by the City Manager's Office, the Public Works Department, 5 and a memorandum provided by Hellman Properties to clarify a number of issues in the 6 GP regarding their property. He noted that Staff recommends approval of the resolution 7 as drafted on Page 8 of the Supplemental Staff Report that includes a number of 8 revisions to various elements of the GP. He stated that none of these revisions would 9 . require re- circulation of the Negative Declaration (ND) document, and that the primary 10 change is to conform the GP Land Use and Open Space Element documents to the 11 adopted Coastal Commission approved plan for the Hellman Property. He explained 12 that when the City approved the Specific Plan (SP) for the Hellman Property, it was 13 approved as 1 residential development/golf course with some wetlands to be developed 14 as a part of the golf course. He said that the project as approved by the CCC deleted 15 the golf course and established a 100 -acre deed - restricted area for future wetlands 16 restoration, and established a 25 -year deed restriction upon the closing down of oil 17 extraction operations on the remaining 50 acres of current oil extraction uses. He 18 stated that Staff has made the revisions to the Land Use and Open Space Elements of 19 the GP to reflect these permit conditions as imposed by the CCC. He noted that 20 language was also added to the Land Use and Open Space Elements that indicates 21 that within 12 months of the adoption of the GP, Hellman Properties will return to amend 22 the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to match the permit conditions as imposed by the '13 CCC. 1 25 Commissioner Questions 26 27 Commissioner Deaton asked how the Department of Water and Power (DWP) property 28 relates to the GP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the DWP property is still shown as a 29 Specific Plan with hotel and open space use. Commissioner Deaton asked if the PC 30 had discussed eliminating this from the current revision of the GP. Mr. Whittenberg 31 stated that at the September 17, 2003 meeting a copy of the letter was presented that 32 was sent to Bay City Partners in response to their request for exclusion of this area 33 because they have a development plan in process for consideration by the City. He 34 indicated that the City had responded that it has an adopted plan in effect and sees no 35 reason to do anything other thWnou d to be re-circulated ated order t states that 36 property from the GP, the ND that 37 the City is making no changes to land use designations. 38 39 Commissioner Shanks asked if the State Lands Property is still a part of the Hellman 40 Specific Plan. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it is still a part of the plan. Commissioner 41 Shanks asked if this property would be removed from the Hellman Specific Plan after 42 the 12 -month period. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is uncertain. He said his 43 understanding is that there are verbal agreements between the State Lands 44 . Commission (SLC) and Hellman Properties to allow Hellman to continue to seek Land 45 Use entitlements on behalf of the SLC for- that property, but were this to change, there 6 would have to be a separate specific plan developed for the State Lands property. Page 9 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2003 1 Commissioner Shanks noted that there used to be a plan for a hotel use on this 2 property. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this is no longer in place, as it was overridden 3 by the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan that included this property, approximately 20- 4 25,000 square feet of retail uses and an interpretive center that were envisioned to be a 5 part of the restored wetlands area that would have been part of the golf course. He said 6 that this is the current designation in the Hellman Specific Plan for this area that was not 7 changed under the Coastal Permit. Commissioner Shanks suggested that the City 8 should send a letter to the State recommending that they sell odd pieces of land that are 9 not being taxed very high and get them off the ledger. 10 1,1 Mr. .Whittenberg then reported on the concerns over the noise impacts from the Long 12 Beach Airport (LBA). He said that the City has received a Notice of Preparation of an 13 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the City of Long Beach to complete terminal 14 improvements at the LBA. He said that in a comment letter sent to the City of Long 15 Beach,. the City of Seal Beach indicated that our City has been experiencing different 16 flight patterns and other issues, and although calls have been made to the LBA and the 17 City of Long Beach, no response has been received. He stated that he would provide a 18 copy of this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Ladner interjected 19 that some members of City Council have also expressed concerns regarding the noise 20 issue. 21 . 22 Commissioner Eagar referred to Page 18 and asked if the reference to "Old Ranch - 23 Neighborhood Park," was in reference to the tennis club. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 24 this referred to the park that is part of the Centex Homes Development. Commissioner 25 Eagar then asked if the tennis club was included in the GP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 26 a revision to the GP would have to be made once City Council accepts the dedication of 27 the tennis club. 28 29 Public Hearing 30 31 Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. 32 . 33 Mr. Dave Bartlett stated that he was present tonight representing Hellman Properties, 34 LLC as well as Bay City Partners. He commented that the Draft GP and LCP are well 35 prepared, informative, and very comprehensive. He said that once completed they 36 would be an extremely useful tool for decision makers as well as for the general public. 37 He commended Staff and the PC for their contributions and dedication of time. He then 38 indicated that he and Mr. Jerry Tone of Hellman Properties had spent a lot of time on 39 the GP and had sent a written document to the Director of Development Services and 40 discussed the items and at this point they believe the recommendations made by Staff 41 have addressed their main concerns. With regard to the Ocean Place Project (DWP), 42 he reported that currently there is an application to change the Land Use from a 150- 43 room hotel with associated commercial uses and open space, to a down zoning to 39 44 homes open space dedication and preservation of public access to the beach and along 45 the San Gabriel River Trail. He said that this project was submitted in August 2003, and 46 it is their hope that it will continue through the City's processing. He noted that Page 10 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2003 1 community meetings are soon to be scheduled with a Town Hall Meeting scheduled for November 17, 2003. He stated that if the land use were changed, the potential number 3 of traffic trips would be reduced by approximately 200 %, with less light, glare, and noise 4 impacts usually associated with commercial development in a residential neighborhood. 5 6 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public 7 hearing. 8 9 Commissioner Comments 10 11 None. 12 13 Commissioner Shanks noted a correction to Section 3, Item A, in Resolution 03 -34. 14 15 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve Negative Declaration 03 -1 by 16 adoption of Resolution 03 -34 as amended. 17 18 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 19 ' AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 20 NOES: None 21 ABSENT: None 22 9 3 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve the Draft _General Plan with revisions by adoption of Resolution 03 -40 as presented. • 25 26 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 27 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 28 NOES: None 29 ABSENT: None 30 31 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to table consideration of the Draft Local 32 Coastal Program and instruct Staff to re- notice the public hearing when it is ready to be 33 placed on the Agenda. - 34 35 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 36 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 37 NOES: None 38 ABSENT: None 39 40 41 STA CONCERNS 42 43 Mr. Whittenberg wished the Commissioners a Happy Thanksgiving Holiday. He also 44 noted that a Study Session on Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Uses has been 45 scheduled for the December 3, 2003 meeting. 3 Page 11 of 13 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLANNING COMMLSSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT RE: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN - RECOMMENDED STAFF REVISION, DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2003 CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 31 • November 5, 2003 STAFF REPORT - Supplemental To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN - RECOMMENDED STAFF REVISIONS SUMMARY OF REQUEST Approve Draft General Plan with the revisions and corrections recommended by Staff. The detailed language of the revisions /deletions are provided in "Exhibit A — Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan", provided as an Exhibit to proposed Resolution Number 03 -40, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council that the Proposed Revisions to the General Plan be Adopted by the City Council. DISCUSSION During the public review and comment period on the environmental document regarding the Draft General Plan/Local Coastal Plan document, city staff has reviewed the document in greater detail and is recommending certain revisions to the "Draft" General Plan, based on comments from other City Departments and representatives of Hellman Ranch LLC and the Surfside community. Presented below is a general discussion of the recommended revisions, with the detailed language of the revisions /deletions being provided in "Exhibit A — Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan". General Discussion of the Staff Recommended Revisions to the Draft General Plan: Comments from Hellman Properties 1 Jr: Hellman Properties LLC has proved a Memorandum dated October 20 with questions, comments, proposed corrections, and in a few cases, specific language revisions. A copy of the October 20 Memorandum is provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the Planning Commission. Z: \My Documents \GENPLAN \General Plan StafRevistons.PC Staff Report doc \LW\10 -29 -03 • Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 Many of the comments relate to information provided within the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the Draft General Plan regarding incorrect information based on changes imposed by the California Coastal Commission on the Hellman Ranch project, primarily related to the elimination of the proposed golf course and the establishment of deed - restricted areas for future wetland restoration activities. While the majority of the clarifications and changes suggested are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the applicable Coastal Development Permit approved by the Coastal Commission, those changes have not been reflected in a revised "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan" (HRSP) document at this time. It is the recommendation of Staff that the requested revisions be made at this time; that additional language be provided within the Land Use and Open Space elements to indicate that the information regarding the HRSP area reflects the terms and conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit conditions; and that Hellman Properties LLC will be required to submit a revised HRSP within 12 months of adoption of the General plan by the City Council that will conform the HRSP with the conditions of the Coastal Development Permit. Recommendations for Revisions from City Departments: As the various City departments have had additional time to review the Draft General Plan, several - revisions/corrections/deletions have been suggested. Those are set forth in detail in "Exhibit A — Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan", and are generally summarized below: ❑ Revisions to the "Land Use Element" to reflect current status and capabilities of the Redevelopment Agency. ❑ Revisions to the "Circulation Element" to correct certain incorrect information contained within the element. ❑ Revisions to the "Open Space/Recreation /Conservation Element" to add information regarding "Old Ranch Neighborhood Park" and "Heron Pointe Park ". ❑ Revisions to the "Safety Element" to revise and update information regarding setback, Master Plan of Drainage, and emergency operations center. Revisions to the "Growth Management Element" to clarify the city utilized process in developing Capital improvement Programs for general City use and for compliance with the provisions of Measure M. RECOMMENDATION Approve Draft General Plan with the revisions and corrections recommended by Staff. The detailed language of the revisions /deletions are ,provided in "Exhibit A — Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan", provided as an Exhibit to proposed Resolution Number 03 -40, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council that the Proposed Revisions to the General Plan be Adopted by the City Council. General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 2 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update— Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 IVA / - - Whittenberg, Director Development Services Departmen Attachments: (2) Attachment 1: Resolution Number 03 -40, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council that the Proposed Revisions to the General Plan be Adopted by the City Council "Exhibit A — Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan" Attachment 2: "Memorandum - Draft General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan", from Dave Bartlett and Jerry Tone, dated October 20, 2003 General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 3 1 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 03 -40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL . ❑ "EXHIBIT A - STAFF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN" General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 4 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 RESOLUTION NUMBER 03 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL • THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach has been reviewing and considering revising the General Plan for some time. As monies became available, the City staff proceeded, under City Council direction, to draft the proposed revisions to the elements of the General Plan. Those elements were presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15070, the Planning Commission determines as follows: The application for adoption of an updated General Plan is adequately addressed through Negative Declaration 03 -1. Section 3. The record of the hearing of September 17 and November 5, 2003, 2003 indicates the following: a. The City of Seal Beach has been reviewing and considering revising the General Plan for some time for some time. As monies became available, the City staff proceeded, under City Council direction, to draft the proposed revisions to the elements of the General Plan. Those elements were presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. b. Specifically, the City is attempting to rewrite its general policies for development within the City of Seal Beach and create a comprehensive document which puts forth the goals and policies to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Seal Beach. c. The proposed project encompasses the entire City and will therefore affect the entire City. However, the General Plan is broken into elements, which may or may not have specific goals and policies for specific areas of the City. General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 5 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 d. City Staff have proposed additional revisions to the language of the Draft General Plan, and those proposed revisions are set forth within "Exhibit A, Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan". Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §3 of this resolution, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. The amended General Plan will comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City. b. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the City, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of the City. c. The proposed update to the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach will not be detrimental to the short term or long term goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. d. The proposed General Plan amendments are consistent with the goals, " policies and standards of all elements of the General Plan and will further those goals, policies and standards. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Resolution 03 -40, Recommending to the City Council adoption of the revisions to the General Plan, including the revisions set forth within "Exhibit A, Staff Proposed Revisions to Draft General Plan ". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 6 Public Hearing're: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 Jim Sharp Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission 3 General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 7 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update— Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 EXHIBIT A STAFF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN The following revisions to the "Draft General Plan of the City of Seal Beach ", dated July 2003, are recommended by the Planning Commission for consideration by the City Council at a future public hearing: General Revision to Entire Document: 1. All references to Tables and Figures in the General Plan shall use the designation for the appropriate Element to reflect the following reference system: ❑ All Table references shall be "(Element Designation)- (Table Number)" ❑ All Figure references shall be "(Element Designation) - (Figure Number) ". Land Use Element: 1. Delete bullet number 4, Specific Plans - "State Lands Specific Plan ",, page LU -7. This bullet should be deleted as the State Lands Specific Plan was superceded by the adoption of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan by City Council Ordinance No. 1420 on October 27, 1997, and the "State Lands Property" was incorporated into the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan as "Planning Area 6 — Visitor Serving Recreational/Commercial". 2. Delete "State Lands Specific Plan" discussion on page LU -13. This discussion should be deleted as the State Lands Specific Plan was superceded by the adoption of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan 1 City Council Ordinance No. 1420 on October 27, 1997, and the "State Lands Property" was incorporated into the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan as "Planning Area 6 — Visitor Serving Recreational /Commercial". 3. Revise "Figure LU - 2, Planning Area 2 Land Use Map" on page LU - 15 to reflect the land uses permitted under the approved California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area. These changes are generally described as follows: ❑ Heron Pointe residential development area designated Low Density Residential ❑ Gum Grove Park area designated "Open Space" ❑ State Lands Property is designated "Commercial Service" ❑ 100 -acre wetland dedication area is designated "Open Space" ❑ 50 -acre oil extraction area id designated "Industrial — Oil Extraction" General Plan Staff Revisions PC Staff Report 8 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Stuff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 4. Revise the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan" on page LU -16 to read as follows, with the following sentences of this paragraph formatted as a separate, following paragraph "The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan consists of five Conservation Planning Areas and five Development Planning Areas. The current provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. The City will work with the property owner to have an amended Hellman Ranch Specific Pan submitted for consideration that is consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit within 12 months after adoption of the General Plan." 5. Revise the first sentence under ". Single - Family Residential" on page LU -16 to read as follows: "The Hellman Specific Plan consists of a single - family residential gated community,lhatallows for___ pedestrian ieepss into the community, situated along the eastern portion of the specific plan area along Seal Beach Boulevard." 6. Revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "• Single- Family Residential" on page LU -17 to read as follows: "This residential community is set back . :: • : ; , :. ,i a minimum of 260 feet from the nearest jurisdictionalwetland area." 7. Delete "a Saltwater Marsh Wetlands" and ". Freshwater Wetland Habitat" sections on page LU -17 in their entirety and replace with the following language: "• Pnssible.Bestored_W_etlands £100 - acre portion n • : • '1 • , ; • • • " ' .1 • I, 11 • • , deed restricted hy_the terms and conditions of an ap ��ved r nastal D2ev_elopment Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission for 25 vpars fo sale at fair - market valnp to a n„hl is ad fu the purposes of wetlands restnratinn,_open space, and environmental edu.cation._purposes. The lowlands area of the iiellman Ranch Speecffic plan area C Mains approximately 27 acres of delineated, General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 9 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update - Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 albeit severely egraded, wetlands, and these exist ina,_w.etlands wi]1 form the hasis for fjtture restnratinaplans. The _adjacentoiLprodnetion_proR (aunrox_iimte1y 50 acres)_has been similarly restrieted although the 25 - year peeriod does not commence until cessation of the nil production activities. These areas will enmpriseaportion_of a enntemnlat restoratinn of the i,os Cerritos WetlandComplex and could lead tn_the eventual restoration of tidal and non - ti • . • . I I I I ' el : • . Beach en.astline_" 8. Revise the paragraph following "• Public Access" on page LU -18 to read as follows: "A staging area and public parking for access to the possible restored etland area is provided in conjunction with public benefit uses at Pacific Coast Highway and First Street. - . • • - • • • - • A pedestrian/bicycle trail link is also provided to the San Gabriel River trail, providing regional access to the area. Public access to Gum Grove Park is provided at Avalon Street and_S.eaLB.each Boulevard." 9. Revise the paragraph following "• Flood Control Retention Basin" on page LU -18 to read as follows: "The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) operates the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. The basin's function is to accommodate runoff from the surrounding watershed. The retarding basin also serves as a habitat for various bird species,althoughthe habitat value is_very low. 10. Revise the 4th sentence of the paragraph following ". Oil Resources Production" on page LU -18 to read as follows: "The oil production areas shall be landscaped, screened, and properly buffered from other uses on the site in accordance with the_proxisinns of the Hellman Ranch S—P. eeific�lan." 11. Revise the paragraph following "• California Coastal Act Compliance" on page LU -19 to read as follows: General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 10 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 "The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan is situated within the Coastal Zone Boundary and a enastal develnpmen permit has been ice by the alifnrnia (' nastal Commission that approved a project that is in compliance with the goals and policies established in the Coastal Act of 1976. Implementation of the project approved by t�astal Commission is intended to result in the potential future restoration of a degraded saltwater marsh wetlands environment, ill, „f a um. vv fi.,011 W aka. w .,u increased emphasis on visitor- serving uses, increased public access and recreational opportunities, and increased public open space. The current provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan 2re inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. The City will work with the property owner to have an amended Hellman Ranch Specific Pan submitted for consideration that is consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit within 12 months after adoption of the General Plan." 12. Revise "Figure LU - 5, Planning Area 5 Land Use Map" on page LU - 27 to reflect the land uses permitted under the approved California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area as generally described in Revision Number 3, above. 13. Delete "State Lands Specific Plan" and the following discussion on page LU -35 and LU -36. This section should be deleted as the State Lands Specific Plan was superceded by the adoption of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan by City Council Ordinance No. 1420 on October 27, 1997, and the "State Lands Property" was incorporated into the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan as "Planning Area 6 — Visitor Serving Recreational/Commercial ". 14. Add a final bullet point under "Hellman Ranch Specific Plan" on page LU -37 to read as follows: "• Allow for the continuedoperation— ofoiLextraction facilities on the p ro. erty pntil such prod»ction t'eases and the terms of the emsting ddee_d_ ' restriction are implemented." 15. Revise "Figure LU - 6, City of Seal Beach Land Use Map" on page LU - 43 to reflect the land uses permitted under the approved California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area as generally described in Revision Number 3, above. 16. Revise "Table LU - Land Use Summary Table ", on page LU -45 to read as follows regarding the "Industrial — Oil Extraction ", "Open Space — Open Space ", and "Open Space — Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge" columns: General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 11 - , - Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission SteffReport November 5, 2003 Proposed/ Designation Developed Undeveloped Total Acres (acres) (acres) Industrial Oil Extraction 511.4 +6 1141 19.2"' 511.0 Open Space Open Space 0.0 1 8570 85_0 4=8570 85_0 Wetlands & 100 -0 900.0 1,000.1 Wildlife Refuge • • 17. Revise "Table LU -3, Aggregated Land Use Categories ", on page LU - 46 for "Planning Area 2 (PA -2)" to read as follows regarding "Open Space" and "Industrial — Oil Extraction ", and add an "Open Space — Wetlands and Wildlife Refuge" column to read as follows: Land Use Category Acres % of Total Planning Area 2 (PA 2) Open Space 9-3 1 Commercial — General 8.6 IL8 0.204 Open_Spaer — Wetlands 1010 70 -0% Industrial - Oil Extraction 51.0 10_01n 18. Revise "Table LU -3, Aggregated Land Use Categories ", on page LU for "CITY OF SEAL BEACH" to read the same as "Table LU -2, Land Use Summary Table ", on page LU-45, as revised pursuant to revision number 16 above. 19. Delete first paragraph under "Public Uses" on page LU -61 that reads as follows: ,, . ' — 20. Revise the paragraphs under "Proposed Parks and Open Space" on pages LU -62 and LU- 63 to read as follows: General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 12 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update - Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 C,LLLLVI 1 111 fln Falk puLpu . N v plan liar ajvuit u�� glut . The range_ Fiond C ontrol Dictri�ct (flCFCD) operates the i,os Alamitos Ret rding_B.asin_ The basin's function is to accommodate runoff from the surround' atershed. The retardinu�gsin also serves as a habitat for varioils bird cnpcies_ although the ha 'Rat value is very lox." Adjacent to and south of the Flood Control basin is the Hellman Ranch Specific Pl an area, .. ; - -, • : -' -, - - - - - — — • • ; iwtvLativLi. A 100 -acres- portion of this irea has heen de restricted for 25 - i . . ' ,o• i •r the pir of wetlands restoratinn,_on space, and nv irnnmenta l education m' The 2djacen.t_oiLproduction_p rap proximatel_v acres) has heen similarly_restrieted, although the 25 - year period fines not_commence until eessation_of the nil production activities. Existing Wetlands In 1972, the United States Congress established the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The refuge contains 911 acres of marshland and 560 acres outside the slough area, which were restored to their natural condition. This wetland area is inhabited by more than 100 species of birds and 60 species of fish. The Naval Weapons Station has developed a wildlife management program for the protection and conservation of this ecosystem. The lowlands area of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area contains a�pr.oxi 27 acres of delineated, alheitsevereely degraded,wetlands, and these Pxis ' i a. i• A L u 1• 6.. L s s ration plans, Possible Wetlands Restoration . . • - -- : - -- q • - - - - -- .-- -.5 • • • .. 4 • • • • • • • A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch SnPeifw Plan area has heen deed restricted for 25 •e es nf wetlands restoratinn,__o and environm a on_�p Qs. The adjacent oil production property_p.Proximately 50 acres) has heen General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 13 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update— Recommended Staff Revisions Planntng Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 u ' . • 1 t a 01 , - a erin(Ld.o.esnat commence until cessation of the niL.prndp activities• These areas will comprise a portion of a contemplated restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetland Complex and could lead to the eventual restoration of tidal and non -tidal wetlands along the Long Beach/Seal Beach coastline." 21. Delete the following language under the "Implementation — Redevelopment Agency" section, page LU -69: • c ' I . • I • • • . , / • • F IR. • . f ut.ililiw vvlie, nccdct Dut. it/ l y/ wcnl devclv of luntlJ tlaul u, c vvitlain the -- ' - • .. .. �d Ella llac ul, i ti; iced Lud t f the A y , plu/aa lat.uld Lt dcvclt y cd lt, lulu; - • II .I •'• III/ .. ,• ---- , - - - - • • F I • .. I ------- , , - -- -- • • . • . • - • F • • • e • I I I . I • I/ , , -- R I IV • • , ----- - - - -- F I•• : EitTirMriltrirr 6 L a . — — . - - - • • • • • • • - - - - - -- • • ; • • - ---- •. - - -- • • F • • I • • I ' __ V' _.. • , ____ F _ , • • , • __ • • • • IF • I I • • • N at.lude fill naaaltiauv,L vf K.i.1a, aat.ul J aan c. JIiI plo, p, spur ulivn of f nunt.cul feua;balaly General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 1 • Public Hearing re: General Plan Update— Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 yvluie1eu1,3 vf3(-1.4l &uJL. It ea ea a ei eaul dud the Cel uueel Litt,- velvyiieaiel rl� iat y • 22. Delete Figure "L - U - 10, State Lands Specific Plan" on page LU -74, and renumber "Figure LU -11, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan ", on page LU - 75, and "Figure LU- 12, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Specific Plan ", on page LU - 75, to Figure LU -10 and LU -11, respectively. Revise page numbers as appropriate. 23. Revise new Figure "LU - 10, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan ", on new page LU -74 to accurately reflect the boundaries of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, as indicated on Figure No. 3 -2, "Local Area Map, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan ", page No. 3 -3, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. Circulation Element: 1. Revise the "List of Figures" on page C -ii to delete "Figure 16, City of Seal Beach General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections"; re- number all following Figures and page numbers in the "List of Figures" appropriately 2. Revise the following language under the "Future Circulation Recommendations" section 3, on page C -3 to read as follows: "- Seal Beach Boulevard (NS) at Westminster Avenue (EW): - Northbound T,eft Tiirn T.ane and Three _Through Lanes" 3. Revise discussion under "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ", on page C -9 to read as follows: . - All • • . • • • • • • , • • . i , , • 11 Pot reflect information obtained by conducting, a detailed traffic analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates in March 2003 for the City. Where daily traffic counts were not available and where peak hour counts were available, daily traffic counts were estimated by Kunzman Associates from the peak hour counts." 4. Revise "Table C -1, Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios" on page C -10 to read as follows: General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 15 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 Roadway Segment No. of Capacity ADT V/C LOS Lanes Ratio Seal Beach Bradbury ftussintyor 6D 56,300 35,100 0.62 B Blvd. Way to St. Cloud Dr. 5. Revise "Table C -2, Roadway Capacities" on page C -12 by adding a "Note" to read as follows: "Note; These are generalized eapacifies, to he used_for_plannin _1urposec .,_and do not eonsider__specifie measuressuchas_peak hoar factors." 6. Revise "Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways" on page C - 13 and C - 14 by deleting the last sentence of the following paragraph. The sentence to be deleted reads as follows: • - - • 7. Delete "Figure 16, City of Seal Beach General Plan Roadway Cross - Sections ", on page C -29 and re- number all following Figures and page numbers in the Circulation Element appropriately. Open Space/Recreation /Conservation Element: 1. Revise the paragraph following "Natural Resource Land" on page OS -8 to read as follows: "Areas within the City have been designated for the preservation of natural resources. Natural resource areas would include land set aside for the preservation of plant and animal life, areas required for ecological and other scientific purposes, bays and estuaries and coastal beaches. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge habitats are typical of this category. A _1 OO -ac'rp pnrtion_af the Rellman anch S. • • $ • e at fair - market value tn_a_public_ageney for the purposes of wetlands restoration, pn pac ;ind environmental educat purposes The adjacent nil prod uction__pt perty (approximate.Ly CO aer es)�asJ tm similarly restricted. althoough the 25_ye_arperioddoes —not rnmmenee until cess ition of the__oil - production activities," 2. Revise Table OS -1, on page OS -9, "Parks /Open Space" to add the following information to Planning Area 2 and 4 as follows: General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 16 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 Planning Name Acreage Use Designation Area PA 2 Heron Pointe Park 11.2 NP PA 4 . [lid Ranch Neighborhood 2 2 NP Park Beaches 52:0 SO -3 RB 3. Revise the fourth sentence of the paragraph on page OS -10 to read as follows: "However, the City benefits from non - Quimby Act recreational amenities within its boundaries, including 52 RO__ acres of beaches, the 28 -acre Sunset Marina Park which is operated by the County, and the National Wildlife Refuge within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, each of which provides unique regional recreational opportunities." 4. Revise Figure OS -1, Existing Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Areas" on page OS -14 to include a graphic representation and numerical reference to "Old Ranch Neighborhood Park ". 5. Revise the language regarding "Planning Area 2 — Hellman Ranch/Marina Hill/Boeing" on pages OS -13 and OS -15 to read as follows: "Existing Parks • Gum Grove Park Nature Park (14.9 acres) • McGaugh Gym, Pool/Park (4.7 acres) Gum Grove Park contains a dense grove of over 800 eucalyptus trees. This park, which will be extended to Seal Beach Boulevard as part of the Hellman Ranch project, ha s—iyeen_wi l he_ dedicated to the City for the enjoyment of the residents of the community. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan provides for potential additional recreation/open space areas that will may be developed as part of the total planned community. These areasLuses include: • Los Alamitos Retarding Basin — 34.7 acres retarding basin/open space. • Hellman Ranch Lowlands — 100 acres on Hellman Ranch for future restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 17 • Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 • Oil Production Aire ge aFprn . • I, . • 1 . • I, . • ii . ' . • • • . sr_oiil yrOcl uetinn nn ...Ca.tinns f�r fphire restoration, -op • • • • • 1 • • 1 ' • • •• • 1 . • • i • 1 1 1 ses npon A SO -aw O coca l ulitaitly uJCd fuI iirinui • . ... . , - • • . . • • , . distiibut1U11 wab decd t estricted by t11c Cuabtal C01111111JJ1V11 pciiiiit 1.V11 f oi • q - •• - q • - • • • . , .. - • • - , •1 1 - • ' • 1 - • • . • • . .. 55 - , up011 t11c l.issatiuu of 411 111illclal ptodw..tiun ai tivilii 011 LLlc piupcity. A pedestrian trail is planned to link to the Class I San Gabriel River Trail through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power property adjacent to the west boundary of the Specific Plan site." 6. Revise "Planning Area 4 — College Park" on page OS -15 to add "Old Ranch Neighborhood Park (2.2 acres)" as the last bullet point under the "Existing Parks" category". 7. Revise the third, fourth and fifth sentences in the first paragraph following "Forests" on page OS -26 and OS -27 to read as follows: "In the early 1900's, , Hellman Ranch emp10 planted blue and red gum eucalyptus trees that were used for cooking and heating purposes. Since then, the second and third growth forest of approximately 500 trees has become arrerrvirmmentrfirsensitivritabittrt a natural resource area that is now used for passive recreation. Gum Grove Nature Park will be dedicated to the City as part of the development outlined in the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan." 8. Revise the paragraph following "Wetlands" on page OS -28 to read as follows: -- A 100-acre po • 1 1 1 , • . • 11 . 1 : . 1 • _1 • • ' ,1 1, •s 5 •• restricted for 25 years_for_sale at fair - market v_alue_toaTublic aggeney ffor the p_urpnses of wetlands restoration,_open space, and environmental education General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 18 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revilsions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 purposes_ The adj*ePnt nil prQ dnetinn _n ropp y p proximatch 3 acres) has peen similarly restricted, al thnu�h the 25 -y ear deed restricted time perioddnes not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. It is the intent and goal of the City to address future uses for ilia au ..a these areas and cooperate with the property owner, state, local, and private agencies, as well as the community, to provide the means to accomplish this goal." Safety Element: 1. Revise Policy 6D on page S -79 to read as follows: "6D. Enforce current building setback standards on local beaches to prevent exposure of structures to large sea waves of seismic or storm origin." 2. Revise the second bullet point under "Development Services Department/Engineering Department" on page S -82 to read as follows: • Maintain and update as appropriate a Master Plan of Drainage for the entire City, providing for a minimum protection objective of 25 -year flood through the use of flood water conveyances, retention and holding facilities, including a prioritization of projects." 3. Revise the third bullet point under "Development Services Department/Engineering Department" on page S -83 to read as follows: • Maintain and update as app Prep an information pamphlet on flood hazard and protection measures." 4. Revise the second bullet point under "Police Department (in cooperation with Fire Authority)" on page S -83 to read as follows: • Maintaining the Emergency Operations Cent , 5. Revise the ninth bullet point on page S -85 to read as follows: "Enforce current building setback standards from beaches and bluff tops." 6. Revise the fifth bullet point under "Engineering Department" on page S -85 to read as follows: General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 19 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff •Revisions Planning Commission Ste Report November 5, 2003 "Provide for ongoing maintenance and inspections of all public drainage facilities and rernirrd Encourage property owners to maintain private drainage structures." Growth Management Element: 1. Revise Policy 2.9 on page GM -13 to read as follows: "Policy 2.9 — A seven -year capital improvement program shall be adopted and maintained in conformance with the provisions of Measure M for the purpose of maintaining adopted level of service standards established in this Element. The City currently }nu v;d..o ado even- • . . • • is . rovement program for MeacureJVLfiinded programs and nr jects_and a 5 -year Capital Improvement Program/Budget f r non - Measure M funded p 2. Revise the second paragraph under "Capital Improvement Program" on page GM -18 to read as follows: "The City will determine the capital project needed to meet and maintain the City's adopted traffic level of service and performance standards. Capital; financing programming will be based on proposed development to be constructed during (at a minimum) the following seven year period. -- ' . • • • • • • :. . * * * * • General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 20 Public Hearing re: General Plan Update — Recommended Staff Revisions Planning Commission Staff Report November 5, 2003 ATTACHMENT 2 "MEMORANDUM - DRAFT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS, HELLMAN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ", FROM DAVE BARTLETT AND JERRY TONE, DATED OCTOBER 20, 2003 General Plan Staff Revisions.PC Staff Report 21 CI1Y ,r S SEACH MEMORANDUM OCT 1 ?f?'ij Date: October 20, 2003 L�r ��F�Trs vT of To: Seal Beach Planning Commission DEV SERVICES Lee Whittenberg Mac Cummins From: Dave Bartlett and Jerry Tone Re: Draft General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements Hellman Ranch Specific Plan This memorandum represents Hellman Properties LLC (HPLLC) responses to the draft Land Use and Open Space Elements of the City's proposed General Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to review, comment and participate in this phase of the project. Our review of the July 1, 2003 draft generally indicates a comprehensive General Plan document that is very informative and well done. Based on our analysis of these elements, we have prepared a list of questions, comments, proposed corrections and in a few cases, specific language revisions. We are requesting the City staff and Planning Commission review this information and make the appropriate revisions or clarifications prior to approval. For these comments to be as useful as possible, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with City staff in greater detail. Thank you for your consideration. No. Page Section - • Suggested. Revision and/or Clarification No. ; • • LAND USE ELEMENT _ - • - • 1 LU -7 Specific Plans The State Lands Specific Plan was repealed by the City Council on October 27, 1997 by Ordinance No. 1421. Planning regulations for the State Lands property are now covered within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. 2 LU -13 State Lands This section should be eliminated. Specific Plan 3 LU -15 Planning Area There are a number of errors on this map that need to be corrected. 2 Land Use Map 4 LU -16 Hellman The HRSP is divided into ten different planning areas, not two. Ranch Specific Plan (HRSP) HELLMAN PROPERTIES LLC RESPONSE TO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS No. Page Section Suggested Revision and/or Clarification No. 5 LU -16 HRSP The residential community is gated for vehicles only, not pedestrians. Single Family Residential 6 LU -17 HRSP The setback distances cited are from the previously proposed restored Single Family wetlands as part of the golf course project. Since the golf course plan has Residential been abandoned, these distances are no longer relevant. The setback distances from the existing jurisdictional wetlands are available. 7 LU -17 HRSP This section reflects the restoration proposal planned as part of the golf Saltwater course project. Since the golf course plan has been abandoned, this Marsh description is no longer relevant. Wetlands 8 LU -17 HRSP ' This section reflects the restoration proposal planned as part of the golf Freshwater course project. Since the golf course plan has been abandoned, this Wetland description is no longer relevant. Habitat 9 LU -18 HRSP This section reflects the restoration proposal planned as part of the golf Public Access course project. Since the golf course plan has been abandoned, this description is no longer relevant. 10 LU -18 HRSP -Flood As reported in previous investigations of the area, the flood control basin Control Basin currently provides little, if any, habitat value. Further, the City's lease with OCFCD has expired and is no longer in effect. 11 LU -18 HRSP The referenced landscaping and screening of the oil production was a Oil Resource component of original, and now abandoned, golf course plan. The actual Production regulation guiding landscaping is the HRSP, which in turn refers to City Code Section 28 -1601. This section should be revised to be consistent with Specific Plan. 12 LU -19 HRSP In order to clarify the planning history of the area, this section could be California expanded to include a summary of the various CCC actions under CDP 5- Coastal Act 97- 367 -Al and 5 -01 -288. Compliance 13 LU -27 Planning Area Since a portion of Planning Area 2 is referenced on this map, the mapping 5 errors noted in Comment #3 above should be incorporated here as well. Land Use Map 14 •LU -35 State Lands Per Comments 1 & 2 above, this section should be eliminated. Specific Plan 15 LU -36 Hellman This list of goals needs to include an acknowledgement of the existing Ranch industrial use on the property. Specific Plan 16 LU -43 Land Use Map Correct map errors, per #3 & #13 above. 17 LU -45 Land Use The actual remaining oil production area is approximately 50 acres, not Table 14.6, or 19.2. The asterisked note seems inappropriate and out of place for this document since hypothetical alternatives probably exist for numerous other sites in the community. Also, what is an "Undeveloped" Open Space, or an "Undeveloped" Wildlife Refuge? 18 LU -46 Table LU -3 Do the figures in this table reflect existing conditions or the HRSP as currently adopted? October 20, 2003 Page 2 HELLMAN PROPERTIES LLC RESPONSE TO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS No. Page Section Suggested Revision and/or Clarification No. 19 LU -60 Oil Extraction This section reads well regarding the oil extraction use and the associated deed restriction, and it notes that the area is approximately 50 acres, which is correct. The other tables that indicate 14.6 acres need to be reconciled to this fact. 20 LU -61 Public Uses The characterization of private land as "quasi- public" in a General Plan document is inappropriate, and, if mapped as such, could be considered a taking. Where are these so- called "quasi- public" land uses noted on the Land Use Element map? 21 LU -62 Proposed Parks We are unaware of any "proposal" that would convert the Flood Control And Basin for park purposes. If the "proposal" is merely an "idea" that is Open Space admittedly lacking a "plan ", then why does such a vague concept warrant consideration here? 22 LU -63 Existing There are 27 acres of delineated wetlands within the HRSP (see Attachment Wetlands A). 23 LU -63 Proposed See Attachment A. Wetlands 25 LU -74 Figure LU -11 Delete exhibit. State Lands Specific Plan 26 LU -75 Figure LU -11 Correct the boundaries of the HRSP area. Also, some of the other lines on HRSP this map do not seem relevant. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 27 OS -8 Natural Could this overall designation be'used in Section 4.1 of the LCP instead of Resource Land ESHA? 28 OS -10 Parks /Open Refers to 52 acres of beaches. Table LU -3 refers to 80 acres of beaches. Space 29 OS -13 Planning Area In fact, Gum Grove Park has rat been dedicated to the City. It is certainly 2 Hellman anticipated that the land will be dedicated to the City but this has not yet • Ranch / happened. Also, see Attachment B for proposed revisions to this section. Marina Hill/Boeing (re: existing parks) 30 OS -15 Planning Area The HRSP does not provide that "...open spaces areas...will be developed" 2 Hellman in the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. (see Attachment B) Ranch / Marina Hill/Boeing (re: possible parks) 31 OS -15 Planning Area This paragraph refers to the DWP cooling channel property, and this should 2 Hellman be clanfied (see Attachment B). Ranch / Marina Hill/Boeing (re: possible trails) Ottobee 20, 2 003 Page 3 HELLMAN PROPERTIES LLC RESPONSE TO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS No. Page Section Suggested Revision and/or Clarification No. - 32 OS -26 Forests Please rephrase the third sentence to read: "...early 1900's, Hellman Ranch employees planted blue and red... ". 33 OS -27 Forests The reference to Gum Grove Park as "environmentally sensitive habitat" should be removed as this may be confused as referring to the park as an ESHA. 34 OS-28 Wetlands See Attachment C for revised wording. # # ## Oetolwr 21, 203 4 aze 4 Attachment A [Suggested rewording for pages LU -62/63 Parks and Open Space Existing Parks and Open Space The principal recreation and open space area for the City is the beachfront. Because the beachfront is more of a regional recreation attraction, it does not serve the immediate park and open space needs for the northern portion of the community. The Coastal Area and Marina Hill are served well by the excellent beachfront and the fairly natural and unimproved Gum Grove Park. The College Park West neighborhood is served by Edison Park, which is approximately 10 acres. The College Park East neighborhood has only four small existing parks, resulting in a park deficiency. The City has developed Heather Park in College Park East to help alleviate the park deficiency in that neighborhood. Through conscientious design methods, the City created very desirable and usable park spaces at the present park sites for the College Park neighborhoods. In addition, the City has the ability to accept the property dedication of the area currently known as the Old Ranch Tennis Club. The dedication of this approximately 6.74 acres is an additional public recreational facility for the community. The City plans to accept the Old Ranch Tennis Club prior to its September 24, 2004 due date and will implement - the re -use plan currently being finalized. Proposed Parks and Open Space A proposal for parks and open space is to convert the present County Flood Control Basin for park purposes. No plan has been prepared for such a joint use due to ongoing budget constraint issues facing the City. Adjacent to and south of the Flood Control basin is the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, w hi c pro - - - - - - - . A 100 -acre portion of this area has been deed restricted for 25 years for sale at fair- market value to a public agency for the purposes of • II Attachment A (continued) wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarly restricted, although the 25 -year period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. Existing Wetlands In 1972, the United States Congress established the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The refuge contains 911 acres of marshland and 560 acres outside the slough area, which were restored to their natural condition. This wetland area is inhabited by more than 100 species of birds and 60 species of fish. The Naval Weapons Station has developed a wildlife management program for the protection and conservation of this ecosystem. The lowlands area of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area contains approximately 27 acres of delineated, albeit severely degraded, wetlands, and these existing wetlands will form the basis for future restoration plans. Proposcd Wetlands Possible Wetlands Restoration A 100 acrc dccd restricted arca for futurc wetland:, has bccn accepted as part of thc Development Agreement Ranch property. An additional 50 acre dccd restricted arca for thc futurc establishment of wetlands will be available • . . -- _ : : -- = : :- • "►on. A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area has been deed restricted for 25 years for sale at fair - market value to a public agency for the purposes of wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarly restricted, although the 25 -year period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. These areas will comprise a portion of a contemplated restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetland Complex and Attachment A (continued) could lead to the eventual restoration of tidal and non -tidal wetlands along the Long Beach /Seal Beach coastline. • Attachment B [Suggested rewording for pages OS Planning Area 2 — Hellman Ranch/Marina Hill/Boeing Existing Parks • Gum Grove Park Nature Park (14.9 acres) • McGaugh Gym, PoollPark (4.7 acres) Gum Grove Park contains a dense grove of over 800 eucalyptus trees. This park, which will be extended to Seal Beach Boulevard as part of the Hellman Ranch project, has been will be dedicated to the City for the enjoyment of the residents of the community. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan provides for potential additional recreation /open space areas that will may be developed as part of the total planned community. These areas /uses include: • Los Alamitos Retarding Basin — 34.7 acres retarding basin /open space. • Hellman Ranch Lowlands — 100 acres on Hellman Ranch for future restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. • Oil Production Acreage — approximately 50 acres on the Hellman Ranch that is currently used for oil production - operations for future restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes (upon the cessation of all mineral production activities). A 50 acrc arca currc -- - _ - •• _ _ _ - • _ - , -- - - storage, and distribution was dccd restricted by the Coastal Commission permit conditions for futurc wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental cducation purposes, upon the A pedestrian trail has been proposed to link to the Class I San Gabriel River Trail through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power property adjacent to the west boundary of the Specific Plan site. Attachment C [Suggested rewording for pages 0S -28 Wetlands A 100 acrc dccd restricted arca for futurc wetland:, bccn accepted as part of the Development Agreement between thc City and Hellman Properties LLC. In Agreement provides that a 25 year, 5 0 dce restricted arca be established for future wetland restoration, open space, and environmental education over thc remaining mineral production arca up - • - , - - . • • - . A 100 -acre portion of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area has been deed restricted for 25 years for sale at fair- market value to a public agency for the purposes of wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. The adjacent oil production property (approximately 50 acres) has been similarly restricted, although the 25 -year period does not commence until cessation of the oil production activities. It is the intent and goal of the City to address future uses for this arca these areas and cooperate with the property owner, state, local, and private agencies, as well as the community, to provide the means to accomplish this goal. r City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION . 03 -1, CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 • • CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 32 • • • September 17, 2003 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Mac Cummins, AICP, Associate Planner Department of Development Services Subject: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: CITY OF SEAL BEACH Owner: NOT APPLICABLE Location: ENTIRE CITY (GENERAL PLAN) & COASTAL ZONE (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM) Classification of VARYING DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE CITY. Property: Request: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT: THE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION; THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; AND THE PROPOSED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. Environmental Review: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 ACCOMPANIES THE REQUEST. Code Sections: ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN Recommendation: APPROVAL, BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 03 -34 (NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECOMMENDATION), 03 -40 (GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION) AND 03 -41 (LCP RECOMMENDATION), RESPECTIVELY FACTS • The City of Seal Beach has a series of adopted General Plan elements, including some mandated under state law . The Elements of the City's General Plan are as follows: • i Planning Commission Staff Report re. Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council - General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 Land Use, Open Space /Recreation/Conservation, Bicycle, Housing, Circulation, Seismic & Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways, Growth Management, and Cultural Resources. The City has also adopted a series of specific plans. • The proposed re -write of the General Plan affects the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Open Space /Recreation/Conservation, Seismic & Safety, Noise, and Growth Management. • The Local Coastal Program has been drafted to allow the City permitting authority over various areas of the Coastal Zone, and sets forth goals and policies to help protect coastal resources within the City. • The subject area of the General Plan is the Entire City. The subject area of the Local Coastal Program includes all lands south of Westminster Avenue (Coastal Zone) • A City Council appointed Ad Hoc Committee met several times over the course of the summer to provide input and review /discuss the various elements of the proposed General Plan & Local Coastal Program. The proposed elements reflect the consensus of this Committee. Copies of the minutes of the committee meetings are provided as attachment 6. DISCUSSION Overview of Proposed General Plan: The General Plan is essentially the governing document of all future development within the City. This includes where development will occur, at what density that development will be, etc. The General Plan includes sections which address where the roadways & public transit will be located, and other issues of public concern, such as noise, safety, and growth management. The only non -state mandated element within the General Plan that is being revised in this proposal is the Cultural Resources element, which addresses the sensitive nature of cultural resources which the City takes much pride in preserving /maintaining. These resources have been and always will be important to the City's heritage and continue to play an important part in decision making within the General Plan. A description of each element follows this section of the staff report. The main question that usually arises when this type of project is undertaken relates to whether or not various land uses are changing and what effects these changes will have on the surrounding residential areas. The proposed General Plan update will not change any land uses and will not increase any densities of development. The primary purpose for doing this update is that each of the elements of the General Plan were adopted separately and each has been amended over time with various language changes to reflect various project approvals. This creates a situation where the document does not flow and is not as cohesive as would be envisioned for this type of document. As such, the primary goal of this project is to create a General Plan which reflects the long tern goals and beliefs of the citizens of the City of Seal Paget Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 Beach with respect to future development within the City. Further, as no material changes are being incorporated (with some minor exceptions to reflect changes in state laws in certain areas), the concept is to have a document where the average citizen will be able to come to City Hall, look at the document, and understand the long range goals and policies of the City in the various elements. Within each element of the General Plan, various goals and policies are put into place which help the City and future applicants for development projects understand the vision of the City with respect to the area that the goal is covering. These goals are not specific in manner. For example, the zoning portion of the Municipal Code has specific standards which must be met in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. These might include specific setbacks or height standards. In the General Plan, the policies are far more broad and overarching. These policies set the framework for which the implementing ordinance or Municipal Code can rely on to put into practice the goal and set a tangible standard that an applicant must meet in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. State law sets forth that the General Plan is the comprehensive, long -term guide for the future physical development within the City of Seal Beach. There is essentially a hierarchy of development guidelines. First is the General Plan. This document walks through all long range goals and policies for the future development of the City. Next is the aforementioned Municipal Code, which sets tangible standards by which the public at large must meet in order to be in conformance with the General Plan. As such, general comments about requiring more parking on a commercial project is better described in a change to the zoning ordinance, while a change in the manner in which the city handles traffic flow along a certain route (i.e., changing from a 2 lane road to a 6 land highway) would be addressed in the General Plan. Typically, the Municipal Code and the General Plan are consistent. Overview of the various elements of the General Plan: Land Use: This element designates the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of land uses within the City. It is the guide for decision making by public and private sectors to direct the growth of new construction and modernization of existing development. The goals and policies contained in this Element reflect the status of the City as nearly built -out and strive to maintain the City's character, while allowing for additional Specific Plan development to enhance and support the existing residential and commercial areas. Open Space/Recreation /Conservation: This element combines three topical areas to define those areas within the City that support recreation, open space, and conservation uses. These three areas are closely related in providing the community with opportunities to enjoy diverse outdoor activities, in addition to managing and protecting natural resources. It also provides an updated discussion regarding conservation Page3 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 issues such as water quality, beach erosion, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and natural resources. - Safety Element: This element's purpose is to put into place goals and policies to help reduce loss of life, injury, damage to property, and the effects of future natural and man -made hazards. In order to achieve these objectives, the plans and programs the City utilizes must be updated regularly to ensure that the most currently available information is the basis for such protection and prevention. Community -wide emergency planning and preparedness is an essential ingredient in promoting effective and intelligent responses to the wide variety of safety hazards. Noise: This element provides information to be used as a guideline for development and land use policies in the future. It also identifies areas of noise sensitive land uses and noise sources for the purpose of developing programs to ensure that residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The major noise contributors in the City of Seal Beach are transportation related. Freeways, major arterials, and collector roadways bring additional traffic to and through the City. The proximity of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base also results in noise from military aircraft, overflights. The updated Noise Element provides goals, objectives and an implementation plan for the control and management of noise. Cultural Resources: This element discusses the purpose and function of preserving archaeological and historical resources. It also sets policies and procedures for protection and preservation of those resources. The discovery of archaeological and paleontological artifacts during new development must be the subject of continuing consideration. No existing policies have been eliminated. However, the existing Cultural Resources Guidelines and Procedures have been relocated to the Appendix to provide a more logical and user friendly document. The policies have been included in order to ensure that immediate response and protection can be afforded these resources until the proper authorities can determine disposition. • Growth Management: The purpose of this Element is to ensure that growth and development are based on the City's ability to provide an adequate traffic circulation system, public services, and facilities in order to maintain desirable levels of service standards. The draft Element is consistent with the SCAG Growth Management Plan, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, and Measure M. Implementation of the goals and policies stated in this Element provide a means for inter - jurisdictional coordination/cooperation to fully address growth management concerns. Circulation: This element's objective is to outline plans and policies for the maintenance and ongoing development of a comprehensive circulation network throughout the City and the surrounding Page 4 - Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 area. It is consistent with the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Highways and Congestion Management Plan and the County's Growth Management Plan and Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways to ensure regional goals and policies are met. Compliance with the Growth Management Plan, a requirement of Measure M, allows participation in the regional funding of transportation projects within the City. Housing: The housing element is not part of this request. It will come before the Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date. Overview of Proposed Local Coastal Program: . z Another portion of the request to the Planning Corrunission is to review a draft Local Coastal Program. Within the Coastal Zone, pursuant to the Coastal Act, cities must submit a draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) to the California Coastal Commission for certification. The LCP basically works as a mini General Plan for the Coastal Zone, with the added requirement that the document be in conformance with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, which sets forth the goals and policies for which projects are judged against. The overall goal, then, of the LCP is to provide guidelines in relation to development within the Coastal Zone. The LCP may be submitted to the Coastal Commission all at once or in two phases: a land use plan ( "LUP ") is processed first, and zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other implementing actions in a subsequent phase. The only portion of the LCP being considered by the Planning Commission is the LCP Land Use Plan. This portion of the LCP sets forth the land use designations and assigns allowable densities in the various areas, as well as setting forth goals and policies for development within the Coastal Zone. The intent of the City in this regard is to have this portion of the LCP certified by the CCC. Once this is done, the City would then, adopt an "implementing ordinance," which would allow the City the ability to issue Coastal Permits for those development projects described in the LCP Land Use Plan. This would represent a tremendous benefit to the local residents, as every single building activity within the Coastal Zone now currently requires a CCC permit, including even minor additions to a single family home. The Coastal Land Use Plan was derived from the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach. In cases where the Land Use Element contains more precise development limits for specific properties, the more restrictive limits of the Land Use Element take precedence over those of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The primary purpose of the Local Coastal Program is to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the resources of the Coastal Zone. Key issues covered by the coastal plan include beach access, coastal resource protection, recreation, locating and planning new development, and parking. Overview of Proposed Negative Declaration: The negative declaration evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the "project" under CEQA. For the purposes of CEQA, the "project" is the adoption of the new general plan and Page 5 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 local coastal plan, and the CEQA document must analyze the environmental impacts associated with this change in development goals, policies, and standards. To the extent that there are environmental impacts from the "project," under CEQA, those impacts must be considered, and where possible mitigated. As the Lead Agency in this project, the City staff released for public corinent a Negative Declaration, which indicates that no environmental impacts will be associated with the adoption of the proposed General Plan update and LCP. This determination was made after completing an Initial Study, and making findings that the "project" would not have any environmental impacts. These findings are principally based on the fact that there are no material changes to the General Plan, or within the LCP, which would have an adverse environmental impact or a "significant" impact under CEQA. As such, no mitigation measures are being proposed. Please refer to attachment 5 of this staff report to review the responses of the City to comments received during the Public Comment period regarding the negative declaration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after • considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing approve resolutions reconunending to the City Council that the Council adopt: Negative Declaration 03 -1; the proposed revisions to the General Plan; and the proposed Local Coastal Program. These recommendations are based on the following findings: Negative Declaration Reconznnendation to City Council: 1. Based upon the evidence presented, including the initial study, the negative declaration, any corrunents received thereon, and oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration adequately discloses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed revised General Plan & Local Coastal Program, no new substantial adverse environmental impacts will result upon the approval of the subject project, and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City and the Planning Commission. 2. There are no substantive changes to the existing General Plan document which would cause environmental impacts which would be classified as "significant" under CEQA. 3. The project will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and on the basis of substantial evidence, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Planning Conunission additionally makes the findings contained in the "Certificate of Fee Exemption," attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings - upon which this decision is based are available for public review in the Planning Page6 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 Department located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Planning and Community Development as the custodian of records for these documents. General Plan Recommendation to City Council: 1. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the City, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of the City. 2. The proposed update to the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach will not be detrimental to the short term or long term goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and•welfare. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as amended. LCP Recommendation to City Council: 1. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the Coastal Zone, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of Local Coastal Program. 2. The proposed adoption of the City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program will not be detrimental to the short term or long term goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as amended. 3. The proposed policies within the LCP conform to the new standards for water quality, as outlined in the County of Orange Drainage Area Master Plan. Mac Cummins, AICP Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager Attachments: (8) 1. Proposed Resolution 03 -34 - Negative Declaration 03 -1 2. Proposed Resolution 03 -40 — Recommendation to City Council,, re: General Plan 3. Proposed Resolution 03 -41 — Recommendation to City Council, re: LCP 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -1 (Previously provided to the Commission) 5. Response to Comments — Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -1 6. Minutes from Ad Hoc GP /LCP Coininittee 7. Draft General Plan (Previously provided to the Commission) 8. Draft Local Coastal Program (Previously provided to the Commission) Page 7 Planning Conzmisszon StaffReport re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council • General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 03 -34 Re: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 Page 8 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. 03-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the City has prepared a "Proposed Initial Study and Negative Declaration 03 -1, City of Seal Beach General Plan and City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program ". The proposed project will set forth goals and policies for the city (General Plan) with regard to the general development within the City so as to provide for the orderly development thereof and the protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general, citizenry; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared and circulated an Initial Environmental Assessment and proposed Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The comment period on Negative Declaration 03 -1 ended on August 27, 2003. As of August 27, 2003, the City has received 6 responses to the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS the City has prepared a "Response to Cominents" document determining that all issues raised during the public comment period have been evaluated and no significant impacts have been raised; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2003 to consider Negative Declaration 03 -1 and the requested adoption of the updated General Plan & adoption of the Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received into evidence the Staff Report of September 17, 2003, along with all attachments thereto, including the Staff Report and considered all public testimony presented; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission made the following findings regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1: Page 9 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City" Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 1. Based upon the evidence presented, including the initial study, the negative declaration, any comments received thereon, and oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Negative Declaration adequately discloses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed revised General Plan & Local Coastal Program, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will result upon the approval of the subject project, and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur. The negative declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City and the Planning Commission. 2. There are no substantive changes to the existing General Plan document which would cause environmental impacts which would be classified as "significant" under CEQA. 3. The project will not have an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources _or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and on the basis of substantial evidence, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Planning Commission additionally makes the findings contained in the "Certificate of Fee Exemption," attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are available for public review in the Planning Department located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. The City Council hereby designates the Director of Planning and Community Development as the custodian of records for these documents. 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby adopts Resolution No. 03- 31, recommending to the City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 03 -1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 17 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Jim Sharp, Chairman Planning Commission Page 10 • Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council - General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission • Pagel 1 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 EXHIBIT A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title /Location Name and Address of Project Proponent (include county): REVISIONS TO GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Orange County - Project Description: This project is the adoption of a Local Coastal Program for the City of Seal Beach, as required by state law, and a periodic revision of the City's general plan. The purpose of the Local Coastal Plan is to protect coastal resources and provide greater access and recreational opportunities for the public's enjoyment, while allowing for the orderly and well - planned urban development and siting of coastal- dependant and coastal - related industry. The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development of the city. An initial study and negative declaration have been completed for this project. When considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before the agency that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Findings of Exemption: The City, as lead agency, prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed project, which concluded that the project would have no significant direct or mdirect adverse effects on plant or animal life or the habitat upon which they depend. The City declares that, when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City to indicate that the proposed project will have the potential for significant adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of substantial evidence, the City has rebutted the presumption of adverse impact to wildlife resources contained in Title 14, Section 753.5 (d), of the California Code of Regulations. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Lee Whittenberg Director of Development Services Lead Agency: City of Seal Beach Date: Page 12 - Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 • ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 03 -40 Re: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL (GENERAL PLAN) Page 13 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 RESOLUTION NUMBER 03 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED BY TFTE COUNCIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY_ OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach has been reviewing and considering revising the General Plan for some time. As monies became available, the City staff proceeded, under City Council direction, to draft the proposed revisions to the elements of the General Plan. Those elements were presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15070, the Planning Commission determines as follows: The application for adoption of an updated General Plan is adequately addressed through Negative Declaration 03 -1. Section 3. The record of the hearing of September 17, 2003 indicates the following: • a. The City of Seal Beach has been reviewing and considering revising the General Plan for some time for some time. As monies became available, the City staff proceeded, under City Council direction, to draft the proposed revisions to the elements of the General Plan. Those elements were presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. b. Specifically, the City is attempting to rewrite its general policies for development within the City of Seal Beach and create a comprehensive document which puts forth the goals and policies to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Seal Beach. c. The proposed project encompasses the entire City and will therefore affect the entire City. However, the General Plan is broken into elements, which may or may not have specific goals and policies for specific areas of the City. Page 14 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach - September 17, 2003 Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §3 of this resolution, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The amended General Plan will comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City. 2. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the City, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of the City. 3. The proposed update to the General Plan of the City of Seal Beach will not be detrimental to the short tern or long term goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare 4. The proposed General Plan amendments are consistent with the goals, policies and standards of all elements of the General Plan and will further those goals, policies and standards. - Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Resolution 03 -40, Recommending to the City Council adoption of the revisions to the General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Comrnission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Jim Sharp Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission Page 15 • Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 r ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 03 -41 Re: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL (LCP) Page 16 Planneng Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 - RESOLUTION NUMBER 03 -40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. Under the provisions of the California Coastal Act, Cities within the Coastal Zone are required to submit to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) a draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) for certification. The City has been unable to do so for some time due to financial constraints. At this juncture, the City has prepared for consideration a draft LCP and is considering the document- at public hearings. The LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) was presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15070, the Planning Commission determines as follows: The application 'for adoption of the LCP is adequately addressed through Negative Declaration 03 -1. Section 3. The record of the hearing of September 17, 2003 indicates the following: a. Under the provisions of the California Coastal Act, Cities within the Coastal Zone are required to submit to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) a draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) for certification. The City has been unable to do so for some time due to financial constraints. At this juncture, the City has prepared for consideration a draft LCP and is considering the document at public hearings. The LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) was presented before an Ad Hoc Committee for comment and revision before the public hearing process began, and those meetings took place between April and June, 2003. b. Specifically, the City is attempting to submit for consideration and ultimately certification of a Local Coastal Program which would give the permitting authority within the - Coastal Zone to the City of Seal Beach in many situations. Some permitting authority would still remain with the CCC, as outlined in the proposed LCP. Page 17 • Planning Commission Staff Report re • Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 c. The proposed project encompasses the Coastal Zone of the City of Seal Beach and would affect only that area. The Costal Zone is defined as all lands south of Westminster Avenue. Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §3 of this resolution, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: • 1. The proposed project will allow for a reasonable range of land uses within the Coastal Zone, with the provision of various land uses to address the identified objectives of Local Coastal Program. 2. The proposed adoption of the City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program will not be detrimental to the short tern or loi,:, tern goals or objectives of the City of Seal Beach and are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as amended. 3. The proposed policies within the LCP conform to the new standards for water quality, as outlined in the County of Orange Drainage Area Master Plan. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Resolution 0 =41, Recommending to the City Council adoption of the draft Local Coastal Program. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: - AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Corunissioners Jim Sharp Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission ' Page 18 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 ATTACHMENT 4 • Negative Declaration 03 -1 (Previously provided to the Commission) Page 19 Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 ATTACHMENT 5 • Response to Comments — Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -1 • • Page 20 • Responses to Comments Initial Study /Negative Declaration for General Plan Update 4EAL2 -•, _- GpRPO�rF.ge ,. i -0 : i " * i • ii,f,)(: 21 \c-."--■V �NTY, Lead Agency: City of Seal Beach • 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431 -2527 • Prepared By: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc. 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 (949) 581 -2888 September, 2003 Introduction This document has been prepared to respond to public comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City of Seal Beach Draft General Plan Update and Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The Negative Declaration was subject to a 30 -day public review period from July 28, 2003 to August 27, 2003. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15073(a) states that the Lead Agency shall provide a public review period of not less than 30 days for a proposed Negative Declaration that has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies. Distribution of the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for review and comment included the following agencies and organizations: City of Long Beach City of Garden Grove City of Huntington Beach City of Los Alamitos City of Westminster City of Los Alamitos Orange County Sanitation District Southern- California Association of Governments Los Alamitos Unified School District Orange County Transportation Authority Rossmoor Community Services District Island Village Homeowner's Association Tribal Secretary — Gabrielino /Tongva Tribal Council (Santa Monica) Tribal Council — Gabrielino /Tongva Indians of California (Culver City) Chairperson — Gabrielino /Tongva Tribal Council (San Gabriel) Southern California Gas Company SCAQMD Orange County Fire Authority Caltrans District 7 Caltrans District 12 California Coastal Commission County of Orange — Planning & Development Services Southern California Edison Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station County Clerk, County of Orange Golden Rain Foundation Airport Land Use Commission Native American Heritage Commission Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board County of Los Angeles Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base State Clearinghouse Responses to Comments 1 Initial Study /Negative Declaration for General Plan Update (Draft 9/9/03) In addition, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted at the City offices and published in the Seal Beach Sun newspaper. Copies of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, the Draft General Plan Update, and the Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan were made available for public review at the City's offices and on the City's official website: The City of Seal Beach received six comment letters on the Negative Declaration from public agencies, organizations, and individuals during the public review period. CEQA §21091(d)(1) requires that the City, as Lead Agency, must consider any comments on the proposed Negative Declaration that are received within the public review period. Pursuant to CEQA, a Lead Agency is only obligated to respond to comments on an Environmental Impact Report, not for a proposed Negative Declaration. However, the City does so voluntarily in order to acknowledge public input and fully address issues raised. CEQA Guidelines § 15204(b) provides that in reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed fording that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect they should 1) identify the specific effect, 2) explain why they believe the effect would occur, and 3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. CEQA § 15204(c) further advises: "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments." Pursuant to § 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204(d) also states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15024(e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." Each comment letter received during the public review period is included in its entirety in this document. Responses to comments submitted are printed in the right margin alongside the letter and are numbered to correspond to the paragraphs in the letter. No new significant environmental impacts are raised by the submitted comment letters. • Responses to Comments 2 Initial Study /Negative Declaration for General Plan Update (Draft 9/9/03) Comment Letters and Responses This section provides complete copies of all comment letters received during the public review period regarding the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Each letter is followed by responses that correspond to comments raised. Letter No. Agency /Organization/Person Date of Letter 1 State Clearinghouse August 27, 2003 2 So. California Association of Governments August 4, 2003 3 Orange County Fire Authority August 6, 2003 4 State Department of Transportation August 20, 2003 5 County of Orange — Planning & Development August 27, 2003 Services Department 6 Bruce Monroe August 25, 2003 • Responses to Comments 3 Initial Study /Negative Declaration for General Plan Update (Draft 9/9/03) o o ol y a.) cm b cn 1 � y .4) �". 0 'E v 4E4_ El t ci om, rco) Q o =I "C7 EA u co .Cy u .4 0 y "d CSC •r a) +. b4 a C g h y 0 V y Q U cat �U - CM o . . . _ .� .. ++ C) 3-. 0 3. y N N = at 4.40 O ca YO [� a) O ❑m❑ O 24 N �" .> y ilUfl • � il as b U .> a� a) o d > . t a) ac�C -o Hz vD a) a k Y _1 = u 0 • % H y e y w w y 0 ' 4-0. S{ u 4 u' d/ 4 v C � ill ri S N ° 0• • c a .p W U g Y g b .7 2 T z N Y 7 (� F 1 tY. Y O : . a x 00 ' ` G M t J e � O O Q O 1 v« £. c _ Us L u. — .- ... .. u a 4 � l (5; a C J Q z p Y a Q � H ti g // C a I) � 4 m m L O Hi Y1 w + 0 u. .O u M g ry 8$ .11 a .' .j.11� L to " a O ..= y ° �s > 1` e.-= a , ` c 4 0 'z 0 ,• a I . O o 8 ifl hi u L � o 1+ 2 , tl 5 c o i n CH iv t' � _ T1 a t, d CI �. a C ? 1..7o a Li g E ij P5 CU 0.3 tl T, O O a i V Y al Y7l A N >+ ~ 2.,; U U 3. , A E(JN VI as C. .U. � .r 4.It a P. 0 \ ,„a) _ I v,,,,,i oc Li) ..)., .. if CL cri CU c cc Il 1.11^ M O 0, e L D v I t 1 n v_ A • 223 It m ‘ d a u- ' a 302 all° I Lila p ■ m chi g m51 m ,, o • E w 3 s i a .i 8 n os LL 'C s p Q p �� • - r j —0 I ti a 0 gi C y X i a O Q. g .t. a ■ 2 p > NN N x ..77 e g i: i s • ., ¢ y a xk o LL Y 6 a m o C EV . - it .a S1 e g n f6 w a - l��V 3 $4 C n 81. x g m n ■ Q. - m O. •o a. - • Q u W $ O m K a 7 l m as , -•, y n e c p b 3 b u! . 9 O e• Ts c c 3 a {'; t _� l r '7.2.-N l° G E ^l ° CD o c Or E i s - •:t. - - . d r E . b 1 N J L 6R , , U . E W • = m C • � O E n a . { '' 3 9 e 'g g e P E C o m n c ' p N o uU g g - wa ti I� 'off 0 0 m . " 12 .2 2._ V i C ° n m 9 ■ 1 "DJ _ a $ BE R ° & 2 in fa I m C N ■ . 3„ 1 k' ,- g ' u , u* c. -� "it Z a 2 b N N �a : ! : j N z 3° i - W a gla a 4 G I O w a A a E o 1 1111 z 7 an - N [ LL Z O Z Z g CI 312 ]. m C Y u O N I.1 ]. C Q N M M b N 01 N y O ` V` i m a mg t a e e Q — a Vp . - 2 ± 1 a a i r 2 a w 3 w 2 (n 'a W .2 R a Z O a b a j,� O • a u C ' E.. i 4` C{ I W V N Y[ a [ < 0° Cy o m Qwra i n = a u y L+ m O nib x C 3 ^' .[ u Uy S m C C a u c a o i0 N a.:+ • C: .. .- 0 t o ca . � A 0 y O 5. -� N p O\i Ca M y "a) Om 00f o 4 r. 1- o t - En co ca 0 •,.., -. . 0 • R CS a c 5.. U 4 g . c d 0 ,0C cn =b o• o c m ca c "C3 ca y c 0 0 a, o u 0 L 3 O — O y co C O 0 ct LI .� y O 4.. oSU Es U -• O o L) .. mt d y . N (V ca y cs M CU ca h , - , 4- 0 .- C° © - R . O w 0) . y o , N N U ti E o O ^ � = P O z� 70' a ?{.°"''oar d �S ai = "a U 13 0 < r. 0 0 w a, 0 0Cya a o a U 0) W a0, c c °) a I)" E' ÷.. w U O a "22i: _ {LL� a Lava as s zw c ak 5 a m c gg a 1 x q "m �� 80 a ° !t 11 N S: d g EM E s c, O r e . v n g ?e8Ao$5 1a le co ,� lip 5 a a°- x / class cS m El u a CD i f ih1 �+ E n m �m� m s '^ � �g 4 m b > � p � ti yi i0 • °o i§ 4 Dam: •S i 3 s E � g m I 4 � g � E M 4 " ■ 1Wm i acaZcc t O<< �` § "mm °ffi W a z m moe ° e= a E i; "gg'" eiG 0 N C) EP g'3 p �+ �'- # =a' #rF3 'l 1 I 3 i#q . Jl A 3 i Q D1 3_ V a a s a r t. : f3- ro •3 +1'(tii -!l ;s_; 1■3' Kla !sly. # N M • ,7 f - z i g - _ i ' .e t ei i t 's1 , frig i ir e3 a @.: ? ISE; ;:41! a IL I ,f s f c w .r.+ m N> i I is! 'j :a ii.1 8 1 i. ail ;11 a •t •.1 i 1 , '• , — . <u 9 � �' j € i3 sy ei i iF - �3i:�` - �) E s x - g 3 E 4 3 a j Q b SF • • Mere j , a a sa, . aF # !'a . . „ i�3 as Fab N :u • C -C M 03 r. 0 Q A rn '0 e V ti 10 o U U 0 0 ,... N U t o 1 m c 4c74 o c � b U 0= .o u o a.) 4 .) w w > ' � a 0 - .. • to il `D o - ;!.-h o s' = w . � � Z a) • Vl as U = CO cq ' -Zr.-. • o ' en cu et 4" ' 5 N ,� - v H¢a ° ea b . u °c a . 7 0 . P. il b N i • a i 1 N O ! g c'LS II, I • 5 w a i a) h q e e > d N 11 W g u 1 3 � d „, es 04 61 8 � �; "_, a a Q U • z L c V a . e a w5 I 1 1 O W w ii ! r J' a R 9 9 04 3 g q C o ��u 1 :; o 0 O a I U 1 Y N W V C 5 O 1!i up o .Gu � " � j J` I I i .6., Z ,)1,; ! a u aNii, y .3 • , a mi in cu • b0 U . 0 y '5 +0.. 'CJ 1"") " 0 O O _ = O O co co al r . 0 f3. 4-, p N y 0 O ` i O 71 p vi O 0 cci c" N cat ' a) -, ° 0 O . 0 O O .. �' .� Q U U w " O 0 Q �' at = W cs Q 0 0 W ,„ .�. in c, , G. .O O . � , ) w 0 U . 0 O O E : 0 O N ° m U "" O cd O O • a) e r, - d "an p 0 cc y C7 y "0 • ti cd R' co) V 'S Q .. O +' " C cd g ^ -' GA _ O N •.. _ o o v cc o ° o b ° JD U Fi b C% P. ;d Pr E� c... w .d y . CA N w e., a) o O • cc a) a) a) = F a - a a o ca 0 0 h y a) E g 4' '.0 O b y 4. p cd c+-. cd 00 CA ca al N . .o N U cd c� 0 O + O vi }" O 0 at - 0 •.. 0 c O .0 O +- a U "C1 ¢. ' G w ^" O p O 0 0 . c0 O 0 O .6.0 73 8 .- O h a) a) a) ... O 3 0 ¢ U L "" ccdd �' h O a) N ^ N ' y . d � c O C �"+ ' a) w 4 U O ba o 0 O ¢. � cd O U cd a) o - . c+-• b 5 •4. N > "0 • ad sO. et' co .4 0 y N W O O E c0 0 ' O p 0 0 0 ' cn ° ca d M 0 . ) O 0 a) " " . O . O 2 A t. 0 ' d 0 C . ) 0 0 - O 0 .�. (4 . a) i tr.) .� sif O w> 0 0 . O y w O O > el c4-, 6..... ct } N O F e4 ' ,E O y Q y a) a) o N 4.+ a) cd a) ti o d) y cd N �• e� ocd o 'b 0 >' ^ 0 3 .0 0 . .� Oa) O h-... y , a. . '.0 0 o C 7 0U bo �•o,b 0 a w �� o A 0 U ^' w .9. To o P. g a) - a) a) b ° a a) 0 '45 Arm c0 cd Q+ cd a) ea cu a) a) a) a) "I w Q .J '' p 2 5 d 0.o H N o y O b ° H at til c o + p . C7 H En • o • w 0 0 C7 b w 4 '' cC •'' .4 a) cd 4 a� E--1 .45. U. c^ M v 'i '.),p ;0514-24 x `o t I c 2 • s� ' a g m i Lu l l E 3 3A a U 9 p g g 2 ' 5 ) 1.91/3re I ! -.F.t81-11 0.. 2 1 a 5 e . . ., .. s let] 1 i 1 g .0.g. 5 11 I i a ii t V g fa 1 1 g i g 11 l cu 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 a b xj ' 1 � 13 a.c. ?V a O II F r a .2 n � g .1 ca co I Satil gi g � 4 5- :o 1 8 a all i P' Ti o al 1� C g a8 _ g8_ H18 .. z cA, g ; j W es a ac W g. o C F.' VL7 _� 2 C K N M Y 0 0 � S �UNCn N OF-c� a u «« N Fa e,. 11 g a N W 0 ^a F _ 70 - In F.+ ■ cat . .. O .. 0 -. a) 4. ° .+ v2 0D N N O O O C y cd ° 0 .' ..0 a) t U -, . • "" a O O ^ c > t ° Q , O O y -0 O Q I~ c d '. ° U ,. a .) ) 0 a) ,,, 3 d4 ° b 0 - u -0 a0) a) 1 •y ° C . c� . -- = 5 a) -O 4. a) • nl b w I. Q" 0 O O E ct O 6, O 0 0 O ° 0 `� O b cd O 3 .. a) c) V O an a) a co co O a a) 0 CI) w 4.., O = - s. -d a) cti 43 cal cc ° W ° • ° '. b a) U ° a) "0 • c . . a , a) 3 a) y 0 • g 4. > — = - a) b 0 a) i. a a c° ) E -0 ❑ o x ,o 4-- . b v � M $ � � 3 a) o.) 0 i 0 0' o ct) O °) id C 4' L >' U ?� a) N � U v i 4 ' lit 7:1 a) a) a) 0 0 v U E. O O .•O i ° -0 ° O O o c En a) • • o O O U � + a) -C O p .-. O U cd 0 t ° p =. , Q . -O O .., N ...+ • ■ ^ q, '� '4-1 o y a~ 3 ° � tt g a) cd s~ - d cv ° p a) c.) 0. O i c -0 a) w 0.. vi O !s, .•- a) a) 0 0 U l J N b 777 • 0 c O 1-. - C >. 0 m V C g mgt p 9 9 n a I 1 i 3 fl > - 0 O 7 W I _1g i> C a F) � O fO 7 c 1' 3 a9 i' E 73 "' � � c c .Q 0 = W N m 8� 6 � za (L a m .e a �m 1 .§ E E O 6 Ec `sag 6 - g r3 W� 1 a� a g T ac - ry W go 8 U o Y _ W fit= C Q � W eaa w C)a O a) N nc m t i A .6 c E t y --aa 2 F cv `—�1 Cm Q �' Ets o W L c 8� O 0 0 a ci O t Q z �= U a) co t Q U W a W a 3 c ' v , ��� c V) o N lc CD z . cc o^ U ca .--( O b 0 y �: w nz, ,O rn a 0 — N C ' � o N a) in b O al l a i 0., N O ° 1 O Q O w O a) 0 >. O ^o . A O U 4, .� is . c a.) 4.4. a • , a o ' ? 3 F ' c ' Q ' ¢ • a . C.j c . c c L O V W O .fl _ a) C 0 P UO ° U y L' cl° ° a/ t .5 a) •� N - ea o a p b .0 ° 0 u. 'o 0 U ss. ' an 4- o, >, "d ea c U O 0 �., o > 0 ``" U a a) u a 0 0 u) C e " • o (..)*5C:) . > A °,o e° o = o °.=x ea$ ° a. ea o +.. A ew N O Q a) •.5 O N v a. a•. ° tu - o F., ea al N 0 N .v O Q, A., s rn eJ .-. . a . o o E c O a O t cc .4 02, 0 0 •5 y O j u o 0 c: ." O w a ... O .0 .0 A P-, t a) t3.ea... a) u, N a = y O c E y o c .44...-). x o c° ao a) p Q Y 4" 'd • d 0= o °) a3 • a) a, O a) 2 3 Q u ca u o ao a) ca o a) 0 o ca N.0 N 0 E c6. . .1.) ° m ca .b ` N o a '� a) `' I4-4 ° > > �" Q 'O 7' . 0 w a.) . a v 2 - ca U y 4/ 9. y g a y ` o et b t ., N rn $ ' 3 r. > , Q O ., . +.. �a .o y 2 W Q ' ¢• >, Q E ,4 a ekT t. 41 a. a c c ° 3° N ow. N °.°'• as e „; H CO tra V.'" A cz ` a 0 (C) .d 0 � ' b 11) ° .. w F" 0 o ca I. 0. .� N o `'" 0 R' 0 . a u d o 0 w. a o o c. b w .� w � o a,.0 � o � 3E-,.= 0 3 3 a Q.wco0' > a) . w > a) a ) a E n 0-- . ° . O O ^ o i. G'. N a b b C .tu > fl > +' .SC U c .Q caa U ° o r N .1 > R . r'""' w OA 3 ^ N b ed ,d (9i ca a O N .� a czI w c4 •O .b N ° N a~ r 3 1. a ) A ao .o N o ao 3 o O y 0 a) 6. N O O O O +•+ N C) N a) ... •' cd J • A Ei N 3 O v ' 0 a) N 0' a 0 Q 0 - 3 E 6.. ti 0 o 0 0 o U c 3 U `" U 0 0 a o 0 0 8 w am ea O. a) o ° • 1•. Q. i- 0.. 0 . N y a) ca w - a� o ° o o -- o o In Q ' • -• 3 ;A U . A a . ° c . • F ' P 4 H C4 C U S o 4) .0 0. °>•) a a 0. > ) a o.) c 'o U ID c .. l 0 :3 °A� CO o ea r+., I.4 U -o ° '1 N en Cr‘ c N 11 a x£ S $ e • o Y [ii p r m ki _ 4 C % N � Y g H { � u z ¢ Qq a u u g S p < w f6 m� �. 5 �• O r aU p v la I ; fi e o �° g. 0. E e -2 w s °„� o - a rm 1 t v ° m ZS FH v o f0 r. A Id e) V S In 112 i 1 I c r i m m 83_ E it -- O A z g - 0 . c e a - 0 4 m n � ?� w +C " m° B A u U 0 e . a 3 ai a I 11 . ..a. as O I ` 1 S P, u w n E �gi p� 3 L- • gg a 7 a o 0 b U ° g¢ Ti t� A a �s g �� _� vie! a) (1) 0 c 4 d rn 1.4 1 a o . ^- O a n 5 � E Q ro Va, 7,y = d " 3 > ° 5 � h a Vz r os. - o ° n U O O� r L �. _ °s .� U N N H 0 MCI 1+ W .. r R5 -4 N cn 7:3 '„� , erl 1, aoo• O a � • N �--1 M -0 a) O CT LA i O+ t cn 0 0 co co o .a o 4- = . � E 0 c c ' S a U ( . O C U p Tti • O Q. N ..0 C, =.-p-5 3 b CI N ✓ 15 O y . e U CQ N 412, en • b y C c y 2 • CCt .-. O A ,O OV' VI • • y 1U.. N o a co a i 0 U S 'O y ~ cC y Cl. CCS V ca . U � > N cs O O .. y cd P O fQ a o cd o — o a.) 09 O = o o F:. • oA ca �, . as ga. 4- 4- ad 0 y 8 p 74 y N U C a. N a O z ' › ° C .% p C b g o t w g " G g a a4w og u y @ 0 o U2 u ..7x9§ Li " ola.$ . 24 ch 3. Ills IO u E o w ° 0 v ° k. . 2 - 4 a � i E°°c3 e °� a .. . '0 SD r6 ti Eia 1 °r �s a '� 5 ro -, s . I s ps ? - 8 m u { �: n g c ���u 3 E g a °� s ��gg 5 C7 � el g y w a m FW O y V t .H .. g 2 e no g i = c 9 �r' $ 2 • , u_ o°o3� .59 �� a� °o$ei� 0 - .7% ) ,.1;!, a a $ =. 3 1' 8 c E A I 1 a 1p i L 0 gb. A Z C � -4 t. 7 gg -Q z 3 $ l 9 $ i t pi 7 N 3 g u lel b U � 5 Q aa. ° O 3 E ' 3° m m a 1 4° N a,11;0° H =$s r � > Y RR O 'E'''.1 u w u:0 u .; l e moo ;= ° N myEcr F 3�v " gog g� V a .n .o lh H U a) = C VI H 0 y 0 b 0 N N O C ." +--I p O U O U m a) cd :.F)` cd a) i o a. 0 o r 0 rn E , La a 3 0 a, a al cd a) O a) h Q. cn .d y f O M C 0 b at . 0 y a0 p 0 al Q. 0 O .,C O p 0 ce b c t ti 0 b O ''-' t,. �'' O N a ' i - c.) 1--. ' A .-C' y "O a) cd O y y 'b cd y .o a) 3 O = N 4) -.S. 0 y at z U U i ce 0 R7 0 •, .0 U .r ''. , . . a) V as fl a) 3 a) 0 -() a+ '''' y o b tp 0 0 rn a) O . - . .. L.," U „ s +.' E - ' E • . Q O co U ,. 03 +- rn a) G , y 4, .7 ee � + Q) . 0 + 3., cd �" c.. F:. p tll cd 0 2 ca 0 U 0 0 '�� 3 a) 0 > O w ` v 0 bO 0 c° s-' vi O v O ee .O U t- f r m , ce E O 9 O .d b •i+ 'd O •d '> c q ° a) 4-' x i a) ce O O O ccl) 0 4=' 0 ``.. E c cd > ai Q . 3 0 .� O F ce 'l7 e d0 0 v 4 ° a c 0 v o `1) ~ 0 ., i i e b 8 '> Q+ O p ¢ . O c u 120 d u3 O U O a) ' . C , 41 �, a ) > a) 0 a) 0 ie ' 0 v..'4 6 «+ c t 0 m A p .— 0. g O U N O W F 11" w U O O c" .0 -0 p a) .... +., > al •' ,.0 r �3, 0 bD O O 0 b0 M O ... co i d 4. o ` _ a , a 0 : 4 ° ee 0 'y ed a) � a) as 3 _ `� 5 3 0 b - U U a) p 3 U Fs .. �• o, o � , .• ' > 4 C7 'ti U a i �; a ) a� m 0 .d •0 N .0 .ti 713 � Q.' cl '> ti = o ce G 0 y o c C bo 0 cd ' 0 at " 0 O o cd 't3 a) U p 0 O c� . ' d en, .O O b O 0 O a, . c d ; ; '" cei � • � cd 4 a) ▪ 0 • 0 O ¢' a) � . C b ++ 0 r~ O U O ¢, U C ,• N .' +r ed 0 0 , ed O . p a) q0 a) Q E-1 0 d b p„ -, . . y a 0 0 a) �. I -0 c 4. o U a� ss. 0 3 0 o c c.,_, 0 ° °� u o•� ¢ 0. ' c o0 MI u 0 e ms? a) ] - 0 �, _ . O U ... o p., a U O F 4.4 p E. o a) > �. cd ce m • (13 0 0 N Q" N � ' o a ed P" t o o cd a) p " I CI) a) b '6) o v, it; W y . 0 g 0 o S at ��' 0 0 y N V a cp •= 0 o p N V at 0 " ee ' 0 0 a 4) = >+'0 . ''S 0. cd -0 o 8 0 > e a) . .� a jai b 0 p ra' VD X Q , d ' v taw oC7 cast) _ 0. 0 0 0APv api ° c•0 cpe o d CI U ere =w a N ►'dra � - M O a . T 3 'a 0 a 0 5, • 0 I s ..8 = 2 N a I a3 o $ fix al 1 E U1 w o. : e m $ a Y V n3 l's a CL i :3 3 Y y VII 10 gy m € $� 1.U,a 2 9 s co II "a 6 '0 a q.. 15332 e . to tit 11....2• g 1 $8 co . 0 g 3.5M1 ilk" f " CU a 3 ° O i 1 "h a ° � .. s aris c9 .' A 22 � g lay. = DE-Al � � g y a� � �- mi E405 la " � 1 } "M s al �j+v5 O t a r i g .9 5 a : 04 a s c p 9. � $ k ° � o .si u i Y 1 ix Fitt �' la ° l e Q:,� n3 qt Vial w o 0) c e e 2 Q a N i wi 1 3 ' 5 is.jgG eQu E' :. E j .4 g It ?.../ C y @ a g °p .y a ?' Z 1* Ti $O Q � o Y O a 9 c 0aa 0 Yi r Z O +�-+` N 0) 7 Q E O: r.-r p ca N> 0 4� 03 0 p to O 5 . bit o o V o rn 0 m 3° p c o b al U o al O 3 y 0 c v2 a) a) a 0 I) ° c° 6, a) o b 3 0 y .. .R cn 3 a o s c0 1, o "0 0 0 3 -0 (1),(11 0 4 cn _ O 4 a s O u, oa 4 . , a l s • a) =, a) a) a) a) } ; 0 p 0 0 !3 •.. cz U . � cct ° a a% a) O a) cl • =I > 3 > -I. O Ll. o O e a 4.... O _f... ca r. o y « s "' w U> 04 p O U w= 0. u .n 0 o a) a O cd Cs ' d 0 cct it U 4 .., C 0 , - a) v� � , 0 N . ey "C) al F.. ca 4-, W U F. C/l cq O L1. 7) o C .. U • 'c oo U e� o U b U �, o . a ) ° o > o ^ . ° 3 4 w w O 'I 0 0.° cC o D • . } 0 ca 0 p ' o ▪ .- • 0 . d i, g 0 o .0 > ° m b o o o. I . 0 au h. a) w oa •.., o co p 7-. 3 y "0 0 0 �' p a) a) o ° o a . C° a • a 0 — 4 to a ca cn ° c o o = . - tu „CM ca 1:). 0 0 .� tu cn - ca o o ' ° 7: u to = o. b ° Q P . U O ¢ v. > O y = =° a N y Iv • O 0 U O ° C 0 a. cd 0 > 5 ctaya)� 0 o ��a)0�a) • a4 a] o a) p 0 r,,, v) 4r O R cc) = "0 a)' rn y w y p O U al 4 .. • Ey .0 —. a >+ $. .. `, .c A-4 _ ° .= o o o ca 4.) a) - o b aw � "o ° u, • ° 0 4 .2 � U .c u P. o a a, > ' }+ ° ° 4-, � ai 0.) o °' n . o .� o C c° o v u) co e� ,, Q o m W a) O v • �' 0 v b ca ti o Q, .0 ,_,4 E� 0. a) g. p p "" 0 a) ., — ••t1 1.. a a 0 0 ) o ` ° ° a o 4, v > a) ° ° a oo :0 0 '� a 0 ti 0 a . cd p, w y) a) i o cu 6 ; a ' O ai O v ' o b a) y p. b' E o 2 a .') .= �' °' a . o 0 o � , o. ° � �, �, o p CL b 0 0 H cn GQ o f t• 3 U cc P. 4.. I..1 as a) U C7 W a F. R, p H 4. ca ca v o U � %.0 R a) no 0_ c it; . (3- ao c) c a) C7 L 0 c 0 a..I . ru L as U .emu o C a) a) E IS U O a N •3 a) M C Q Cl) N p- ce H d M 4: TI at O 44 e N CO O U a) 'ZS N rn al L. U I-, co , cn E U U G O U cd O N O G N O ct U w a Q , O Z to a D c is a ra c a) ' C7 c O no L ro U ul a) c a) a) U aa) O N 10 a) = c(! O ca CU E Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 ATTACHMENT 6 Minutes from Ad Hoc GP /LCP Committee Page21 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 ' Minutes of February 27, 2003 5 6 7 Mr. Lee Whittenberg called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local • 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:30 ,p.m. on Thursday, 9 February 27, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began - 10 with the Salute to the Flag.' 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Members Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Hood, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, 15 Regnier, Shanks, Unrath, and Voce. 16 17 Also 18 Present: Department of Development Services 19 Lee Whittenberg, Director 20 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 21 22 Absent: Members Calden, Evans, Harrison, and Ribal. 23 24 SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE - CHAIRPERSON 25 26 Mr. Whittenberg opened for nominations for Chairperson. 27 28 Member Shanks nominated Charles Antos for Chairperson who was then 29 unanimously elected. 30 31 Chairperson Antos opened for nominations for Vice - Chairperson. 32 33 Member Unrath nominated Dave Hood for Vice - Chairperson who was then 34 unanimously elected. 35 36 37 AGENDA APPROVAL 38 39 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Voce to approve the Agenda as presented. 40 , 41 MOTION CARRIED: 11 — 0 — 4 42 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Hood, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, 43 ' Regnier, Shanks, Unrath, and Voce 44 NOES: None 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Z :\Carmen datalAd Hoc GP LCP1Ad Heir. r;on Plan_I CP nom M7nnfne !17.7711 ,4 . Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 , ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Harrison, and Ribal 2 3 Member Ribal arrived at 6:45 p.m. 4 5 . 6 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 7 8 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 9 10 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Antos dosed oral 11 communications. 12 . 13 14 CONSENT CALENDAR 15 16 None. 17 18 19 SCHEDULED MATTERS 20 21 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2002 , 22 23 Recommendation: Approve Minutes with any corrections determined 24 appropriate. 25 26 Chairperson Antos recommended changes to the minutes on Page 3 Line 18, 19, 27 and 20, which were duly noted. Member Monroe also requested that mention of the 28 $85,000 funding allocated for this project be noted in the minutes. 29 30 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Rallis to approve the minutes of December 18, 2002 31 as amended. 32 33 MOTION CARRIED: 11 — 0 — 3 —1 34 _ AYES: Antos, Fitzpatrick, Hood, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, Regnier, 35 Ribal, Shanks, Unrath, and Voce 36 NOES: None 37 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, and Harrison 38 ABSTAIN: Barton 39 , 40 2. RECEIVE STAFF and CONSULTANT PRESENTATION; Committee and Public 41 Discussion; and Receive Committee Direction Re: 42 43 - (a) Preliminary Draft Land Use Element of the General Plan 44 (b) Preliminary Draft Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Element of 45 the General Plan 46 Z:1Carmen datalAd Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 2 Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee - Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 Mr. Whittenberg introduced Mac Cummins, the Associate Planner, and stated that 2 Mac would also be participating in this project. The Director of Development 3 Services then introduced Mr. Kent Lin, representative of Culbertson Adams who 4 provided a brief overview of his participation in the project, noting that his primary 5 responsibility would be for the GIS mapping. Mr. Lin stated that he would be happy 6 to respond to any questions or comments form the Committee members. 7 _ 8 Mr. Whittenberg then asked Mr. Cummins to provide a background of the work 9 completed to this point. Mr. Cummins began with a general overview of the 10 document and explained that at each meeting the Committee would review 1 or 2 of 11 the General Plan (GP) elements and provide Staff with comments on each draft. He 12 noted that the existing GP has been amended several times but has never been 13 adopted as one comprehensive document. He stated that as it currently exists the 14 GP document is quite difficult to read and does not provide a clear understanding of 15 the City's long -range goals and policies with respect to land use, safety, open space, 16 etc. He said that what the City was attempting to do was to consolidate all of the 17 element documents into one readable document that would be easily understood by 18 the average citizen. He reported that tonight the Committee would review the Land 19 Use (LU) Element and the Open Space /Recreation /Conservation (OSRC) Element. 20 Mr. Cummins explained that the City map has been broken up into five separate 21 planning areas, which follow generally defined areas of the City. He then proceeded 22 to point out the 5 planning areas as follows: 23 24 Planning Area 1 Old Town area and Surfside bounded by Pacific Coast Highway 25 (PCH) and the beach. 26 27 Planning Area 2 The Marina Hill Area, Hellman Property, and the Boeing 28 property up to Westminster Avenue. 29 30 Planning Area 3 Leisure World up to the 405 Freeway. 31 32 Planning Area 4 College Park East and West and the Rossmoor Shopping 33 Center. 34 35 Planning Area 5 The Naval Weapons Station (NWS). 36 37 He stated that these were easily recognizable and distinct areas of the City, and the 38 analysis in the GP is based upon different characteristics and ideas for long -range 39 policies for each planning area. 40 41 Mr. Cummins began with the LU Element and stated that Staff is not proposing any 42 land use changes. He stated that the land uses remain the same, but the text format 43 has been made easier to read and understand. He noted that. Staff is currently 44 processing a GP and Zone Change Amendment (ZCA) for the Boeing Property to be 45 placed in a Specific Plan GP designation and zoning designation. He stated that this 46 Specific Plan almost identically mirrors the existing zoning on the Boeing property, Z: \Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 3 Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 with the exception of additional design standard reviews to give the City more ability 2 to create a better project as far as landscaping and street design are concerned, and 3 also to get some point -of -sale retail uses at this location. He said that currently the 4 Light Manufacturing (M -1) Zone does not allow retail. He said that no changes are 5 proposed to the vacant site at First Street and Marina Drive, nor at the Department 6 of Water and Power (DWP) site. Mr. Cummins then continued by stating that Staff 7 has compiled preliminary draft maps reflecting the allowable land uses within each 8 planning area. He noted that the written text outlines Tong -range goals and policies 9 for the City based upon what appears in the current GP. He then opened for 10 questions and comments from the Committee Members, beginning with the LU 11 Element and then going on to the OSRC Element. 12 13 Committee Questions /Comments 14 15 Member Unrath asked if Staff wanted feedback related to specific corrections to 16 general grammar and punctuation, or whether Staff was open to suggestions related 17 to what the GP should look like for the next 20 to 30 years. Mr. Whittenberg 18 responded that Staff is open to suggestions from the Committee. He said that Staff 19 - anticipates that the Committee will help create the kind of GP that reflects what the 20 community would like to have. He said that once the revised elements are adopted, 21 the City still has the option of adopting amendments to any element of the GP as 22 needed. He also noted that the City could adopt a Specific Plan to overlay an area 23 of the City or amend an existing Specific Plan. 24 25 With regard to the LU Element Member Unrath commented that there is - no 26 philosophical discussion about the Boeing Plan, as it currently exists. He said that 27 the LU Element states that the Specific Plan is very precise with what it proposes. - 28 He stated that he believes the LU Element should be less specific with regard to the 29 Boeing property and should incorporate language that states that the best use for 30 this land would be a light industrial complex with low buildings that blend in with the 31 surrounding land use and is compatible with the environment. He said that this 32 - would more adequately reflect what the "philosophy" for this area should be for the 33 next 20 years rather than using verbiage such as, " Boeing proposes to add 1 million 34 square feet of light industrial land use." Member Unrath commented that 20 years 35 from now or maybe even next year if the City Council (CC) decides to not allow 36 Boeing to complete this project, the GP would then be outdated. Mr. Whittenberg 37 noted that by law the GP must include information on building intensity and building 38 densities. He explained that density relates to residential development where a 39 certain number of units per acre of land are allowed, and intensity usually refers to 40 commercial or industrial uses and reflects percentages of lot coverage, which then 41 translates to a number of square feet. He said that these standards must be 42 incorporated into the City's GP, but currently the GP only reflects this for residential 43 uses and not commercial /industrial uses. He stated that one of the objectives is to 44 begin to incorporate some of these criteria into the City Code so that everyone will '45 know what the requirements are. Member Unrath emphasized that he believes a Z:\Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 4 Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 general philosophy rather than a specific plan would be more appropriate for the City 2 GP. 3 4 Member Hood stated that the LU Element document does contain general 5 descriptions of the 5 planning areas reflecting where the City is now. He then noted 6 that the next section entitled "Goals, Objectives, and Policies" provides more specific 7 comments that reflect the vision for long -term and future land uses in Seal Beach. -8 He continued by stating that the following section entitled "Land Use Designations" 9 also reflects comments related to future land uses. He commented that perhaps 10 Member Unrath was stating that the types of comments being made would depend _ 11 • upon the section of the GP element under review. 12 13 Member Unrath stated that he had some concerns with some of the designations of 14 the planning areas. He noted that lumping the Boeing property and the Marina Hill 15 region into one planning area or the Rossmoor and Bixby Commercial Center with 16 College Park East and West does not adequately reflect how the City is made up. 17 He said that a more specific division of planning areas is needed. He suggested 18 separate planning areas for the following areas: 19 20 1. Old Town 21 2. Marina Hill and Hellman Property 22 3. Boeing Property 23 4. Leisure World - 24 . 5. College Park East/College Park West 25 6. Rossmoor Center 26 7. Bixby Old Ranch Town Center 27 28 Member Monroe asked how integrated the planning is that the City is doing with all 29 of the other planning efforts and agencies (County, Naval Weapons Station [NWS], 30 California Coastal Commission [CCC], National Fish & Wildlife, etc.) that surround 31 the City? He then asked whether the City is planning within a context of a finite 32 amount of population or a finite amount of development or open space, or some mix 33 of these? In response to the first question Mr. Whittenberg stated that part of this 34 process would include the preparation of a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) that will deal 35 with giving coastal permit approval process to the City instead of having to go 36 through the CCC. Regarding the second question, Mr. Whittenberg, stated that the 37 City has already tried to reflect this in the GP. He stated that the City expects the 38 NWS to remain indefinitely as well as the National Wildlife Refuge. He noted that if 39 this were to change it would have a major impact upon the City, creating the need 40 for major revisions to the GP. He stated that there are regional agencies whose 41 actions can affect the City like the Southern California Association of Governments 42 (SCAG) who does population and housing projections. He said that Seal Beach and 43 most other cities in Orange County has been able to work with SCAG in providing 44 their projections for future land use, population growth, and employment. He 45 commented that formerly the opposite occurred where the County handed down its 46 projections for population growth, land use, and employment with the expectation Z: \Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 5 Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 that cities would meet these projections. He explained that nonetheless there are 2 other new requirements coming from other agencies, such as the National Pollution 3 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), - which relates to major water quality 4 standards being imposed on all cities statewide. He noted that this requirement will 5 also impact the GP and will have to be included as part of an element. He 6 mentioned that. although it has not been a factor recently, an Air Quality 7 Management Plan (AQMP), containing very specific requirements for dealing with air 8 quality issues, was distributed to cities by the Air Quality Management District 9 (AQMD). He noted that a new AQMP will probably be circulated in the future and 10 this will also impact the GP. He emphasized that the main objective of this GP • 11 revision is that the City define where it wants to be between now and the year 2020- 12 25. He said that knowing what the community wants would provide the information 13 necessary to decide on how the GP is to be presented. 14 15 Member Shanks asked if in order to receive CCC approval, the Committee must get 16 more specific rather than philosophical. Chairperson Antos responded that this 17 would be true only for the LCP. He explained that the LCP is like a mini -GP with a 18 lot more specifics if you are in a coastal zone. Member Shanks commented that it • 19 might abbreviate tonight's discussion and might be easiest if the Committee 20 members presented their comments to Staff in writing. He said that this would be 21 his preference. 22 23 Member Voce stated that with the LU Element and the planning portion of the GP 24 the Committee must specify within a Specific Plan, and he believes that the GP must 25 state what the City wants to specify for an area. He said that for those areas of the 26 GP that are vague, the City can go in and specify a lot more detail in a Specific Plan. 27 He said that this was his intent with regard to natural environments. Chairperson 28 Antos stated that the OSRC Element would be the appropriate area to address 29 natural environment issues. He explained that the LU Element designates a 30 1200 -acre refuge area within the NWS as a Federal National Wildlife Refuge, but the 31 OSRC Element can get more specific with regard to proposals for viewing areas or 32 other open space /recreational uses, as this would not be in conflict with the LU 33 Element. 34 35 Member Shanks stated that many things have been omitted and he believes it would 36 be necessary to go page by page to address all of the omissions. He cited the 37 example of not finding any mention of the housing on the NWS. 38 - 39 Member Pontac asked if the City had any authority over the NWS? Mr. Whittenberg 40 responded that the City does not. He noted that the NWS is like a city unto itself so 41 there would really be no reason to pursue them since they can do whatever they 42 wish? • 43 44 Chairperson Antos referred to the Housing Element and stated that the total number 45 of housing units, regardless of type, must be included within this element. He said 46 that this would include the military base housing off of Bolsa Avenue and housing on • Z: \Carmen_data \Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 6 • Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 the base itself. He explained that although this housing must be included in the 2 Housing Element, the City still could not regulate this military housing. He noted that 3 should the base close down, the City would still maintain the power to stipulate what 4 the zoning for this area would be. 5 6 Member Monroe observed that many years ago Congress decided that when natural 7 open space areas are located within military bases, and that Federal Law requires 8 that every 5 years the Navy involve stakeholders and the surrounding community in 9 the development of a 5 -year, updateable, natural resource plan. As such the City 10 can request that specific viewing areas, observation decks, etc. be incorporated. He 11 said that the Navy could ignore these requests and do whatever they please, but the 12 City does have a voice in the dialogue and the City is consulted regarding this issue 13 on a regular basis. 14 " 15 Member Voce interjected that ultimately anything within City limits is the 16 responsibility of the City, and in order to protect the future the City should not 17 abrogate any rights to any parcel. 18 19 Mr. Whittenberg stated that regarding the issue of base closure; the NWS has been 20 on the list for base closures in the past. He said that when it is determined that a 21 base is to be dosed, - money is made available through the Federal Government to 22 create a plan for the re -use of that property. He noted that this places the City in the 23 driver's seat as far as developing a plan to decide what the City wants to see -. - 24 happen on that land. 'Chairperson Antos explained that the purpose of the NWS 25 base is to service the Pacific Fleet, and in order to close this NWS the Navy must 26 construct another one exactly the same size or larger somewhere along the Pacific 27 Coast. He said the likelihood of this base closing is very remote. . 28 29 Member Monroe commented that there is provision in the Base Realignment and 30 Closure Act, which states that there is hierarchy in which requesting agencies can 31 ask for land if a base is to be closed. He noted that the priority is other federal 32 agencies first. He said in this case the Fish & Wildlife service has already asked the • 33 Navy for the unused or unnecessary portions of the NWS over time. He stated that 34 they are constructing wetlands to help purify the water and a trailer park is, being 35 constructed for use by military veterans and visitors. He said that in addition to the 36 housing on the base there is future housing planned. He indicated that the there is . 37 an understanding between the two agencies that jointly manage the refuge. 38 39 Vice - Chairperson Hood stated that it appears that the City has a GP with the "LU 40 Element as the broadest element of the plan. He said that the LU Element is not 41 designed to address specific areas in great detail, but simply discusses and 42 prescribes general land uses. He noted that OSRC Element goes into more detail 43 with some of these areas. He said that he was also in agreement that each member 44 write down his /her comments and /or recommendations on the Land Use Element 45 and forward this to Staff for their review. 46 Z: \Carmen_data \Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan-LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 7 Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 Member Shanks asked if anything should be said in the LU Element about the City's 2 control of municipal waters? He noted that there had been talk of constructing an 3 airport out from Long Beach or Huntington Beach. Chairperson Antos stated the he 4 did not believe this would be necessary as an airport out of Long Beach would not 5 impact Seal Beach. He polled the members to determine if they all agreed that 6 written comments should be submitted to Staff. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in order 7 to expedite the process he would request that members submit their comments at 8 the end of one week, which would be March 13, 2003. 9 10 - Member Shanks stated that the DWP property currently has a specific plan that was 11 adopted that calls for 30% development and 70% open space, and development is 12 limited to commercial only. He recommended that because this is part of the 13 Specific Plan process that it go through the same process as when it was originally 14 adopted. He said that the DWP Specific Plan Committee could review the plan as 15 well as the Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Control Board 16 before review by City Council for consideration to be placed in the GP LU Element 17 as the DWP Specific Plan. 18 19 .Member Monroe asked whether the City would be limiting or encouraging growth, 20 - build out, permeable surfaces, etc. He indicated that Seal Beach is a slow coastal 21 city and ecologists state that when more than 10% of land along the coast is 22 composed of impermeable surfaces, the wastewater runoff increases problems with 23 - the surf and wading and surfing areas. He noted that many areas along the five 24 coasts have established 10% limits on non - permeable surfaces and on population 25 totals and density. Chairperson Antos stated that the City is mostly developed and 26 - at this point there is not a lot of open area, making it difficult to establish this kind of 27 a restriction. Member Monroe interjected that developers could be required to use 28 alternative permeable materials for paved surfaces. 29 30 Member Voce asked if some of the language being used in the OSRC Element 31 would be duplicated in the LCP. Mr. Cummins stated that the LCP would be a 32 separate independent document from the GP so that whenever the GP is amended 33 it would not be necessary to amend the LCP and bring it before the California 34 Coastal Commission (CCC). Mr. Whittenberg added that the LCP would also 35 include zoning standards, development standards, and permeable surface standards 36 as a part of water quality requirements. He said it would be much more specific that 37 what would be needed for the zoning ordinance for College Park East or College 38 Park West. He noted that because those areas are outside the Coastal Zone, you 39 could do things in those areas that would not be permissible on properties south of 40 Westminster Boulevard. He said the there will be a lot of different standards that will 41 be driven by CCC issues, as they are already requiring that rebuild projects in Old 42 Town use permeable materials for driveways on the alley portion of a driveway 43 entering a garage. He noted that with the new State Regional Water Quality Control 44 Board water quality standards, the City would probably be imposing these types of 45 requirements throughout the city. 46 Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 8 Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 Member Hood stated that the Committee should specify that comments are to be 2 based upon the current density standards in order to provide a reference for the tone 3 and content of comments. Chairperson Antos stated that with regard to the LU 4 Element as it exists with the level of development and the proposed and approved 5 projects, the Committee should evaluate whether any significant future development 6 is to be anticipated or desired. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the current LU 7 Element probably reflects leaving the community basically as it exists today for the 8 next 20 -25 years without any major changes except the DWP property, the oil 9 extraction site, and the Boeing property, which once developed will necessitate 10 another revision to the GP. He stated that through the years the general response 11 ' from the community is that they like Seal Beach pretty much as it is. He noted that 12 there might be a couple of special spots that the Committee may want to look at and 13 further define. He said if the DWP Specific Plan as it exists is of concern to 14 Committee members, than this should be highlighted for further review. 15 16 Member Regnier inquired about what the consensus is regarding adding planning 17 districts. Chairperson Antos reviewed the five planning districts. Member Unrath 18 stated that with the Hellman residential project, he would propose splitting Planning 19 Area 2 at Adolfo Lopez Drive up to Westminster Boulevard to include the police . 20 station, fire station, Advanced Metals, the Boeing property, and the retail area along 21 Westminster Boulevard. He said he would also like to split Planning Area 4 to 22 separate the residential areas of College Park East and West from the Bixby and . 23 Rossmoor commercial centers. Member Pontac stated that it would be better to - 24 keep them together as whatever happens in the commercial center might adversely 25 affect the residential. He noted that keeping them together makes more sense when - 26 discussing issues of traffic and circulation. Member Unrath stated that in terms of 27 the way the document is to be organized discussing land use for the golf course and 28 residential and commercial in the same paragraphs might prove to be too 29 cumbersome. Member Regnier stated that the Planning Areas as they are currently 30 designated appear to be well defined, as whatever happens in the area affects the 31 rest of the things in the area. He said that the specific boundaries as designated 32 work well and he recommended leaving them as is. Member Voce inquired as to 33 how many zoning designation are currently in use. Mr. Whittenberg responded by 34 stating that there are 3 residential zones (RLD, RMD, RHD), 4 commercial zones 35 (C -1, C -2, L -C, and M -1), a Public Land Use Zone, an Open Space Recreation 36 Zone, and a Light Industrial Zone. Member Voce stated that the Committee must 37 clarify whether they want to specify areas by geography or zoning designations. Mr. 38 Whittenberg interjected that planning areas have been designated, as they are as a 39 "result of specific areas of the town being developed in a certain manner or by natural 40 or man -made boundaries. He cited the example of the nearby shopping center 41 having a direct impact upon College Park East. He said that from Staffs standpoint 42 the planning areas allow the City to look at each area and see what issues counter 43 impact each other in that particular area of the community. He noted that some of 44 , the areas have cross - connection issues, such as with the 405 Freeway overcrossing 45 from Leisure World into Los Alamitos. He explained that how development occurs 46 within these planning areas is the function of the Zoning Ordinance or a Specific Z: \Carmen data \Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 9 Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 Plan. He cited examples of the proximity of residential to commercial areas within 2 the City and noted that building and development standards will differ from one 3 planning area to another depending upon land uses. Member Pontac stated that he 4 perceives the planning areas as developing along social or common interest 5 boundaries as, for example, what affects the residents of Leisure World does not 6 necessarily affect residents in other parts of town. - 7 8 MOTION by Fitzpatrick; SECOND by Regnier to keep the five Planning Areas as 9 currently designated. 10 11 MOTION CARRIED: 10 -- 2 — 3 12 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Hood, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, 13 Regnier, Shanks, and Voce _ 14 NOES: Ribal and Unrath 15 -ABSENT: Calden, Evans, and Harrison 16 1.7 Chairperson Antos then moved the . discussion to the Open 18 Space /Recreation /Conservation (OSRC) Element. Member Rallis commented that 19 there are some references in the OSRC Element regarding insufficient parks, but 20 that - beaches cannot be counted as parks. He asked if this were a state law or is this 21 specific to Seal Beach? He asked if legislation should be presented to change this? 22 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he did not know this to be a state law, but is probably 23 something that the City uses as a guideline. He said that part of this is that the 24 beach is more than a local serving recreational facility in the community, and if it is 25 counted as part of the local recreation needs, when developments come in it is 26 sometimes difficult to get them to put in their _fair share of additional park land. He 27 stated that if the community wishes to stay as it is, this might not be an issue. 28 Chairperson Antos noted that the City's open spaces should be placed in specific 29 categories, such as local parks, wildlife refuge, public beaches, etc. Member Pontac 30 noted with the number of residents in Leisure World, it is still undersupplied with 31 open space /recreation areas. Chairperson Antos stated that this would be the 32 responsibility of Leisure World as it is a planned community. 33 34 Member Ribal asked if the parks outside of Leisure World are underused or 35 overused. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this information would be handled by the 36 Recreation Department, but he believes that some facilities get a lot of use while 37 - others do not. He said that the Marina Center is frequently used as well as the 38 facilities in College Park East. Member Voce stated that he does see this as an - 39 issue of overuse or underuse. He said that the parks are there and should be used 40 as the community desires. Chairperson Antos noted that the Senior Center at the 41 library is one facility that is underutilized, perhaps because it was set up as a senior 42 center rather than a community center. Mr. Whittenberg stated that part of the 43 problem with facilities being underutilized might be that the types of services and 44 activities available do not reflect the desires of the community. He noted that the 45 greenbelt is an area that is very actively utilized. Member Pontac stated that the golf 46 course is really underutilized, but green areas are important and make for a nicer Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 10 Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan - Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 community. Member Voce requested that the term "Gum Grove Park Nature Area" 2 be used consistently throughout the document. He also confirmed whether the 3 deadline for comments on the OSRC Element would be the same as for the LU 4 Element. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the deadline for both documents would be 5 the same, March 13, 2003. 6 7 Member Shanks noted the difference in acreage listed for the Electric Avenue 8 greenbelt and the Pacific /Electric Right -of -Way near the Red Car. 9 10 Member Monroe stated that if the City is going to maintain the same character, 11 population density, and zoning, for the .next 20 -25 years, Seal Beach would be the 12 , only beach city on the coast of California for which this would be true. He noted that 13 based upon recent data 50% of the nation's population now lives within an hour's 14 , drive of the coast, and this number is projected to increase to 80 %. He indicated 15 that coastal property comprises 17% of the land in the U.S., and having 80% of the 16 U.S. population crowded into coastal land will certainly lead to increased density. 17 Chairperson Antos- stated that if density is limited through zoning, then the City -18 should not experience any major increase in population. He noted that the past two 19 census reports reflect a decrease in population. Member Fitzpatrick stated that he is 20 in favor of using any means possible to maintain low population growth. Mr. 21 Whittenberg stated that the LU Element sets forth the general density standards, 22 particularly for residential, and the City has already specified a certain number of 23 units per acre in the different areas of town. He said that the population projections 24 listed assume that these areas are built out to their maximum potential. He 25 explained that most coastal cities have the same objectives as Seal Beach, and the - 26 inland areas that have more undeveloped land to - accommodate this growth will 27 probably better manage the projected future population growth for Southern 28 - California. He noted that they would also use better land use planning standards 29 than those used in the past. 30 31 Member Unrath stated that he would like to footnote that Arbor Park is physically in 32 Los Alamitos and is under long -term lease to the City of Seal Beach. 33 34 Member Ribal stated that use of Edison Park is discouraged due to insufficient 35 parking and also because of a sign written in Spanish that notes that a permit is 36 required in order to use the park. He alluded to the possibility that this was done in 37 order to keep Mexican people from using the park. He asked what the City is doing 38 to make public recreational areas more usable. 39 40 Member Ribal then expressed his concerns regarding flooding by storm waters . 41 along Seal Way and the parking problems in this area. He proposed that new 42 - construction of homes not be allowed at grade level and that homeowners be •43 allowed to convert the first floors of existing homes into usable parking space. Mr. . 44 Whittenberg stated that these are issues that could be addressed under the Local 45 Coastal Plan (LCP). 46 Z:1Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 11 Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2003 1 He indicated that once all of the comments are incorporated into each element 2 document, a red line copy showing the tracking of all changes will be provided for 3 each of the members. 4 5 Member Unrath noted that a paragraph should be included regarding the City's 6 participation in the San Gabriel River Conservancy to prevent storm water runoff. 7 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would probably be addressed in the Hazard/Water 8 Quality Element. 9 10 11 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 12 13 None. 14 15 16 STAFF CONCERNS 17' 18 None. 19 20 21 ADJOURNMENT 22 23 The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 24 25 26 Respectfully Submitted, 27 28 29 30 ,r_ _ _b. I•.—% _ ■i 31 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 32 Planning Department 33 34 35 APPROVAL 36 37 The Committee on approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 38 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, 39 February 27, 2003. 40 Z: \Carmen_data \Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 12 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE • 3 4 Minutes of March 13, 2003 _ 5 6 7 Chairperson Antos called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, 9 March 13, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers.' 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Members Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Hood, Monroe, Shanks, Unrath, and 14 Voce. 15 Also 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 18 19 Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services 20 Members Calden, Evans, Harrison, Pontac, Rallis, Regnier, and Ribal. 21 22 23 AGENDA APPROVAL 24 25 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Unrath to approve the Agenda as presented. 26 27 MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 7 28 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Hood, Monroe, Shanks, 29 Unrath, and Voce 30 NOES: None 31 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Harrison, Pontac, Rallis, Regnier, and 32 Ribal, 33 34 35 _ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 36 37 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 38 39 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Antos closed oral 40 communications. 41 42 43 . 44 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. • Z :\Carmen data1Ad Hoc GP LCMAII ro RAF., n1 41 n1 .4,.,. Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 3 None. 4 5 Member Ribal arrived for the meeting at 6:45 p.m. 6 7 - 8 SCHEDULED MATTERS 9 10 1. Receive Staff Presentation and Consultant Presentation; Committee and Public 11 Discussion; and Receive Committee Direction Re: 12 (a) Preliminary Draft Circulation Element of the General Plan. 13 (b) Preliminary Draft Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan. 14 15 Staff Presentation - Circulation Element 16 • 17 Mr. Mac Cummins introduced Ms. Andi Culbertson, principal with the firm of 18 Culbertson Adams & Associates. He noted that she is the chief consultant for this 19 project and has directed the drafting of the General Plan (GP) revision documents. 20 He then introduced Ms. Diane Bathgate and Mr. Carl Ballard also from Culbertson 21 Adams & Associates. 22 . 23 Mr. Cummins then presented some of the key issues in the Circulation Element (CE) 24 noting that the element itself is not subject to many changes. He stated that the CE ' 25 is mandated under State law and it must remain internally consistent with the other 26 elements of the GP. He explained that the CE presents an analysis of traffic and 27 roadway segments within the City, and it also reviews public transit needs, bike 28 routes, pedestrian routes, etc., and how they interact together given the scope of 29 land uses within the City. He said that Staff is proposing no changes to the roadway 30 designations, which have been assigned depending upon the expected traffic 31 capacities. He noted that typically traffic analysis is done in terms of Level of 32 Service (LOS) and are classified on a schedule of A to F, with "A" being the best and 33 "F" being the worst classification. He stated the City has specified "D" as the 34 minimum acceptable level of service for its roadways. He noted the Goals and 35 Policies presented in the CE and stated that he would be happy to respond to any 36 questions regarding these items. He then indicated that the only item to be changed 37 in the CE is the proposal to extend First Street to run across Pacific Coast Highway 38 (PCH) up to Westminster Avenue. He said that this proposal was amended out of 39 the GP at the time the Hellman Project was approved. Mr. Cummins then pointed 40 out that the 405 Freeway overcrossing is shown within the CE as a potential long - 41 range expansion to occur within 20 -25 years. He said that Staff is expecting that at -42 some point the City will build that bridge or the bridge will be built when the 22 43 Garden Grove Freeway widening project is completed, although currently Staff has 44 no information regarding the date of completion for this project. . 45 Z:1Carmen datalAd Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 2 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 1 Committee Questions /Comments 2 3 Member Unrath noted that he did not see explicit mention of the Seal Beach 4 Boulevard bridge overcrossing. 5 6 Member Shanks asked how a particular road that is rated "F" would change to a 7 better grade. He referred specifically to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Mr. 8 Cummins stated that there are some intersections that will continue to operate at a 9 poor level of service (LOS). He said that the City is not currently in a financial 10 position to attempt to improve these intersections. He noted that typically when a 11 new development requires mitigation to raise the LOS, the developer pays the 12 impact fees, or the City could attempt to raise it through its CIP Program. 13 _ 14 Member Voce asked that since PCH is a State highway, would CalTrans be 15 responsible for the cost of improving the LOS. Mr. Cummins stated that the City 16 could apply for grants and he noted that the CE does list as a policy that the City will 17 continue to apply for grants when they become available. 18 19 Member Monroe noted that the CE occasionally discusses environmental impacts, 20 but rarely mentions impacts from air, noise, and light particularly adjacent to the 21 wildlife refuge or park areas or quiet residential areas. He emphasized that diesel 22 and gasoline exhausts are the greatest air polluters and lead to unnecessary health 23 problems, respiratory disease, hospitalizations, and death. He stated that he had 24 hoped to see this specifically addressed under the CE goals with a statement that 25 one of the objectives is to minimize air, noise, light, and water pollution as a result of 26 traffic. Chairperson Antos noted that noise issues are to be addressed in the Noise 27 ., Element. Mr. Cummins interjected that there are a number of places within the GP 28 document where these types of concerns can be addressed. 29 30 Member Unrath noted several typographical corrections to the CE draft including 31 possible errors for PCH directional designations on Page 2. He indicated that on 32 Page 23, Figure 11 several stop Tight designations were missing. On Page 32, he 33 recommended continuing the bike trail beyond Beverly Manor Road, and in Figure 34 20 he noted that this shows an off street bikeway that was never constructed within 35 the new shopping center. He requested that on Page 51 the section discussing the 36 addition of lanes to the 405 Freeway be rewritten to express support for adding the 37 HOV lanes, but not at the expense of the existing neighborhood in College Park East 38 (CPE). He noted that on Page 52 the section on express bus service should also 39 include a recommendation that the Los Alamitos School District provide bussing for 40 high school students from CPE to Los Alamitos High School, significantly reducing 41 morning and afternoon traffic impacts along Seal Beach Boulevard. 42 - 43 Member Monroe noted that Figure 15 on Page 27 fails to show trucking on 44 Westminster Avenue, the 405 Freeway, and within the Naval Weapons Station 45 (NWS). 46 Z.1Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting ' Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 1 Member Voce noted that under Objective on Page -52 the word "promote" should be 2 replaced by the word "require." 3 4 Member Barton stated that Page 10 should provide clarification for bike routes. 5 6 Chairperson Antos noted that Pages 29 -32 clearly reflect the actual length of the 7 San Gabriel River Bicycle Trail. 8 9 Member Voce referred to Page 49 and noted that he would be curious to know what 10 it would take to raise the standard of LOS to "C." Mr. Cummins stated that perhaps 11 the consultant could provide some information on this. Ms. Culbertson stated that 12 the City is required to use an LOS of "0" when using Measure M funds., She said 13 that "C" is a great objective, but is not something that will ever be funded in an urban 14 area. She noted that LOS "D" is usually the benchmark. She said that in order to 15 improve an LOS a large amount of existing development might have to be removed. 16 17 Chairperson Antos noted for the record that written comments were received from 18 residents of Surfside Colony stating that the best time to observe traffic flow on PCH 19 and Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) is on any weekday around 7:30 a.m. He 20 . explained that attempting to turn east or west onto PCH from SBB or from adjoining 21 City streets usually involves a long wait at the signal lights with a very short signal 22 light for those cars waiting to cross or turn onto PCH. He recommended widening of 23 the southbound side of SBB at the PCH intersection to allow for a clear right turn 24 lane and prevent backing up of cars to Electric Avenue. Ms. Culbertson questioned 25 whether there is a right -of -way. Mr. Cummins interjected that the principal issue with 26 a possible widening at this location is that the bike trail comes into that intersection, 27 and the Tong -term plan is to have a bike trail that goes west on PCH past Surfside 28 and up to, the City and then south to Electric Avenue. He said that this project was 29 paid for by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Ms. Culbertson, 30 stated that text could be added stating that the City will establish an objective to 31 seek opportunities to include an additional lane to accommodate both functions, as 32 she believes this would be the kind of improvement that would quality for Measure M 33 funds and would be supported in the Coastal Act because it would decrease traffic 34 congestion. . 35 36 Member Voce stated that the CE document is very vague regarding how signals are 37 timed. He said that there should be more of a directive as to where to get better 38 information on signal timing. He cited the example of the signals along SBB 39 between Westminster Avenue and the 405 Freeway, noting that they are not 40 synchronized adequately to prevent traffic congestion. He indicated that with the - 41 Boeing Project traffic is projected to increase from approximately 9,000 cars per day 42 to over 20,000, and without proper signal timing traffic congestion will be significant 43 and not easily mitigated. 44 . 45 Chairperson Antos stated that he believes that there must be a policy for signal 46 interconnects and that all demand lights along SBB, with the exception of the one at Z: \Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 4 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 1 the NWS, should be eliminated. He said that all signals along SBB from PCH 2 ' northbound to Katella Avenue should be coordinated, timed, and interconnected. 3 Ms. Culbertson noted that some cities post the wait time to be expected at major 4 intersections. Chairperson Antos emphasized that signal interconnects should be 5 made a policy of the CE. Ms. Culbertson cautioned that a policy of this kind might 6 create a situation where it would not be possible to accommodate requests from 7 neighborhoods regarding adjusting signals to relieve stacking of cars. She 8 explained that there are some communities that operate demand signalization only 9 during off -peak hours. She indicated that although flow control moves traffic more 10 efficiently, it tends to upset drivers that are used to demand signals and now have to 11 wait longer. She stated that this would contribute to the improvement in the LOS. 12 Mr. Cummins 'stated that he would convey this information to the City Traffic 13 Engineer. Member Voce asked if this could be made a goal of the CE. Mr. 14 Cummins stated that the Committee could certainly make this recommendation. 15 16 Member Monroe commented on the issue of using clean fuels for fleets and 17 individual commercial vehicles. He said the federal government requires that a 18 specific proportion of its fleet use natural gas and hybrids and other technologies. 19 He questioned whether it would be appropriate to make this recommendation in the 20 CE. He then inquired about recommending a policy requiring commercial trucks to 21 turn off their engines while loading and unloading in order to help reduce pollution. 22 23 Member Barton asked if there were any regulation regarding limiting the size of 24 trucks and the streets upon which they are allowed to travel. She questioned 25 whether trucks should be allowed to use Ocean Avenue, which she believes should 26 be more of a scenic route. 27 28 Chairperson Antos recommended that the members provide their written comments 29 to Staff. 30 31 Member Ribal stated that the lack of alignment in the northbound lanes on SBB 32 north of PCH could create problems on foggy days. He also noted that the turn from 33 Ocean Avenue and Electric Avenue to SBB is a very sharp one as can be witnessed 34 by the tire marks along the curb. He cautioned that bus passengers waiting at the 35 ,bus stop are in danger of being struck by a car losing control at this turn. 36 37 Chairperson Antos reported that he has received complaints of drivers crossing PCH 38 on a cloudy day having difficulty seeing the raised median on SBB. 39 40 41 Staff Presentation — Cultural Resources Element . 42 43 Mr. Cummins stated that the major difference with the Cultural Resources (CR) 44 Element is that State law does not mandate it. He noted that the City takes great 45 interest in preserving its cultural history, and through the years has adopted this 46 element in its various forms. He said that the draft CR Element has essentially been Z:\Carmen_data \Ad Hoc GP LCP Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 5 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 1 kept as close to the existing element as possible. He explained that the City does 2 maintain a list of historical buildings within the City and City Council could add other 3 buildings to this list as desired. He commented that the language has been modified 4 to make the document easier to read and comprehend. 5 6 Committee Questions /Comments - 7 8 Member Unrath noted that the section under Goals lists only one goal. He also 9 pointed out that Policies 1 -5 as listed on Page 5 should line up with the 10 Implementations. He recommended that sources of funding be more accurately 11 identified. He requested that the Red Car Museum and the pier be included under 12 Historic Resources. 13 14 Member Monroe recommended that the Native Americans be identified with the term 15 Tongva (Gabrielino). 16 17 Member Voce recommended adding a definition of Tongva to Page 14. 18 19 Chairperson Antos recommended providing an appendix listing existing historic 20 structures for information purposes only. He noted that listing them in this manner 21 would not require an amendment to the GP when adding names to the list. Member 22 Shanks cautioned that should the Committee recommend that structures of a 23 specific age to be placed on the list of historic resources, this would restrict 24 modifying the outside of the structure in any way. _ 25 26 Member Fitzpatrick inquired about the status of people who create gardens or flower 27 beds along the public right -of -ways near the beach or on other public property. 28 Chairperson Antos stated that these gardens are not authorized and the City can 29 remove them. 30 31 Member Fitzpatrick asked who owns the Red Car. Member Shanks stated that the 32 Seal Beach Historical Society as a non - profit organization owns the Red Car. 33 34 Member Voce noted that the tall gray buildings at the corner of SBB and 35 Westminster Avenue are federal historic buildings and should be added to the list of 36 historic structures, as they were a part of the Apollo Space Program history. 37 38 39 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 40 41 Chairperson Antos referred to the Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Element 42 and stated that the issue of the Old Ranch Tennis -Club facility is unclear. He 43 reported that at its most recent meeting City Council had voted to direct Staff to 44 leave the facility in its current configuration and that Staff should create a Request 45 For Proposals (RFP) to'recruit potential operators for this facility. 46 Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 • 1 Member Ribal inquired as to the position of the California Coastal Commission 2 (CCC) regarding gated communities. He wondered whether the "community might 3 consider this in terms of guidelines. He expressed his concerns over the social and 4 economic implications of having gated communities within the City. 5 6 Mr. Cummins stated that regarding creating an appendix of historic structures, the 7 structures already formally identified by the City can be included, however, the City 8 has not approached private property owners regarding whether they would want to 9 see their home listed as a historic property. He noted that should City Council 10 determine that this is to be done then Staff could create a formal process for doing 11 so. 12 13 Member Shanks asked if a final draft of the GP would be made available for final 14 review and comments from the Committee. Mr. Cummins explained that due to 15 budgetary constraints Staff has not scheduled a series of workshops beyond these 16 scheduled workshops for review of the GP element drafts. He recommended that 17 Committee members submit any comments for a specific element within the two 18 weeks after committee review and before the next scheduled committee meeting. 19 20 Member Hood emphasized that in order to keep costs down, it is important that the 21 Committee closely follow its agenda at these meetings and make comments 22 complete. He urged the Committee to stay on task and to submit comments in a 23 timely manner either in writing or via e-mail. 24 25 Member Fitzpatrick reported that he would not be in attendance at the meeting of ' 26 April 10, 2003, as he will be out of town. He noted that he would have his comments 27 submitted before the next meeting. - 28 29 30 STAFF CONCERNS 31 32 None. 33 34 35 ADJOURNMENT 36 37 The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 38 , 39 40 Respectfully Submitted, 41 42 43 44 45 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 46 Planning Department Z:\Carmen_datalAd Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 7 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 13,2003 1 APPROVAL 2 3 The Committee on , 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 4 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, March 5 13, 2003. Z:1Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan-LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13 -03.doc a 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 Minutes of March 27, 2003 5 6 7 Chairperson Antos called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, 9 March 27, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers.' 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Members Antos, Hood, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, and Unrath. 14 Also 15 Present: Department of Development Services 16 Lee Whittenberg, Director 17 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 18 Andi Culbertson, Principal, Culbertson Adams, Assoc. 19 20 Absent: Members Barton, Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, Shanks, 21 and Voce. 22 23 24 AGENDA APPROVAL _ 25 26 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Rallis to approve the Agenda as presented. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 6 — 0 — 8 - 29 AYES: Antos, Hood, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, and Unrath 30 NOES: None 31 ABSENT: Barton, Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, 32 _ Shanks, and Voce. - 33 34 . 35 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 36 37 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 38 39 Ms. Joyce Parque referred to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) previously approved 40 by the Planning Commission (PC) for 1210 Electric Avenue, which was later 41 ' appealed and subsequently denied by City Council (CC). She said that the Planning 42 Department is simply allowing everyone to apply for additions or expansions with no 43 . concern for provision of adequate parking. She stated that a particular property 44 owner on Main Street is waiting for a CUP to be approved so that he can enlarge his 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. , 1 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2003 1 building. She expressed her concern over the lack of adequate parking along Main 2 Street and questioned how the public would be informed of these types of 3 expansions. 4 5 Chairperson Antos noted that expansions to buildings would not be covered directly 6 in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan (GP) or the Local Coastal 7 Plan (LCP). He explained that these are overall policy documents that will be 8 adopted after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. 9 He said that after this the City must work on implementing legislation such as the 10 Zoning Ordinance, etc., that will specifically address applications, permits, and so 11 on. He then explained the purpose of the LCP noting that it basically functions as a 12 mini - general plan. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that CC authorized the PC to hold 13 study sessions on the issue of expansion of nonconforming uses. He said that two 14 study sessions were conducted and at its last meeting the PC made a 15 recommendation to CC to revise the current provisions and no longer allow any 16 additions or expansions to existing nonconforming residential structures. He said 17 that this item is scheduled for review by the CC on April 14, 2003, and if approved 18 Staff would then prepare a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to amend the Code. He • 19 noted that owners of nonconforming properties would be allowed to keep what they 20 have, but would no longer be allowed to add to or expand these structures. Ms. 21 Andi Culbertson added that with regard to expansion of nonconforming structures, 22 the California Coastal Commission (CCC) is not so much interested in setback 23 requirements as it is with parking standards. She noted that the . PC 24 recommendations are completely consistent with what the CCC requires. Mr. 25 Whittenberg stated that without specific information on the property that Ms. Parque 26 has alluded to, it would be difficult to respond to her questions. He said that the 27 large majority of buildings on Main Street do not have sufficient parking. 28 29 - There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson, Antos closed oral 30 communications. 31 , 32 33 CONSENT CALENDAR 34 35 None. 36 - 37 SCHEDULED MATTERS 38 39 1. Receive Staff Presentation and Consultant Presentation; Committee and Public 40 Discussion; and Receive Committee Direction Re: 41 (a) Preliminary Draft Growth Management Element of the General Plan. 42 - - 43 Staff Presentation — Growth Management Element 44 . 45 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this element is not mandated under State Law, but is 46 mandated under the County of Orange if cities want to obtain the '/2 cent sales tax 2 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2003 1 imposed on gasoline sales effective a number of years ago. He said that the funds . 2 from this tax must be used for transportation related projects. He stated that if the 3 City does not have this element as a part of the GP and if it is not kept consistent 4 with the County Element then the City is not eligible to received Local Turnback 5 Funds, which the City uses to complete certain type of traffic and circulation 6 improvements within the City. 7 8 Ms. Andi Culbertson stated that there were not many changes made to the GM 9 Element because the kinds of things covered in the element are very predictable. 10 She said that the City has had good experiences with many of the goals, so of all the 11 elements this is the one that is continuing business as usual. 12 13 Committee Questions /Comments 14 _ 15 Member Hood confirmed that the main reason for completing this element is to 16 ensure receipt of Measure M funds. Ms. Culbertson confirmed that this is the case. 17 18 Member Regnier asked how this ties back to the Circulation Element? He inquired 19 - as to whether Measure M funds would be lost if certain improvements were not 20 made at specific intersections. Ms. Culbertson stated that the City would not lose 21 these funds. She explained that the idea behind the GM Element is to reflect certain 22 affirmative responsibilities to collect developer impact fees, and whatever unfunded 23 transportation projects the City is left with would automatically qualify for Measure M 24 funds. She noted that this is a good way of documenting the City's policy 25 compliance on a project -by- project basis. Mr. Whittenberg added that on the Bixby 26 Project the City has collected all of the traffic fees and has set these funds aside for 27 transportation projects in that area, although the funds will not be sufficient to 28 complete all of the work needed. He noted that the estimated cost for completing 29 the widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) /405 Freeway overcrossing is $14 30 million dollars. He said the City has also applied for GMA road funds, which are 31 funded through Measure M, to supplement monies for completion of work on either 32 side of the 405 Freeway overcrossing in anticipation of the widening of the bridge 33 sometime after the year 2020. He explained that it is not the City's responsibility to 34 fix a bridge that is substandard due to regional traffic crossing on a daily basis. He 35 noted that this is what Growth Management (GM) funds are used for and cities have 36 competitive grants for which they can apply for growth management areas. He said 37 that because Seal Beach is between two GM areas` it is eligible to apply to two 38 different bodies for improvement funds. He stated that keeping the GM Element in 39 place allows the City to apply for those funds. 40 41 Member Ribal asked how the Bixby Project was allowed to go through without 42 assuring that traffic congestion in this area would not become such a major problem. 43 Mr. Whittenberg stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in 44 which it identified the existing LOS as bad before the project ever existed. He said 45 that there were funds identified and generated by the project to go towards paying a 46 portion of the expenses to widen the SBB /405 Freeway overcrossing, but this issue 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Crtizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2003 • 1 is an ongoing issue not from the Bixby project, but from regional traffic that flows 2 through that particular roadway segment, as it is one of the few roads available to 3 travel from north to south. He said that there will be traffic impacts at the 4 intersection of Westminster Avenue and SBB as part of the Boeing Project and they 5 will be paying money into the traffic impact fees that will also help pay for the cost of 6 doing the work on the overcrossing. 7 8 Member Regnier stated that he has driven this section of SBB.for over 20 years and 9 before any development was completed there, traffic was still bad and always has 10 been. He said that the City is looking out for the best interests of the community by 11 assessing appropriate fees and placing them into a fund for future improvements. 12 He indicated that he believes the GM Element to be a "clean deal" and meets the 13 requirements and he recommends approval. 14 15 Member Unrath noted if the GM Element is simply being used as a means for 16 acquiring Measure M funds, then he has some serious philosophical disagreement 17 with the document as it does not really discuss managing growth, but is geared more 18 to traffic issues. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if Member Unrath has an issue with the 19 way the City manages growth, he might want to review the Land Use Element, 20 because this element talks about what future growth the City wants to see. Member 21 Unrath countered that it is not a question of growth, but a question of managing that 22 growth. He noted that there are other things involved with City growth besides 23 , traffic, like infrastructure, fire stations, police, better access to mass transit, etc. He 24 also indicated that the GM Element does not deal with nonconforming use requests. 25 Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that these are issues that are addressed in the Land Use 26 Element. 27 28 Member Rallis asked about the recent legislation allowing construction of "Granny 29 Units." He inquired about constructing these units over garages and what kind of 30 impact this could have on the City's density. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this 31 legislation, AB 1866, does not take effect until July 1, 2003, and noted that it is a . 32 State Law that says that cities must approve second family units that meet certain 33 standards. He said that a city can develop its own standards by July 1, 2003, but if it 34 does not do so there are a number of state standards that are already in place, and 35 if someone comes in and meets all of these standards, the City has no discretion at 36 all and must issue a building permit. He noted that due to a shortage of new 37 housing and because cities' regulations have become more restrictive, the state is 38 starting to do things that will mandate cities to create more housing. He said that 39 except for a few parcels, Seal Beach is built out and noted that he didn't project any 40 significant growth within the next 20 -25 years. He shared the projections for future . 41 growth of 6 million people for Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 42 ' 43 Ms. Culbertson said that there are ways of controlling intensity of development that 44 don't have anything to do with density, such as requiring that new development meet 45 the off - street parking standards with no granting of variances. She noted that this is 46 the best way to control off street parking. 4 • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2003 1 Member Hood referred to Page 7, Bullet 2, noting the statement regarding carpool 2 lanes resulting in homes being removed from College Park East for the widening of 3 the 22 Garden Grove Freeway and requested that this be deleted. Ms. Culbertson • 4 stated that she would research to make sure that this would not make the document 5 fall out of compliance with Measure M. Chairperson Antos suggested that if this 6 statement must remain, perhaps it could be rephrased to state "provided no existing 7 housing is removed." He stated that if the state is concerned about housing 8 shortages and then approves demolition of homes to construct HOV lanes, the City . - 9 must then ensure that when this issue comes before the Planning Commission an 10 internal /external set of consistent criteria is in place. 11 12 Member Regnier asked if the City had policing power regarding garages being used 13 for storage rather than for parking resident cars. Chairperson Antos referred to a 14 section in the Code called "Uses of Required Parking," which basically states that all 15 required parking shall be used for parking of licensed passenger motor vehicles and 16 shall not be used for storage of inoperable vehicles, junk, etc. He said that based 17 upon complaints the City has the right to investigate. Mr. Whittenberg interjected 18 that the City does have this right, and that the Code Enforcement Official handles 19 these types of complaints. He noted that the City does enforce illegal conversions of 20 garages to a residence. Member Regnier requested that a copy of this section of • 21 the Code be provided to him. 22 23 • MOTION by Regnier; SECOND by Hood to approve the Growth Management 24 Element as amended. _ 25 26 MOTION CARRIED: 6 — 0 — 8 27 AYES: Antos, Hood, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, and Unrath 28 NOES: None 29 ABSENT: Barton, Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, 30 Shanks, and Voce. 31 32 33 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 34 35 Member Hood stated that he would not be in attendance for the meeting of April 10, 36 2003. 37 38 Member Ribal stated that he received a telephone call with the news that for security 39 purposes the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) is planning on moving the fence closer 40 to the homes along the east end of Seal Way. He inquired about whether residents 41 should meet to request that notice of this be circulated and also to discuss once 42 fence is moved, will the Navy be responsible for managing the maintenance of the 43 grassy areas. Chairperson Antos stated that if a meeting takes place this weekend, 44 he would be available to attend. 45 46 5 • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2003 1 STAFF CONCERNS 2 ' 3 Mr. Whittenberg noted the revised schedule of meetings and indicated that Staff . had 4 initially anticipated having the Growth Management, Noise, and Safety Elements 5 available this evening; however, he stated that the Noise and Safety Elements would 6 be covered at the next meeting. He said that all of the GP Elements would be 7 available for review at the last scheduled meeting. He noted that this would not 8 include the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and that a separate meeting might have to be 9 scheduled later on to review this. Chairperson Antos indicated that the attorneys for 10 Surfside Colony have requested that before any final language is approved in certain . 11 sections of the LCP, that they have the opportunity to meet with the City Attorney to 12 review the text. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the comment period for the LCP would 13 be handled in the same manner as all of the GP Elements. 14 - 15 16 ADJOURNMENT 17 18 The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 19 20 , 21 Respectfully Submitted, 22 23 . 24 r( _ 25 C 26 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr 27 Planning Department 28 29 30 APPROVAL 31 32 The Committee on , 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 33 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, March 34 27, 2003. . 6 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 Minutes of April 10, 2003- 5 6 7 Chairperson Antos called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 9 10, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers.' 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Members Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Regnier, Unrath, 14 and Voce. 15 Also _ 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Lee Whittenberg, Director 18 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 19 Andi Culbertson, Principal, Culbertson Adams, Assoc. 20 Tom Matthews, Principal, Culbertson Adams, Assoc. • 21 22 Absent: Members Calden, Evans, Hood, Pontac, Ribal, Shanks, and Silberling. 23 . - 24 25 AGENDA APPROVAL 26 27 So ordered. 28 29 • 30 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 31 32 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 33 34 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Antos .closed oral 35 communications. 36 37 38 CONSENT CALENDAR 39 40 None. 41 42 _ 43 44 ' These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 1 2 SCHEDULED MATTERS 3 4 1. Receive Staff and Consultant Presentation; Committee and Public Discussion; 5 and Receive Committee Direction Re: 6 (a) Preliminary Draft Noise Element of the General Plan. 7 (b) Preliminary Draft Safety Element of the General Plan. 8 9 Staff Presentation — Noise and Safety Elements 10 11 Mr. Whittenberg introduced Mr. Fred Greve, the noise consultant who completed the 12 noise analysis for the City, and Andi Culbertson, of Culbertson Adams & Associates. 13 He then asked Ms. Culbertson to provide a brief overview of the document. 14 15 Ms. Culbertson stated that the Noise and Safety Elements are both mandated by 16 • State law. She indicated that the Noise Element must identify what the existing 17 noise environment is and how the Land Use will be brought into compatibility with 18 the existing noise environment by mitigation measures or policies that aim toward 19 protecting people from the hazards and nuisance of noise. She said that if this is 20 based upon street arterial noise, several areas are considered. She noted that this 21 is not a noise ordinance, which states what time 'and how loud noises can be. She 22 said that this is more policy relating to how to deal with land use noise interfaces 23 along streets and highways. She explained that it is based on Community_ Noise _ 24 Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is a 24 -hour weighted average, and penalizes 25 - noises that occur at night more than noises that occur during the day. She said that 26 the CNEL contours along roadways are based upon the traffic study. Ms. 27 Culbertson noted that the document also deals with aircraft noise, although the. City 28 is fairly well pre - empted by what is done with the Airport Land Use Commission 29 (ALUC) where they apply the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. She indicated that 30 the Noise Element encourages the use of berms and walls in the City for noise 31 attenuation with development projects. 32 33 Ms. Culbertson then discussed the Safety Element noting that it is one of the more 34 technically complicated elements, because it handles a wide range of safety issues 35 and the supporting data is very complex. She explained that this element handles 36 emergency response, hazardous materials, geologic hazards, and Alquist- Priolo 37 zones (specific zones established by the State for special treatment in the event of 38 earthquakes). She noted that tsunami and seiche information, which will be of use 39 to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the fire hazards and shoreline 40' protection are also discussed. She said that the policies are very similar to the 41 policies already in the Safety Element, but they have been updated. 42 - 43 Committee Questions /Comments 44 . 45 Member Monroe stated that the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) has a very 46 expensive and elaborate Directorate Department that employs approximately 30 full 2 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 time people on safety. He noted that they are concerned not with the safety of the 2 entire community, but with the transport, handling, storage, and loading of munitions 3 and explosives. He said that he hoped the Safety Element would incorporate 4 mention of some of this information and acknowledge the existence of this 5 department. Ms. Culbertson stated that the CCC is very interested in having Seal 6 Beach pay to prepare the LCP provisions for parcels that it has no control over such 7 as the NWS and the Sunset Aquatic Park, which is owned and operated by the 8 County. She said that she and the Director of Development Services have resisted 9 this because the City should not have to pay for this, and as such, she explained 10 that her lack of attention to the NWS is in some cases deliberate because she does _ 11 not want the CCC to see an imbalance in the document. 12 _ 13 Member Barton suggested that the Noise Element address leaf blowers, - 14 motorcycles, and noisy trucks. Ms. Culbertson said that leaf blowers are matters 15 that are addressed in the Noise Ordinance, but an introductory policy on these types 16 of things can be included in the Noise Element. Mr. Greve interjected that truck 17 limitations are used in primarily residential areas. He said that there are noise 18 standards set by the State for trucks and motorcycles, and some cities have posted 19 noise meters and have police ticket vehicles exceeding the noise limit. 20 . 21 Member Voce -stated that the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) looked 22 into this several years ago and wanted to ban leaf blowers outright. He said that at 23 that time the City developed a program to provide training on how to properly 24 operate leaf blowers to minimize noise. He stated that nothing came of this 25 program. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that a policy could. be incorporated into the 26 Noise Element to have the City consider -a regulation program for leaf blowers or ban 27 ' them altogether. He explained that City workers do use the leaf blowers as it is 28 faster and there is limited staff to do this work. He indicated that many of these City 29 jobs are contracted out and this might be a good time to address this issue again to 30 require contractors to properly operate leaf blowers or to even ban them. 31 32 Chairperson Antos noted that recent water quality policy requires that City Staff and 33 contractors using leaf blowers sweep up whatever goes onto the street, while 34 landscapers for private residences are not required to sweep after using leaf blowers 35 and this becomes the street sweeper's responsibility. He noted that this might be a 36 timely issue as now both issues can be covered: the correct operation of leaf 37 blowers and the requirement to sweep up whatever goes out into the street to 38 prevent this trash from going into the gutters. Member Voce stated that the 39 tendency is to blow toward the aprons and the trash ends up in the gutters. Mr. 40 Matthews asked if the EQCB had considered recommending leaf vacuums. Member 41 , Voce stated that he had suggested this, but this would be a technology conversion, 42 which could be costly and noise would still be an issue.- He said it would make more ' 43 sense to use electric leaf vacuums with filters, as they are quieter. 44 45 Mr. Whittenberg said it might be helpful to include this issue not only in the Noise 46 Element, but also in the Water Quality and the Safety Elements. Member Unrath 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 stated that it should also be included in the Air Quality Element. Ms. Culbertson said 2 it would also be an appropriate policy for the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) ,Land Use 3 Plan. 4 5 Member Fitzpatrick referred to Page 30 and asked how the document could justify a 6 half -mile slice through Seal Beach in the Alquist - Priolo map. Ms. Culbertson stated 7 that this is an official statement from Sacramento. She said that the City is required 8 to identify the Alquist - Priolo zones, which change periodically. She explained that 9 Alquist - Priolo is designed for earthquake protection, and until this law was passed 10 many developers were building homes straddling the San Andreas Fault. She said 11 that Alquist - Priolo is also looking at liquefaction,- particularly based upon the 1933 12 Long Beach earthquake where horizontal displacement of flat ground occurred. She 13 also noted that there is a lot of sandy soil and high ground water in this area, which 14 is prone to liquefaction. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the oil drilling borings in this 15 area have helped identify the earthquake fault lines. He stated that this does not 16 mean you cannot build in this area, but you must have special geology studies done 17 to verify where the actual fault lines lie. He noted that the new homes on Hellman 18 Property would be constructed in this zone. Member Voce asked if these structures 19 would require special earthquake protection construction standards. Mr. 20 Whittenberg confirmed that there are special construction standards for the base 21 material before pouring the foundations, for the foundations themselves, and other 22 different bolting systems for bolting the wood into the foundations. He cautioned that 23 the one thing that is prohibited is to build across an identified fault line. 24 25 Member Regnier stated that in the past there had been much discussion about the _ 26 Army Corps of Engineers doing an underground tube study for backpassing sand for 27 both Surfside Beach and the main beach. He asked if this was ever completed. Mr. 28 Whittenberg stated that he did not believe it was. He said that on the main beach 29 ' the City has done some surface backpasses with vehicles. Member Regnier stated 30 that perhaps mention should be made that this has been discussed with the Corps of 31 Engineers. He said that the description as it is written may leave the impression that 32 it becomes the problem of the City of Seal Beach alone to replenish the sand, rather 33 than leaving the door open to having other agencies participate. 34 35 Regarding the Noise Element, Member Rallis stated that beach maintenance activity 36 that takes place between the hours of 4:00 -5:00 a.m. creates quite a disturbance. 37 He asked if this issue could be addressed in the Noise Element with the stipulation 38 that these activities not begin before 7:00 a.m.* Mr. Greve stated that this issue 39 should be addressed in the Noise Ordinance, but some policies that refer to this 40 concern could be included. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there might be some 41 competing interests as these vehicles usually begin activity when people begin to 42 come out to the beach. Member Rallis commented that the ail boat coming in at _ 43 morning IS sometimes quite loud. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the beach cleaning 44 crew usually starts work early, as they do not want to have this activity going on 45 when children may be on the beach. Member Rallis referred to the provision 4 - • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 regarding sleep interference and he said it should either be acknowledged or an 2 exception to it made. 3 4 Member Unrath asked if the Safety Element specifies who the Disaster Service 5 Coordinator is. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Captain of the Seal Beach Police 6 Department (SBPD) serves in this capacity. Member Unrath asked if this is spelled 7 out in the Safety Element. Mr. Whittenberg said that individuals are assigned by 8 SBPD as they express an interest. Chairperson Antos interjected that the City does 9 have a Disaster Preparedness Plan, which is administered primarily by ‘SBPD. He 10 asked if the Safety Element notes that the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Center 11 (JFTC) is the major disaster preparedness area for all of Southern California. He 12 referred to the discussion on major disasters, primarily earthquakes, and College 13' - Park West (CPW) having only one lane in and one lane out of the neighborhood. He 14 said that it is conceivable that were there a strong earthquake it would isolate CPW 15 as well as many other areas as a result of bridges collapsing. Mr. Whittenberg 16 stated that the Land Use Element could be revised to include this information and 17 the Emergency Operations Plan could be reviewed to make sure that this concern is 18 adequately addressed. 19 - 20 Member Unrath stated that dispatch services for Los Alamitos, Cypress, and Seal 21 Beach have been combined, with close cooperation between Los Alamitos and Seal • 22 Beach as far as disaster preparedness and mitigation is concerned. He asked if as 23 far as the Safety Element is concerned, does Seal Beach have a problem because 24 back up emergency communications is in Los Alamitos? He noted that Seal Beach 25 has the second largest disaster communications team in the County. Mr. 26 Whittenberg asked for the name of the group and Member Unrath stated that the 27 name is RACES (Radio Amateur Communication Emergency Services). He then 28 noted that Leisure World averages approximately 3 paramedic calls per day and it is 29 imperative that the City ensures paramedics can easily access Leisure World and 30 then travel north on Seal Beach Boulevard to the Los Alamitos Medical Center on 31 Katella Avenue. ` Member Unrath then inquired about the aircraft from the JFTC 32 coming down in Seal Beach, especially into Marina Hill. He noted that there were 33 very large natural gas pipelines running across Westminster Avenue, and this should 34 probably be addressed in the Safety Element. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 35 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) handles this. Member Unrath stated that in 36 terms of safety and possible threats to Seal Beach, he assumed that the Emergency 37 _ Operations Plan would also cover aircraft. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it does but - 38 the plan from the JFTC reflects that 97% of flight operations involve helicopters and 39 not fixed wing planes. He noted that there are no identified crash zones off of the 40 base, because the worst time for a crash is when helicopters are landing or taking 41 • off. Ms. Culbertson said that to prevent assuming liability it is best to not identify 42 crash sites outside of what has been officially identified by another public agency. . 43 44 Chairperson Antos stated that there are high - pressure gas pipelines and eventually 45 the City will need to work with the Division of Oil and Gas for the State of California 46 to identify where all of these pipelines are located. He commented that 5 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 approximately 15 years ago the City was dealing with a gas line running between 2 Seal Beach Boulevard behind The Hill and into Long Beach that ruptured. He said 3 this is a high - pressure line and the City was unaware that it was there and no one 4 knew how long it had been leaking. He said that when the rupture was discovered 5 there were 40 -mile an hour Santa Ana Winds creating a 35 -foot high gas jet when 6 the line was flared. He said that every day the winds were blowing from inland 7 toward the beach and the gas fumes were causing people to have headaches. Mr. 8 Whittenberg stated that he is aware of one that runs along the 405 Freeway near the 9 north boundary of the Naval Weapons Station (NWS). He noted that the gas line 10 that runs through the Hellman Property is being relocated as part of the development 11 of new homes. 12 13 Member Ribal arrived at 7:30 p.m. 14 15 Member Unrah stated that walls and berms are mentioned as a means to minimize 16 noise, but vegetation is also a good buffer for noise. He noted that planting lawns, 17 shrubbery, etc., could also help mitigate noise. Ms. _ Culbertson stated that 18 vegetation is probably more psychologically satisfying than actually effective in . 19 muting noise. Member Barton interjected that it does help visually and keeps graffiti 20 down. Mr. Greve noted that the Federal Highway Administration has done detailed - 21 studies that show you would need - 100 feet of dense brush in order to experience a 22 significant drop in noise levels. Ms. Culbertson stated that adding vegetation to a 23 sound wall could contribute to reducing the impact of sound pressure into the wall 24 and out. Member Unrah then recommended adding the Old Ranch Tennis Club as a 25 noise sensitive land use. He noted that there is no sound wall there to help mute the 26 traffic noise from the 405 Freeway. . 27 - - - -- -- 28 29 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 30 31 Member Regnier inquired about the status of the bike trail. Mr. Whittenberg stated 32 that some work has been completed and he will have one of the Engineering staff 33 call with an update. 34 - 35 Member Ribal inquired about when the sand berm would be removed. Chairperson 36 Antos stated that it would be removed the first part of May as storms and unusually 37 high tides are projected for the end of April. Member Ribal discussed the possibility 38 of relocating the berm in the future to prevent pedestrians having to climb over the 39 berm and also to minimize obstruction of the view of the ocean. He also cautioned 40 about the practice of pushing the berm sand toward the ocean when removing the 41 berm, as the loose sand is easily carried out into the ocean creating a permanent 42 loss of sand. He noted that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permits to 43 replenish the sand are conditioned so that the City must use a grade of sand that is 44 compatible with the existing beach sand, otherwise this degrades the cohesion of 45 the sand creating a light silt that is easily blown around and into homes on Seal 46 Way. He stated that he would submit his comments in writing. Chairperson Antos ' 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 interjected that Member Ribal's comments were relevant to the Local Coastal Plan 2 (LCP) and would be addressed at the meeting to review that document. Mr. 3 Whittenberg stated that many of Member Ribal's comments had to do with 4 engineering design issues and implementation issues rather than goal and policy 5 issues that you would see in the General Plan (GP), particularly in the Safety 6 Element. He said that some of these issues could be addressed more specifically in 7 the LCP. He noted that each year the City has a coastal engineering firm provide a 8 design for how the berm should be constructed based upon tide projections. 9 Chairperson Antos commented that pushing the sand into the ocean when the berm 10 is taken down seems wasteful. Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon information 11 from the engineers, because of the tidal currents the sand is carried out to the ocean 12 during the summer but when the tides change in the winter, the sand returns and 13 builds up the beach. He noted that backpassing sand from one side of the beach to 14 the other is much less expensive than purchasing sand and transporting it by truck 15 or rail. Member Barton asked if sand could be purchased from Huntington Beach or 16 Long Beach. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Long Beach no longer has much sand on 17 the beach due to all the dams along the San Gabriel River. He said that Surfside 18 has served as the feeder beach for both Huntington Beach and Newport Beach as 19 these beaches also have problems with loss of sand. He explained that in Seal 20 Beach the two jetties and the wave action cause the currents that reduce the supply 21 of sand on the main beach. 22 23 _ - 24 STAFF CONCERNS 25 26 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the draft of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is scheduled for 27 review at the next Ad Hoc meeting. Ms. Culbertson explained that it would follow a 28 different format that that of the General Plan (GP). 29 30 Mr. Whittenberg then reported that the response from the Orange County Transit 31 Authority was received regarding the 22 Freeway widening project and apparently it 32 has been redesigned so that the College Park East (CPE) homes will not be 33 impacted, and the connector lane from the . 405 to the 605 Freeway has been 34 lowered to reduce the impact to Leisure World and CPE. He said that the City is to 35 receive the final redesigned EIR document on April 18, 2003. 36 37 38 ADJOURNMENT 39 _ 40 The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 41 - 42 43 44 45 46 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of Apnl 10, 2003 1 Respectfully Submitted, 2 3 5 6 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr -tary • 7 Planning Department 8 9 • 10 APPROVAL 11 12 The Committee on , 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 13 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, April 10, 14 2003. • 8 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 Minutes of April 24, 2003 5 6 7 Chairperson Antos called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:34 p.m. on Thursday, April 9 24, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers.' 10 11 ROLL CALL _ 12 13 Present: Members Antos, Barton, Hood, Monroe, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, Unrath, 14 and Voce. 15 Also 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Lee Whittenberg, Director 18 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 19 Andi Culbertson, Principal, Culbertson Adams, Assoc. 20 21 Absent: Members Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Pontac, Shanks, and Silberling., 22 23 • 24 AGENDA APPROVAL 25 26 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Rallis to approve the Agenda as presented. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 9 — 0 — 6 29 AYES: Antos, Barton, Hood, Monroe, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, 30 Unrath, and Voce 31 NOES: None 32 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Pontac, Shanks, and 33 Silberling 34 35 36 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS • 37 38 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 39 40 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Antos closed oral 41 communications. 42 43 44 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2003 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 3 None. 4 5 6 SCHEDULED MATTERS 7 8 1. Receive Staff and Consultant Presentation; Committee and Public Discussion; 9 and Receive Committee Direction Re: 10 (a) Preliminary Draft Local Coastal Plan. 11 12 Staff and Consultant Presentation 13 • 14 Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the draft document for the Local Coastal Plan 15 (LCP) and stated that it is prepared in compliance with the Coastal Act provisions of 16 State law. He said that this document is different from the General Plan (GP) 17 Elements as there are specific State goals set forth in the Coastal Act that cities 18 within the Coastal Zone (CZ) must address. He noted that the CZ extends up to 19 Westminster Avenue and includes the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) south of 20 - Westminster Avenue, Sunset Aquatic Park, Surfside Colony, the Boeing Company 21 property, the Hellman property, Marina Hill, and Old Town. He said that it could be 22 difficult to receive approval on CZ documents through the California Coastal 23 Commission (CCC) as they can become very contentious with City Staff. He 24 indicated that Ms. Andi Culbertson and the Associate Planner, Mac Cummins, have 25 met once with the Staff of the CCC to attempt to get a feel regarding specific issues 26 related to the LCP. He said that the Draft LCP as presented tonight attempts to 27 accommodate some of the CCC concerns. 28 29 Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that Member Shanks arrived at 6:38 p.m. 30 31 Ms. Culbertson stated that in 1976 after the Coastal Act had been around for a 32 while, the State Legislature became very concerned that they would have a CCC 33 that would be issuing permits for anything and everything with coastal cities, forever. 34 She said that the League of Cities and the County Supervisors Association 35 petitioned and lobbied the Legislature to cause to have prepared LCPs, which would 36 be certified by the CCC and would return permit jurisdiction to cities and counties 37 within the CZ. She indicated that presently approximately. 40% of the CZ is not 38 embodied in any certified LCP. She said that one of the reasons for this is the level 39 of difficulty in reaching consensus with the CCC on what each jurisdiction would 40 want versus what the CCC wants. She stated that due to budgetary constraints and 41 staff shortages the CCC has a new awareness of the need to certify LCPs. She said 42 that as a result the CCC has indicated that they are anxious to get rid of Seal Beach 43 as a permitting matter, and surprisingly also proposed having urban exclusion areas. 44 She explained that Seal Beach is developed to the point that the CCC does not want 45 to deal with some of the permit matters that the City deals with, such as room 46 additions, parking structures, etc. She noted that LCPs are composed of two parts: 2 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2003 1 The Land Use Plan (LUP), which is the policy portion equivalent to the GP, and the 2 implementing action plan, which is equivalent to the Zoning Ordinance. She stated 3 that Culbertson Adams Associates' (CAA) work on this document is the LUP, which 4 establishes the policies. She noted that they were greatly assisted by the fact that 5 . much of the city has been designated an urban exclusion area. She said that 6 Marina Hill would also be excluded, but the properties and any walls next to the 7 Hellman Property would not. She noted that by law areas within 300 feet of the 8 ocean could not be excluded so all of Surfside Colony would be. included in the LCP. 9 She indicated that CAA had also agreed to exclude the downtown area and has 10 included policies to administer to this area related to nonconforming uses, parking 11 and the recognition that downtown has preferential parking districts that pre -date the 12 Coastal Act, and how land uses are transitioned. She explained that the Draft LCP 13 is different looking than what the Committee has become used to, because the CCC 14 concerns itself with the Chapter 3 policies, which include public access, 15 development policies, marine resources, etc. She said that the Hellman Project has 16 been included in the LCP exactly the way it has been certified by the City, the 17 Boeing Project is included as far as the project has progressed, and the DWP Site is 18 also included. Ms. Culbertson commented that it is CAA's hope that the CCC will 19 agree that they do not need to deal with the exclusion areas at all. She then used 20 an area map to indicate the portions of the City that would be excluded from a 21 Coastal Development Permit requirement and those that would always be subject to 22 a CCC Permit. She noted that the Draft LUP includes a section regarding flooding 23 within the City, the pump station, and dealing with the public works infrastructure. 24 Ms. Culbertson then stated that once the Committee reviews the draft, she 25 recommends initiating a dialogue with the CCC and preparation of an implementing 26 actions program. She said that since the City is not completely within the CZ, it is 27 important to separate the Coastal Zoning Ordinance from the Zoning Ordinance to 28 prevent having to take any development plan for properties that do not fall within the 29 CZ before the CCC. 30 _ 31 Committee Questions /Comments 32 33 Chairperson Antos referred to Page 44 of the LCP and stated that he would like to 34 see the addition of the proposal for creating an additional public parking area - 35 beneath Eisenhower Park. 36 37 Member Regnier interjected that there is the potential to deck the parking in the First 38 Street parking area. 39 40 Member Ribal suggested creating parking beneath the elevated structures along 41 Seal Way. He noted that this would alleviate concerns regarding potential flooding 42 of the 65 homes along Seal Way during the storm season and would create 43 additional parking. He cited examples of this configuration in the Dillingham area of 44 Oahu, Hawaii. 45 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2003 1 Member Hood asked about Page 13, Item 2.2.4 on Nonconforming Structures and 2 Uses, Policy 2.2.4 -2 and how this would be presented. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 3 this draft was created prior to City Council (CC) placing a moratorium on additions or 4 expansions to nonconforming structures. He said this document as far as 5 nonconforming structures are concerned would be in flux for a while until the City 6 resolves that issue. 7 8 Member Regnier noted that the document omits discussion on beach access from 9 Anderson Street across open county beach (Sunset Beach) to the public beach. He 10 said he would like to reinforce to the CCC that there is a major 250- 300 -foot wide 11 public access to the beach directly from public parking in Sunset Beach. 12 Chairperson Antos pointed out that access to the beach is from Anderson Street, a 13 dedicated street that provides access from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and dead 14 ends into a major open area. He noted that from there you have walking access 15 along Sunset Beach, east toward Huntington Beach or west toward the beach in 16 front of Surfside Colony. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this information could be 17 'included in the LCP. _ 18 19 Chairperson Antos then referred Member Ribal's proposal for parking beneath the . 20 elevated structures along the Seal Way flood zone area and stated that creating a :. 21 policy for using the first floor of these homes as parking space and defining the first 22 floor as grade level would be the first step toward implementing a coastal area 23 zoning ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg stated that when you allow the first level to be,. _ . .. 24 parking and then above that you have two stories of living space, everyone on the 25 north side of the alley would probably be very upset and would also want to be able 26 to increase the height of their homes. Member Ribal stated that the policy should._ . . 27 include all homes in that area from the beach up to Ocean Avenue. Mr. Whittenberg 28 noted that the justification for doing this would be to identify these areas on the flood 29 maps; however, he is not certain that this could be done for areas outside the wave 30 run -up areas. Ms. Culbertson stated that although these were good ideas, this might 31 not be an issue to be shared with the CCC at this time. She cautioned that this is a 32 very perilous time for anything that obstructs the water. She recommended that . 33 once the City has received suggestions from the CCC the City could then return with 34 this option as a recommendation. 35 36 Member Shanks questioned why the Coastal Zone boundary goes back to 37 Westminster Avenue. Chairperson Antos explained that the CCC jurisdiction has 38 come to include identified wetlands, wildlife areas, and undeveloped large tracts of 39 land in various areas. Member Shanks asked whether the archaeological issues on 40 the Hellman Property would be included. Ms. Culbertson stated that this information 41 would not be included. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that John Laing Homes and the 42 Native American Tribal Representatives have come to an agreement as to how to 43 deal with these issues and are finalizing the document that will go back to CCC to 44 hopefully clear the violation that the CCC says exists at this site so that the housing 45 project - may proceed. Ms. Culbertson indicated that it was probably best not to 46 include the policies on all of the current projects pending at this time. She said that if 4 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2003 1 this was done, the CCC might attempt to argue, for example, that if the Hellman 2 project is in an exclusion area and the permit expires, the City will have no policies 3 for this area. She noted that the CCC must be sensible with small Cities and how 4 they define these plans. 5 - 6 Member Voce referred to the map and stated that if the Hellman and Boeing Project 7 are to be in the exclusion area, at what point would this proposal have to go before 8 the CCC as opposed to including it in the LCP. Ms. Culbertson- stated that once the 9 - CCC issues a Coastal Development Permit and that wetlands restoration is part of 10 that permit, the CCC owns that permit forever, so if there is ever an issue having to 11 do with that wetlands restoration project it goes back to the CCC. Member Voce 12 inquired about the flood retention basin. Ms. Culbertson stated that what she is 13 attempting to convey to the CCC with the urban exclusion areas is that the City of 14 Seal Beach is not going to spend sparse funding to recite history and rehearse the 15 reading for the CCC on a permit that the CCC has already granted and issued. She 16 said that this is the permit that controls and should be in an urban exclusion area, 17 regardless of what is going on because the City is really without authority to change 18 it anyway. Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that there are already recorded deed • 19 restrictions for 25 years for wetland restoration and on the main oil production area, 20 which states that when oil production ceases, there is a condition of 25 years for a 21 future wetland project to be developed. Ms. Culbertson emphasized that if the CCC 22 wants to encourage jurisdictions to amend and certify their LCPs and take over 23 permitting responsibility, they cannot make the process too difficult. . 24 25 Member Unrath then provided comments on technical corrections to be made as 26 follows: _ . 27 28 Page 27 East and west beach may be reversed. Also the name for the Long 29 Beach Marina has been changed to Alamitos Bay Marina. 30 31 Page 33 Include Bus Route 201. 32 . 33 Page 47 Include Seal Beach Police Department substation 34 35 Page 55 Three zoning districts are mentioned, but discussion only on District 36 One. 37 38 Page 56 Talks about City controlling antennas, but FCC has already taken 39 jurisdiction away from the State. The State is in the process of passing 40 the PRB1 Ordinance allowing antennae uses by amateur radio 41 operators on their properties, which may be within the Coastal Zone. 42 When passed there will be a conflict between PRB1 and the LCP. 43 _ 44 Ms. Culbertson stated that the section on antennas could be deleted. 45 5 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2003 1 Member Barton suggested adding College Park West (CPW) to Page 3; however,- 2 Ms. Culbertson stated that CPW was not included because it is outside the Coastal 3 Zone. Member Barton then noted that Bridgeport should be added. She then 4 referred to Page 7 and noted that the DWP property has been vacant for at least 30 5 years. Member Barton questioned whether Page 15 correctly listed the number of 6 hotels /motels within the City. 7 8 Member Monroe suggested adding to Page 3 the Wildlife Refuge established in 9 1972 and the Hellman Specific Plan adopted in 2000. He then reviewed the policy 10 regarding runoff, which he wanted to offer for consideration for inclusion in the LCP. 11 He noted that much water is wasted and encouraged composting, mulching, use of 12 native plants, and using earth - covered infrastructure in order to conserve more water 13 and decrease runoff. 14 15 - Member Voce referred to Page 16, Section 2.3.2, and suggested that Gum Grove 16 Nature Park be mentioned after the words Specific Plan, just as a part of the Open - 17 Space section. He then recommended that on Page 17, third paragraph, that Gum 18 Grove Nature Park also be mentioned under the National Wildlife Refuge section. 19 . 20 Chairperson Antos asked if the LCP document was forwarded to the attorney for 21 Surfside Colony. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the document was sent. Chairperson 22 Antos outlined the State Supreme Court case involving Surfside Colony and noted 23 that discussion on this case should be included in the LCP. 24 25 Member Monroe reported that after having to close off Anaheim Bay when the World 26 - Trade Center was attacked, the Navy has developed plans to cut a second passage 27 for private boats entering Anaheim Bay and they will leave the existing passage 28 exclusively for Navy craft. Ms. Culbertson said she had recommended that Staff not 29 take on the responsibility for this City to discuss the LCP concerns for the Navy. 30 Chairperson Antos noted that with regard to national security issues the Navy would 31 not be subject to the CCC or any other agency. Member Monroe commented that 32 although the City does not have jurisdiction over the Naval Weapons Station (NWS), 33 under the Sikes Act the Navy must still consult with the City to acquire its 34 concurrence on projects. . 35 36 Member Ribal asked about the modifications to the fence line along the Naval 37 Weapons Station (NWS) boundary near Seal Way and Electric Avenue. 38 Chairperson Antos stated that the Navy is concerned about base security and will be 39 replacing the existing fence and they will also physically transplant and move all of 40 the trees that are within 10 -15 feet of the fence in order to prevent anyone climbing 41 _ the trees and jumping over the fence onto base property, He said that although 42 some of the residents near that area were not happy about this, it is what is going to 43 happen. 44 '45 46 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2003 1 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 2 3 None. 4 5 STAFF CONCERNS 6 7 Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff had planned to present strikeout versions of all of 8 the general plan elements to the committee for review at the next scheduled meeting 9 of May 8, 2003. He stated that due to the workload, Staff is requesting that the 10 meeting be rescheduled for Thursday, May 22, 2003. The committee concurred with 11 this suggestion. 12 13 14 • ADJOURNMENT 15 16 The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 17 18 19 Respectfully Submitted, 20 21 22 23 _ �..� - - - - 1- • 24 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secrets 25 Planning Department 26 - 27 28 APPROVAL 29 30 The Committee on , 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 31 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, April 24, 32 ' 2003. • 7 . 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 - 4 Minutes of May 22, 2003 5 • '6 7 Chairperson Antos called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:33 p.m. on Thursday, May 9 22, 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers.' 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Members Antos, Barton, Hood, Monroe, Rallis, Regnier, Shanks, Unrath, 14 and Voce. 15 Also 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Lee Whittenberg, Director 18 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 19 Tom Matthews, President, Culbertson Adams, Assoc. 20 - 21 Absent: Members Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Pontac, Ribal, and Silberling. 22 23 24 AGENDA APPROVAL 25 26 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Regnier to approve the Agenda as presented. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 9 — 0 — 6 29 AYES: Antos, Barton, Hood, Monroe, Rallis, Regnier, Shanks, 30 Unrath, and Voce 31 NOES: -None 32 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Pontac, Ribal, and Silberling 33 34 35 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 36 37 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 38 39 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Antos closed oral 40 communications. 41 42 CONSENT CALENDAR 43 44 None. 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1` Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 SCHEDULED MATTERS 2 3 1. Receive Staff and Consultant Presentation; Committee and Public Discussion; 4 and Receive Committee Direction Re: 5 6 (a) Final Draft General Plan. 7 (1) Introduction 8 (2) Land Use 9 (3) Circulation 10 (4) Conservation and Open Space 11 (5) Safety 12 (6) Housing (Not Part of the Committee Review Process) 13 (7) Noise 14 (8) Cultural Resources ' 15 (9) Growth Management 16 17 (b) Final Draft Local Coastal Plan 18 19 Member Ribal arrived at 6:39 p.m. 20 21 Staff and Consultant Presentation 22 23 Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the format for the final draft documents for the 24 General Plan (GP) and the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). He stated that the redlined 25 - documents reflect revisions made based upon the comments received from the 26 Committee members. He noted that not everyone's comments were incorporated 27 into the document as some of the comments dealt with issues that the City could not 28 legally do and others were policies that Staff determined were not appropriate for 29 this document. He indicated that the document does accommodate approximately 30 80% of the comments made. He recommended reviewing the elements one at a 31 time. He emphasized that if any committee member feels very strongly that specific 32 comments should be included, the comments should be brought up for discussion to 33 see if the committee feels they should be included. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that 34 Staff had hoped to provide a memorandum explaining why certain comments were 35 ' not included; however, time constraints prevented getting this completed. 36 _ 37 Chairperson Antos recommended reviewing the draft documents in the order in 38 which they are listed under scheduled matters. The Committee then proceeded to 39 review the documents in this order and made comments, which were duly recorded ` 40 ` by Mr. Whittenberg. - 41 . 42 Introduction No comments. 43 44 45 . 46 2 • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 Land Use Element 2 3 Monroe: Item No. 4 under "Community Goals," add the words "Wildlife Refuge" to 4 Planning Area 5. Following sentence to read: "adapt a proactive 5 constructive approach to land and conservation..." "Service and 6 Participation" section on the last page read "establish and encourage. 7 8 Unrath: Page 43 needs introductory heading. Page 44 the heading "Trailer Park, 9 Oakwood, and Suburbia" has nothing below it. 10 11 Monroe: Page LU40, Table LU3 has blank cells that need filling in. 12 13 Unrath: Page LU13, add public intermediate school to the section on elementary 14 schools. 15 16 Member Regnier noted that on Pages LU12 and LU30 reference was made to a 17 Phillips Street gate and this should read Anderson Street gate. He stated that he 18 also proposed a paragraph to attempt to define the opening on Anderson Street as 19 "60 -feet wide and provides access to the beach." 20 21 Mr. Whittenberg reported that land use plan maps by district were prepared in 22 addition to the citywide map. He asked if the Committee would like to see 11" x 17" 23 copies of the land use plan maps included in the Land Use Element. Chairperson 24 Antos stated that this would be appropriate, as this document is circulated to the 25 state and various agencies. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would like to include 26 the 11" x 17 ".maps of each planning area and a separate larger 24" x 36" foldout of 27 the citywide map. The Committee members were in agreement. 28 29 Member Monroe referred to Page LU10, Figure LU1 and suggested not defining the 30 City boundaries at the high tide mark, but create an offshore area that would fall 31 under City jurisdiction making it eligible as a marine protected area. He referred to 32 Executive Order 1358, The Marine Protected Area Network, which proposes that 33 cities are not sufficiently protecting their offshore areas. He indicated that Seal 34 Beach should have some offshore areas that area protected, and that Anaheim Bay 35 should be one of those areas. He stated that Executive Order 1358 allows cities to 36 have their own areas defined as needing special protection and makes the city 37 eligible for grant monies to clean up the beach. He recommended researching this 38 matter further. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the city offshore boundary is one mile. 39 Member Monroe recommended that the one -mile boundary be indicated on the 40 planning area map. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a dashed line could be included on 41 the map designating the offshore boundary. 42 43 Member Voce asked if there would be another meeting scheduled after tonight's 44 - meeting. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would probably be advisable to hold another 45 meeting to allow. the Committee to review all of the sets of minutes of the meetings 46 held. 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 Member Hood inquired about the Housing Element (HE). Mr. Whittenberg reported 2 that the Housing Element has been under preparation for quite some time under a 3 different format by a different consulting agency, and due to the technical nature of 4 the document, City Council (CC) determined that the HE would not 'be reviewed by 5 the Ad Hoc Committee, but would just go through the formal public hearing process 6 before the PC and CC. He indicated that once the document is adopted it will be 7 provided to Culbertson Adams so that they may format it to match the other GP 8 elements. _ 9 10 Member Voce asked if the HE would go ,before the PC as a draft or as a final copy. 11 Mr. Whittenberg stated that everything would be in final draft form. Mr. Whittenberg 12 indicated that Staff sees this meeting as the last opportunity for the Committee to 13 provide their input so that Culbertson Adams can begin the environmental review 14 documents that must be completed and sent out for public review and comment prior 15 to the formal review process before the PC. 16 17 Circulation Element 18 19 Regnier: Define the southbound Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) intersection at Seal 20 Beach Boulevard showing the left turn pocket. It is level F on all the 21 documents and should be looked at. 22 23 Mr. Whittenberg stated that whenever showing improvements necessary to increase 24 traffic capacity that affect the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) properties, the 25 response has generally been that these improvements are not going to happen. 26 Member Regnier noted that right now there is enough width on PCH to change the 27 single left-turn pocket heading southbound to a double left-turn pocket by making the 28 right turn only pocket a right turn and through pocket. He also recommended 29 extending the northbound right turn pocket further south so that more cars can stack 30 and get through the signal each time it turns. 31 32 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the Circulation and Cultural Resources Elements have 33 appendices, and he suggested that the appendices be separated out from the GP 34 document itself and be included in a separate volume for the appendices only. The 35 • committee agreed with this suggestion. 36 37 Barton: Page 41. Discuss how enforcement would be provided to keep large 38 trucks from driving on local neighborhood streets? - 39 40 Mr. Whittenberg stated that the police would enforce, however, any street can be 41 used by a truck if making a delivery to a location on that street, but cannot use the • 42 street as a general through transportation route. Member Barton countered that the 43 delivery-trucks could use PCH rather than Central Avenue or Electric Avenue. Mr. 44 Whittenberg said that although this is not a GP issue, Staff could speak with the Seal 45 Beach Police Department (SBPD) regarding enforcement in these areas. Member 46 Voce asked if truck traffic could be managed by vehicle weight? Mr. Whittenberg 4 Fr ., Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 said he did not know. He noted that some roads are designated as truck routes, but 2 . do not show a weight limit. He said he would make a note of this and check with 3 SBPD. He indicated that this would be more of an enforcement issue than a GP 4 issue. 5 6 Conservation and Open Space 7 8 Monroe: Submitted written minor editorial comments. 9 10 Safety Element 11 12 Monroe: Page S -8, Bullet 6-1 add "where feasible." 13 14 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would discuss this with the City Attorney to determine 15 whether adding this text would be advisable. 16 17 Noise Element - 18 19 Mr. Matthews stated that a new noise study regarding Surfside has been submitted 20 with more specific data and reflected a little noisier environment than reflected in the 21 Noise Element. He suggested amending the new noise study as a part of the 22 appendix, rather than integrating it with the Noise Element. Mr. Whittenberg was in 23 agreement. . 24 25 Voce: Page N -16. Are the speeds on the chart updated? . 26 . 27 Mr. Whittenberg said that Staff would verify all of the speeds to ensure that they are 28 correct. 29 30 Monroe: Page N -1, No. 6. Statement needs to be stronger. Recommend 31 including a statement of beach town serenity where the surf, wind, and 32 birds can be heard. Noise decisions should be made on what was here 33 in Seal Beach originally, rather than on what has been imported. 34 35 Antos: On Page N -1 under Purpose, include an additional paragraph that 36 discusses the desire of Seal Beach residents to preserve the small 37 beach town atmosphere. ' 38 39 Voce: Reflect that peace and quiet is a goal of the City. . 40 41 Mr. Whittenberg referred to Page 24 and read the paragraph under Goals. He noted 42 that perhaps this paragraph could be revised to include some of Member Monroe's 43 comments. Member Barton noted that Page N -27 states that the Noise Ordinance 44 itself does not apply to motor vehicle noise on public streets. The Director of 45 Development Services stated that changing some of the provisions in the Noise 46 Element on nighttime noise, etc., and making these changes into an ordinance 5 I Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 makes it consistent with the GP, providing greater weight if the ordinance is 2 challenged. 3 4 Unrath: Editing corrections to Pages N -1, and N -20. 5 6 Cultural Resources 7 . 8 Mr. Whittenberg noted that this information is a reflection of what was approved and 9 adopted by the City based upon a City Council appointed committee to write this 10 portion of the GP but the language has been updated. 11 12 Growth Management 13 14 Chairperson Antos stated that this is the element that is required by OCTA in order 15 to be eligible to apply for Measure M funds. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Page GM -8 16 and noted that the clause referring to High Occupancy Vehicle lanes has been 17 removed, as it is not necessary. 18 19 Monroe: Page GM -19 under "Comprehensive Development Plans for Larger 20 Projects," could the term "Potentially Larger" or "Possible Larger" be 21 used to suggest that the town is built out and prefers to remain small and 22 that additional development in the City would tend to be infill or 23 restorations, etc. 24 25 Chairperson Antos inquired if this language was included to cover projects like 26 Boeing. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this language covers this type of project. He 27 said that Staff would have to again take a look at Measure M language to see if this 28 language is required by the County to maintain eligibility for Measure M funding. He 29 said if it is not required and the language can be tweaked, it will be tweaked. He 30 suggested stating something along the lines of, "because of the development pattern 31 in the City, we do not anticipate many large future developments, but if they do 32 come, they will go through this process." • 33 34 Final Draft - Local Coastal Plan (LCP) 35 36 Barton: Noted corrections to Pages 42 and 54, 37 38 Regnier: Provided written editing and corrections to Page 7 and 46. 39 40 Monroe: Noted corrections to Pages 21, Section 2.3.2. Add sentence to 41 Paragraph 2 regarding long -range federal government plans for 42 expansion of the wildlife refuge if and when the Naval Weapons Station 43 (NWS) begins to shrink. 44 45 Mr. Whittenberg inquired whether the Navy has prepared any kind of plan for this 46 process to occur. Mr. Monroe stated that it is a five -year plan entitled, "The 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting _ Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 Integrated Natural Resources Plan." He said that under the Sikes Act every military 2 base is required to describe what it is doing to save the environment and what it will 3 do differently in the future to do Tess damage to the environment. Mr. Whittenberg 4 asked if this was site - specific to Seal Beach. Mr. Monroe stated that it is and that 5 Tetra Tech is contracted to draft a five -year comprehensive plan to be revised every 6 five years. Mr. Whittenberg asked if this plan has received approval from the 7 government because he does not want to refer to something that is still a plan in 8 process. Mr. Monroe stated that perhaps the requirement by the Sikes Act for this 9 plan could be noted in the LCP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City has never seen 10 these reports. 11 12 Antos: To prevent having to go back and change and re -adopt the LCP, add a 13 general one -line statement to the second paragraph on Page 21, Section 14 2.3.2 that states something along the lines of, "any changes to the 15 wildlife refuge will be consistent with the current adopted report to 16 Congress of the Sikes Act." 17 18 Monroe: Could use language that states, "the five —year report to the Congress 19 under the Sikes Act." 20 _ 21 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this item has caught him off guard since the Navy is 22 usually very forthcoming in sharing planning documents with the City. 23 . 24 Member Rallis asked when the City would have authority to approve projects within 25 the Coastal Zone. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that optimistically it would probably be 26 9 -12 months from now. 27 28 Chairperson Antos commented about the possibility of the annexation of either 29 Rossmoor or Sunset Beach or both by the City of Seal Beach. He explained that the 30 County is no longer able to fund services for these areas and sometime within the 31 near future both Rossmoor and Sunset Beach will have to take a look at this issue to 32 ,make a decision on how they will continue to operate. Mr. Whittenberg noted that 33 general plans are documents that change based upon community need, and if 34 annexation becomes an issue for the City, the GP will have to go through a major 35 revision. - 36 37 Voce: Page 57 -58. Can Gum Grove Nature Park be included on the list of 38 identified Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) since it is 39 right along the wetland acreage slated for restoration and does contain 40 . vernal pools and raptor roosts? 41 42 Mr. Whittenberg stated that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) determines - 43 ESHAs. He said he would check to see if we have a determination for Gum Grove. 44 He noted that when the CCC approved the Hellman Project they did not find Gum 45 Grove to be an ESHA. Member Voce asked if the City is completing its own LCP, 46 could the City declare Gum Grove an ESHA? Mr. Whittenberg stated that the CCC 7 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 has to sign off on this, and if they have already determined that Gum Grove is not an 2 ESHA, he does not believe that they can be convinced that it is, but Staff will check 3 on this. Member Monroe interjected that the City is eligible for 2 designations since 4 it is located in the Coastal Zone; areas of biological significance and ESHAs, and it 5 could be best to include these areas in the LCP before submittal to the CCC. If the 6 CCC approves the LCP, then Gum Grove or any other significant area will be 7 included. Member Voce asked if the LCP is not approved, could the City add Gum 8 Grove later. Member Monroe stated that it would be difficult to do it after the CCC 9 has approved the LCP without Gum Grove, and they would probably ask why it was 10 not added when the LCP document was initially submitted. Mr. Whittenberg 11 cautioned that the CCC would use their criteria for an ESHA in evaluating any areas 12 submitted with the LCP. He noted that the CCC uses the Coastal Act definition of an 13 ESHA and if they have already evaluated Gum Grove and determined it was not an 14 ESHA, it might be difficult to have it designated as such. Chairperson Antos noted 15 that the Open Space /Recreation Element probably reflects this. Member Voce 16 stated that Gum Grove is not listed as an ESHA in the Open Space Element. Mr. 17 Whittenberg indicated that perhaps the City could have two different definitions, but 18 this would have to be investigated further. Member Voce said that the City should 19 include a statement requesting that the CCC review this issue again. Member 20 Shanks asked what the chances were of inclusion of this issue delaying the overall 21 adoption by the CCC. Mr. Whittenberg said that Staff has a fairly good relationship 22 with CCC Staff, but it is difficult to say whether this would create a delay. He 23 commented that although the City has no opposition to this request, it remains that 24 when the CCC looked at the Hellman Project approvals, they determined that Gum 25 Grove was not an ESHA. He said that when reviewing a LCP, CCC is looking for 26 things that comply with the Coastal Act. 27 28 Voce: Can the name be changed to Gum Grove Nature Preserve? 29 30 Chairperson Antos stated that until such time as the name is changed by City 31 Council or approved by the City the name should not be changed in the document. 32 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he was not aware that any body within the City ever 33 officially approved the name Gum Grove Nature Park Member. Monroe noted that 34 the State is currently designating Critical Coastal Areas (CCAs) and perhaps this 35 might be another possibility for designating Gum Grove as a protected area. Mr. 36 Whittenberg asked where one might acquire a definition of what constitutes this 37 designation. Member Monroe said that this information could be found on the 38 ceres.com website. Member Shanks asked if this shouldn't wait until the work to be 39 completed on Gum Grove as a part of the Hellman Project is done? Member Voce 40 stated that all that is to be done is the landscaping for the additional acreage to be 41 added to the park. He said that fundraising efforts will take place for restoration 42 work on the current part of the grove. Chairperson Antos commented that all of the 43 rules and regulations must be researched before seeking a designation for an area 44 as a protected habitat to prevent potential problems in the future with the ability to 45 work on or make changes to the area, such as the removal of diseased trees. , 46 8 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2003 1 2 3 4 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 5 6 None. 7 8. STAFF CONCERNS 9 10 Mr. Whittenberg recommended that the committee meet in two weeks to approve the 11 minutes of all the meetings held. He thanked the Committee members for their 12 participation in this process. 13 14 15 ADJOURNMENT 16 17 The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 18 19 20 Respectfully Submitted, 21 22 23 24 ��.►_�•__��'�� <_ 25 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr tary 26 Planning Department 27 28 29 APPROVAL 30 31 The Committee on , 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 32 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, May 22, 33 2003. • 9 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 Minutes of June 12, 2003 5 6 7 Chairperson Antos called the scheduled meeting of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local 8 Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 12, 9 2003. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute 10 to the Flag.' 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Members Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Shanks, Unrath, and 15 Voce. 16 17 Also 18 Present: Department of Development Services 19 Lee Whittenberg, Director 20 21 Absent: Members Calden, Evans, Hood, Pontac, Regnier, and Ribal. 22 23 24 AGENDA APPRGVAL 25 26 MOTION by Rallis; SECOND by Voce to approve the Agenda as presented. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 6 29 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Shanks, Unrath, 30 and Voce 31 NOES: None 32 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, Pontac, Regnier, and Ribal 33 34 35 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 36 37 Chairperson Antos opened oral communications. 38 39 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Antos closed oral communications. 40 • 41 • 42 CONSENT CALENDAR • 43 44 None. 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 7.Ir�.... , .d •sMIA.l WA, no 1 ruled U. r ., oi..._i I'D ee•., ne ;....+ems /IAA 9_ l An" Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Approval of Minutes of Meetings' of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for: (a) February 27, 2003. (b) March 13, 2003. (c) March 27, 2003. (d) April 10, 2003. (e) April 24, 2003. (f) May 22, 2003. Recommendation: Approve Minutes of the meetings with any corrections determined appropriate by the Committee. • (a) Minutes of February 27, 2003. Change noted to Page 10, Line 18. Member Rallis stated that he had not made this comment. Since no other member owned the statement Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that if Member Rallis had no objection, they would leave this statement as it appears. Member Rallis agreed. MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Minutes of February 27, 2003 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 7 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Shanks, Unrath, and Voce NOES: None ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Harrison, Hood, Pontac, Regnier, and Ribal Members Pontac and Ribal joined the meeting at 6:36 p.m. (b) Minutes of March 13, 2003. MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Monroe to approve the Minutes of March 13, 2003 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 5 — 2 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Shanks, Unrath, and Voce NOES: None ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Harrison, Hood, and Regnier ABSTAIN: Pontac, Ribal Z:1Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06-12-03.doc 2 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 (c) Minutes of March 27, 2003. • 2 3 Member Ribal commented that the equity of various forms of housing appears to be 4 discounted, and he is not entirely certain that the recent moratorium on additions to 5 nonconforming structures is a good idea. He noted that the new single - family 6 residences being constructed resemble boxes. He stated that there are a lot of things 7 happening in the City that permit the large, boxy buildings to go up and are not 8 consistent with the small town type of architecture. He indicated that there was some 9 inequity in shifting the blame for the parking problem to people who rent housing versus 10 those who own homes. He noted that he is the President of the Old Town Rental 11 Housing Improvement Association. When asked what types of houses he would like to 12 see built, Member Ribal reiterated that there is a big inequity in terms of lot size and 13 what can be done with properties. Member Pontac stated that he enjoyed the old town 14 atmosphere, but he questioned whether architectural styles could be restricted or 15 dictated. Member Ribal gave the example of 2- bedroom single - family homes with a 16 "monster" of a home going up next door, which does not create a desirable ambience. 17 He said that property owners wanting to add a unit are not causing this. He then noted 18 that a more important problem is the dilapidation- of housing in Seal Beach and the 19 preponderance of absentee landlords. Member Pontac stated that it is nice to have a 20 small town, and perhaps the only way to keep it this way is through legislation. 21 22 Member Voce asked whether Joyce Parque had made a statement regarding this. 23 Chairperson Antos said that Ms. Parque had begun her statement but it was determined 24 that this issue could better be addressed at a later time when all of the information was 25 clear. Chairperson Antos noted that the Ad Hoc Committee is dealing with all elements 26 of the General Plan (GP) except the Housing Element (HE), which will eventually be 27 added to the GP. He said that part of this Ad Hoc Committee discussion would be 28 appropriate as far as policies within the HE. He noted that when the GP elements go 29 before City Council (CC), this Committee could be suspended or put on hold until the 30 HE is complete, at which point the Committee could reconvene to review the HE and 31 make a recommendation to CC. 32 33 Member Monroe stated that this Committee was brought together in order to advise the 34 City on the language for a Local Coastal Plan (LCP). He noted that there might be one 35 set of housing guidelines for the Coastal Zone and another for those homes outside the 36 Coastal Zone. He said that certain beach communities have Design Review 37 Committees that look at architectural styles for new homes. 38 39 Chairperson Antos noted that except for housing areas that have CC &Rs, the City has 40 never entertained having a Design Review Committee because it was felt that eclectic 41 was better as opposed to the precise restrictions placed upon homeowners in 42 communities like Irvine or Laguna. 43 - - 44 Member suggested recommending to CC that the Ad Hoc Committee reconvene 45 when the HE is ready for review. 46 Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 , Member Ribal reiterated that at some point in the future the City will be confronted with issue's that go beyond the number of garages, and number of bathrooms that a house can have. He commented on how anyone would choose to purchase a home in Seal Beach if they could not add an extra bathroom. He called this bizarre planning. The Director of Development Services interjected that this was a decision made by the CC on a whole different issue than GP documents. He stated this was about an existing provision of the Zoning Ordinance that deals with an expansion to legal nonconforming uses. He said that these issues are not addressed in the GP. He noted that the concerns expressed . could be forwarded to CC. He said that the large homes constructed in town were constructed within the confines of what the existing zoning allows, and these are things that are allowed by right to the property owner. He indicated that many cities do have Design Review Boards or an Urban Design Element to their GP. He noted that the 25 -foot Old Town lots were subdivided in 1906 and it is difficult to build anything with a lot of variation on this size lot. He then returned the focus of the discussion to the approval of the minutes. Member Rallis asked how this would be resolved in Ms. Parque's" statement. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the minutes provide generally what was said and are not designed to be verbatim, but if the Committee so desired they could have verbatim minutes done or just a specific section of the minutes prepared verbatim. Member Ribal stated that when you start talking about a discussion or reflection of ideas on Land Use Elements versus zoning you learn that there is a sharp distinction between the two, and he wasn't certain that this was represented. He said that Land Use and what you do with the land and zoning are very Closely related. He noted that recent extreme actions have made it quite difficult for the owners of a duplex to do anything as their property has been frozen. He said that this is a rather extraordinary limitation for anyone wishing to sell their home within this 10 -month period, as they have no idea of what is going to happen and they may encounter difficulty getting financing. - Member Voce asked if this was not what was reflected in the minutes. Member Ribal stated that the minutes do not quite reflect what happened. MOTION by Rallis; SECOND by Monroe to approve the Minutes of March 27, 2003 as presented MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 — 4 — 6 AYES: Antos, Rallis, Ribal, and Unrath NOES: None ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, and Regnier ABSTAIN: Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, Shanks, and Voce (d) Minutes of April 10, 2003. Member Unrath noted a misspelling of his name on Page 6, Line 15. Z:\Carmen_datalAd Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc 4 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 Member Barton thanked Staff for the - efficient manner in which revisions have been 2 handled. 3 4 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Rallis to approve the Minutes of April 10, 2003 as 5 amended 6 7 MOTION CARRIED: 7— 0— 5— 3 8 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Unrath, and Voce 9 NOES: None 10 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, Regnier, and Silberling 11 ABSTAIN: Pontac, Ribal, and Shanks 12 13 (e) Minutes of April 24, 2003. 14 15 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Rallis to approve the Minutes of April 24, 2003 as 16 presented 17 18 MOTION CARRIED: 7 — 0 — 5 — 3 19 AYES: Antos, Barton, Monroe, Rallis, Ribal, Unrath, and Voce 20 NOES: None 21 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, Regnier, and Silberling 22 ABSTAIN: Fitzpatrick, Pontac, and Shanks 23 24 25 (f) Minutes of May 22, 2003. 26 27 Member Monroe noted corrections to Page 3, which were provided to the Director of 28 Development Services. 29 30 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Rallis to approve the Minutes of May 22, 2003 as 31 amended. 32 33 MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 5 —2 34 AYES: Antos, Barton, Monroe, Rallis, Ribal, Shanks, Unrath, and 35 Voce 36 NOES: None 37 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, Regnier, and Silberling 38 ABSTAIN: Fitzpatrick and Pontac 39 40 41 2. Approval of Memorandum to City Council forwarding the "Final Draft General Plan" 42 and "Final Draft Local Coastal Plan" with a recommendation for initiation of 43 required environmental review and public hearing adoption process. 44 45 Recommendation: Approve Memorandum with any revisions determined 46 appropriate by the Committee. _ Z:\Carmen_datalAd Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc 5 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 Chairperson Antos stated that the Committee should decide whether they wish to reconvene to review the Housing Element (HE) when it is complete. Member Voce stated that this recommendation should be included in the draft memorandum to City Council (CC). Member Monroe asked whether Committee concerns that prompted this recommendation should be included in the memorandum. Member Shanks asked if the HE would initially be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg stated that all of the GP elements would be presented concurrently. Chairperson Antos questioned whether the HE would be presented separately. Mr. Whittenberg said that as he recalls, when CC formed the Ad Hoc Committee it was agreed that the Committee would not be reviewing the HE as it was a more technical legal document, and the attorneys for the City prepare this document to ensure that there would be no legal action from any of the housing advocacy groups throughout the State of California. He recommended that the Committee make its request to CC and the issue can be revisited and CC may change its mind regarding review of the HE by the Committee. Member Voce asked if Counsel for the City would be reviewing the document. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that legal counsel would be present to provide guidance when all of the GP Elements go through the public hearing process. He explained that comments regarding review of current development standards on housing setbacks, lot - coverage, heights, building mass, etc., can very easily be added to the HE, but it would _ be CC's prerogative to decide whether to send the document to the Committee for review or simply consider the comments and incorporate them into what the City Attorney would review. Member Barton asked when the HE would be on the CC Agenda. Mr. Whittenberg stated that review of the documents by legal counsel should be scheduled at the end of June or early July, and it will then be included as part of the environmental document that must be prepared on all of the elements of the GP for public review and comment. Member Ribal stated that an explicit statement should be included stating that the Committee has not studied the HE with any degree of thoroughness nor has community input been included. He indicated that he is not willing to turn the whole concept of the HE over to the Department of Development Services. He said that he does not see the HE and zoning as mutually exclusive and there are issues that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) might raise regarding this. Chairperson Antos asked Member Shanks if the PC would prefer that the Committee review the HE. Member Shanks stated the he believed the PC would appreciate having input from the Committee. • Member Pontac asked if the Committee could review the HE before it is presented to legal counsel for review? Mr. Whittenberg reported that the HE has been in preparation for 21/2 years and is almost in its final form. Member Monroe asked if the document has gone before legal counsel? Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that legal counsel has reviewed it. He explained that by State law it must go to the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) for their comments before it can be go through the Z\Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 public hearing process to ensure that it meets their State guidelines as to what has to 2 be in a HE. He said that they have given Staff some comments back and the City's 3 legal counsel, the consultants, and Staff must go through these comments to determine 4 if they agree with the comments from the State agencies. He noted that the real issue 5 in a HE is for City's to indicate how they are going to accommodate future growth that is 6 planned to go into that community, even if the community does not want it. He cited the 7 examples of low /moderate income housing, increased density to accommodate what 8 they feel is the number of new housing units that need to be built in your particular 9 community, etc. He noted that the "city has always resisted these efforts. 10 11 Member Monroe referred to Page 2 and noted the list of meeting dates and the 12 elements reviewed. He said that by logic it could be determined that the Committee has 13 not yet looked at the HE. He recommended that at the bottom of the list after the June 14 12 date, a note be included that states: "Not having reviewed the Housing Element the 15 group is available to do so, if requested." Mr. Whittenberg suggested the following text 16 to be included as the last paragraph in the memorandum: 17 18 `The Committee also requests consideration of the City Council referring 19 the Housing Element to the Committee for review and comments prior to 20 . scheduling public hearings on any of the General Plan Elements." 21 _ 22 The Committee was in agreement with incorporating this text. 23 24 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Monroe to approve the Memorandum with the revision 25 language stated by Mr. Whittenberg. 26 27 MOTION CARRIED: 10 — 0 — 4 28 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, Ribal, 29 Shanks, Unrath, and Voce 30 NOES: None 31 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, and Regnier 32 33 34 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 35 36 Member - Fitzpatrick commented, that for the last 20 some years one of his running 37 routes has been along the San Gabriel River and in the last 6 months he is very pleased 38 to see that the area along the oil field has been cleaned up. He stated that this is a 39 tremendous improvement. 40 41 Member Ribal asked why the Edison Park area is not included in the Local Coastal Plan 42 (LCP). Chairperson Antos stated that Edison Park is not within the Coastal Zone, which 43 runs from Westminster Avenue down to the beach. 44 45 Member Voce stated that the Gum Grove Nature Park Group had met to review the 46 Open Space /Conservation /Recreation Element and had forwarded their Z:1Carmen_datalAd Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc 7 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 recommendations for changes they wished to add, but unfortunately, these changes did not get to Mr. Whittenberg until today. He said that this was something that the Committee should have looked at and if any of that is to be included, it now has to happen when the elements go before the Planning Commission (PC) and then City Council (CC) for review. He apologized to the Committee members for not having this information available before tonight. He said that much of the language had to do with clarification and elaboration on the Gum Grove Nature Park use. He asked Chairperson Antos if Committee members would get a copy of these changes. Chairperson Antos stated that copies of the document could be provided to the Committee members. Mr. Whittenberg stated that any comments could be forwarded to Staff and Staff would provide copies to the PC. Member Unrath thanked Chairperson Antos for taking the time to chair the Ad Hoc Committee and he also thanked the Director of Development Services for the work done by Staff and the consulting team. Member Shanks stated that the PC has frequently looked into many of the issues discussed during the Ad Hoc meetings and has made recommendations to CC, and hopes to make more in the future. Member Barton also extended her thanks to Staff for their assistance. She stated that the problem in town is that everyone has moved to Seal Beach for the small town quaintness, and it is frustrating to observe the overbuilding. She noted that the very thing that attracts people to the city is gradually changing, and although they are paying a lot of money for a little piece of land, she still hopes the PC stays on top of this to prevent the loss of that quaintness. Member Monroe asked Chairperson Antos to communicate thanks to City Council for being democratic and being willing to commit the money, time, and the Staff to this process in allowing the community to be involved. Chairperson Antos thanked the Committee for their hard word and for their input. He stated that when the GP elements go before CC, it is his belief that it will accept all of the Committee's work and probably pass it on without review to the PC after the appropriate environmental documents are prepared. He explained that at that point the PC may hold study sessions, but they must hold public hearings to receive input from the public. Member Ribal stated that although he imagined there must be practical reasons for not having the minutes presented to the Committee at each subsequent meeting, he did check with the California First Amendment Coalition and he found that minutes are to be prepared and made available for review at the next session of a committee meeting. He noted that this makes for easier recall of the discussion in approving the minutes. Mr. Whittenberg extended his appreciation to the Committee members for their participation in review of the GP elements and the LCP. He stated that when the final Z:1Carmen data \Ad Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc 8 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 documents are ready to go to public hearings, Staff would provide copies to the 2 members for their review and also will provide the date and time for the hearings. He 3 then noted that since the next meeting date for the Committee is uncertain, for the 4 approval of tonight's minutes Staff would prepare a memorandum to accompany a copy 5 of the minutes for review by the Committee members and request a response if 6 changes are to be made. He said that once the changes are made a revised copy of 7 the minutes would be forwarded . to the members. He then reported that these 8 recommendations would appear on the agenda for the council meeting scheduled for 9 July 14, 2003, 10 11 12 STAFF CONCERNS 13 14 None. 15 16 17 ADJOURNMENT 18 19 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Monroe to adjourn the meeting of the Ad Hoc General 20 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. 21 22 MOTION CARRIED: 10 — 0 — 4 23 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Ponta; Rallis, Ribal, 24 Shanks, Unrath, and Voce 25 NOES: None 26 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, and Regnier 27 28 The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. 29 30 31 Respectfully Submitted, 32 33 - 34 35 36 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr- -ry 37 Planning Department 38 39 APPROVAL 40 41 The Committee on June 12, 2003, approved the following Minutes of the Ad Hoc 42 General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings of: 43 47 A 44 February 27, 2003. ; 48 April 10, 2003 / 7(j / �I) 45 March 13, 2003. 4,! 49 April 24, 200 ; 1.!. 46 March 27, 2003. /.!416i 50 May 22, 2003.�� Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 06- 12- 03.doc g Planning Comnussion Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 ATTACHMENT 7 _ Draft General Plan (Previously provided to the Commission) Page 22 • Planning Commission Staff Report re: Negative Declaration & Recommendation to City Council General Plan & Local Coastal Program City of Seal Beach September 17, 2003 ATTACHMENT 8 Draft Local Coastal Program (Previously provided to the Commission) • Page 23 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 6 • MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -1 (PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL) • • CC Staff Report - Neg Dec and GP 33 . City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing regarding Negative Declaration 03 -1 and Adoption of General Plan Revision December 8, 2003 ATTACHMENT 7 • DRAFT GENERAL PLAN (PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL) CC Staff' Report - Neg Dec and GP 34 I