Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-07-14 #AA • AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 14, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE REPORT — AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Receive the Report of the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Determine to accept or reject the request of the Committee to also review the "Housing Element" of the General Plan when completed by the City Attorney. BACKGROUND: The City Council established the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee ( "Committee ") on July 22, 2002. Appointments to the Committee were made by the City between July 22 and September 12, 2002. This committee was charged with the task of reviewing the "Draft General Plan" and the "Draft Local Coastal Plan", and providing input to City staff and the consultant team on those documents. The Committee met to review and provided input into the "Draft General Plan" and the "Draft Local Coastal Plan" documents on the following dates: ❑ December 18, 2002 — Review of Purpose of Committee and General Plan and Local Coastal Plan requirements ❑ February 27, 2003 — Review of Draft Land Use and Open Space /Recreation/Conservation Elements of the General Plan ❑ March 13, 2003 — Review of Draft Circulation and Cultural Resources Elements of the General Plan ❑ March 27, 2003- Review of Draft Growth Management Element of the General Plan ❑ April 10, 2003 — Review of Draft Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan ❑ April 24, 2003 — Review of Draft Local Coastal Plan ❑ May 22, 2003 — Review of Final Draft General Plan Elements and Final Draft • Local Coastal Plan Agenda Item ,4A Z.\My Documents \GENPLAN \GP -LCP Committee\Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report doc\LWI06 -26 -03 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report July 14, 2003 1111 ❑ June 12, 2003 — Approval of Committee Minutes and Memorandum forwarding the "Final Draft General Plan" and the "Final Draft Local Coastal Plan" to the City. Council The "Final Draft" versions of these documents are being finalized by the consultant team and will be prepared for public review during the environmental review and public hearing /adoption process required by State law. The Committee has provided many comments and suggestions to City staff and the consultant team regarding the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. Those comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the documents to the extent determined appropriate by City staff and the consultant team. The Committee also requests that the City Council consider referring the "Housing Element" to the Committee for review and comments prior to scheduling public hearings on any of the General Plan Elements before the Planning Commission. Several members of the Committee have expressed concerns regarding the mass, bulk, and architectural appearance of several housing developments that have been constructed or are under construction at this time. The Committee may wish to recommend goals and policies relative to these issues and feels that this type of input should be provided prior to the formal public hearing process. • The "Housing Element" was not included within the "Scope of Work" that Culbertson, Adams & Associates was contracted for, and therefor not included within the scope of the meetings scheduled for review by the Committee. The Housing Element has been prepared by CBA, Inc: and is undergoing final review and revision by the consultant, city staff and the City Attorney at this time. Staff would not have any objection to the Committee reviewing and providing comments, understanding that the Housing Element has very specific requirements as to what must be included within the document to conform to State guidelines, and the City Attorney would need to review and consider any suggested revisions from the Committee. _ Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the approved "Memorandum - Transmission of Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Work to City Council", approved by the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee on June 12, 2003 A copy of each approved set of minutes of the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee is provided as Attachments 2 through 9. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Costs of the General Plan\Local Coastal Plan Updates are budgeted within the City budget and existing staff is allocated to the necessary work programs necessary to • initiate the environmental review and required public hearings to adopt these documents. Receipt of Committee Report CC Staff Report 2 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report • July 14, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Report of the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Coininittee: Determine to accept or reject the request of the Committee to also review the "Housing Element" of the General Plan when completed by the City Attorney. • NOTED AND APPROVED: 4;4 A A, Ire Whittenberg - John B. Bahorski Director of Development Services City Manager Attachments: (9) • Attachment 1: Memorandum - Transmission of Ad -Hoc General - Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Work to City Council, approved by the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee on June 12, 2003 Attachment 2: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes - December 18, 2002 — Review of Purpose of Committee and General Plan and Local Coastal Plan requirements - Attachment 3: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes - February 27, 2003 — Review of Draft Land Use and Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Elements of the General Plan Attachinent 4: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory • Committee Minutes - March 13, 2003 — Review of Draft Circulation and Cultural - Resources Elements of the General Plan Attachment 5: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory • Committee Minutes - March 27, 2003- Review of Draft Growth Management Element of the General Plan Receipt of Committee Report CC Staff Report 3 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report . July 14, 2003 III . _ , . Attachment 6: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes - April 10, 2003 — Review of Draft Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan Attachment 7: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes - April 24, 2003 — Review of Draft Local Coastal Plan Attachment 8: Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes - May 22, 2003 — Review of Final Draft General Plan Elements and Final Draft Local Coastal Plan Attachment 9: June 12, 2003 — Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan , Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes - Approval of Committee Minutes and Memorandum forwarding the "Final Draft General Plan" and the "Final Draft Local Coastal Plan" to the City Council * * * * III . , , . . . . . • • III Receipt of Committee Report CC Staff Report 4 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM - TRANSMISSION OF AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK TO CITY COUNCIL, APPROVED BY THE AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUNE 12, 2003 • • Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 5 PLANNING - DEPARTMENT ( 40E - A - 1 - 2N :ter M emorandum To: Mayor Larson and Members of the City Council Attention: John B. Bahorski, City Manager Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services From: Charles Antos, Chairperson Ad -Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Date: June 12, 2003 SUBJECT: TRANSMISSION OF AD -HOC GENERAL • PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK TO CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE: The Committee recommends that the City Council receive this transmission of the Ad -Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee work and instruct staff and the consultant team to initiate the environmental review and public hearing processes necessary to conduct the required public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the "Final Draft General Plan" and the "Final Draft Local Coastal Plan" documents. BACKGROUND: The City Council established the Ad -Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee ( "Committee ") on July 22, 2002. Appointments to the Committee were made by the City Council between July 22 and September 12, • 2002. This committee was charged with the task of reviewing the "Draft General Z. \My Documents \GENPLAN\GP -LCP Committee \Committee Tranmission Memo to City Councd.2.do8LW\06 -05-03 Memorandum to City Council re: Transmission of Final Draft General Plan and Local Coastal Plan by the Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee II June 12, 2003 Plan" and the "Draft Local Coastal Plan ", and providing input to City staff and the consultant team on those documents. . The Committee met to review and provide input into the "Draft General Plan" and the "Draft Local Coastal Plan" documents on the following dates: ❑ December 18, 2002 — Review of Purpose of Committee and General Plan and Local Coastal Plan requirements ❑ February 27, 2003 — Review of Draft Land Use and Open Space /Recreation /Conservation Elements of the General Plan ❑ March 13, 2003 — Review of Draft Circulation and Cultural Resources Elements of the General Plan . ❑ March 27, 2003- Review of Draft Growth Management Element of the General Plan ❑ April 10, 2003 — Review of Draft Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan • ❑ April 24, 2003 — Review of Draft Local Coastal Plan ❑ May 22, 2003 — Review of Final Draft General Plan Elements and Final Draft Local Coastal Plan _ ❑ June 12, 2003 — Approval of Committee Minutes and Memorandum forwarding the "Final Draft General Plan" and the "Final Draft Local II Coastal Plan" to the City Council The "Final Draft" versions of these documents are being finalized by the consultant team and will be forwarded to the City Council along with this • Memorandum, and the approved minutes of the meetings of the Committee. The Committee has provided many comments and suggestions to City staff and the consultant team regarding the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. Those comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the documents to the extent determined appropriate by City staff and the consultant team. The Committee wishes to thank the City Council for the opportunity given to be ' involved in the formulation of these important planning documents of the City, recognizes and appreciates the efforts of City staff and the consultant team in providing valuable information and suggestions regarding the documents, and looks forward to continued involvement during the public hearing adoption process of these planning documents. The Committee also wishes to thank Charles Antos for his serving as Chairman of the Committee and also wishes to recognize the efforts of each member of the Committee in reviewing and providing comments on the General Plan and Local III Coastal Plan. 2 Committee Tranmission Memo to City Council.2 Memorandum to City Council re: Transmission of Final Draft General Plan and Local Coastal Plan by the 411 Ad -Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee June 12, 2003 The Committee has reviewed this Memorandum, agrees with the transmission of the "Final Draft General Plan" and the "Final Draft Local Coastal Plan" to the City Council, and has authorized the Chairman of the Committee to sign this , Memorandum. The Committee also requests that the City Council consider referring the "Housing Element" to the Committee for review and comments pnor to scheduling public hearings on any of the General Plan Elements before the Planning Commission. Several members of the Committee have expressed concerns regarding the mass, bulk, and architectural appearance of several housing developments that have been constructed or are under construction at this time. The Committee may wish to recommend goals and policies relative to these issues and feels that this type of input should be provided prior to the formal public hearing process. al 1 4Lt/ 4 ; - Charles Antos, Chairperson • Ad -Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee III 3 Committee Tranmission Memo to City Council.2 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan - Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report III July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 2 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - - DECEMBER 18, 2002 - REVIEW OF PURPOSE OF COMMITTEE AND GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS. III . . • Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 6 • 1 AD HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 2 _ CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 Minutes of December 18, 2002 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 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 December 18, 2002. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and 10 began with the Salute to the Flag.' 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Members Antos, Hood, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, Shanks, 15 Unrath, and Voce. 16 17 Also 18 Present: - Department of Development Services 19 Lee Whittenberg, Director 20 21 Absent: Members Barton, Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, and Harrison. S 22 23 Mr. Whittenberg introduced himself and stated that although he would be conducting 24 tonight's meeting, elections for Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson would be held at 25 the next meeting. He explained the purpose of a General Plan and a Local Coastal 26 Plan then asked that each member make a brief presentation to introduce 27 themselves to the other committee members. 28 29 • 30 AGENDA APPROVAL - 31 32 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Monroe to approve the Agenda as presented. 33 34 MOTION CARRIED: 10 — 0 — 5 35 AYES: Antos, Hood; Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, Regnier, Ribal, 36 Shanks, Unrath, and Voce 37 NOES: None 38 ABSENT: Barton, Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, and Harrison 39 40 41 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 42 43 Mr. Whittenberg opened oral communications. • 44 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Z: \Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 1 • 1 There being no one wishing to speak, the Director of Development Services closed III 2 - oral communications. 3 4 - 5 CONSENT CALENDAR 6 7 None. 8 9 10 SCHEDULED MATTERS 11 12 1. Receive Staff Presentation Re: Purpose of Committee: 13 (a) Purpose of a "General Plan" and State Law Requirements relating to the - 14 Adoption and Maintenance of a General Plan (GP). 15 (b) Purpose of a "Local Coastal Plan" and State Law Requirements relating to 16 the Adoption and Maintenance of a Local Coastal Plan (LCP). 17 18 Mr. Whittenberg stated that all of the Committee members had been provided with a 19 copy of the Staff Report and Resolution establishing the Committee. He indicated 20 - that the work schedule approved by City Council (CC) for Committee meetings and 21 for meetings with the Consultant was also attached. He explained that 22 approximately 6 months ago, the CC embarked on this process with designated - 23 members of the CC, the Planning Commission (PC), and the Environmental Quality III 24 Control Board (EQCB) participating in interviews for the selection of a consulting firm 25 to assist with this project. He reported that the consulting firm selected is currently in • 26 the process of preparing the Land Use, Circulation, and Open Space Element 27 updates. He indicated that Staff is in the process of reviewing drafts of these 28 updates and it is anticipated that Staff will return the drafts with comments to the 29 Consultants by the end of the week. Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon this 30 schedule, he anticipates that the first Committee meeting should be scheduled at the 31 end of January 2003, and it will probably focus on the Land Use Section of the GP. 32 He noted that other than the Housing Element, the Land Use Element is probably 33 the most controversial one. He stated that he does not anticipate making any 34 changes in land uses .in the Element, but will simply be updating standards, criteria, 35 goals, and policies to reflect the current state of the world, and not the state of the 36 world when the element was last updated. He pointed out that the element has not 37 been extensively reviewed for approximately 20,years. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 38 general overview information has also been provided to give Committee members a 39 better idea of what a GP and LCP entail. He noted that the GP for the City of Seal 40 Beach has all of the required elements including an optional Archaeological Element 41 (AE), which was adopted in 1992. He stated that the AE contains specific provisions 42 on how the City would deal with potential archaeological impacts of proposed 43 projects on properties that have never been developed. He commented on the 44 recent findings on the Hellman Ranch property and the implementation programs as 45 far as the conditions implemented on the California Coastal Commission Permit. III Z: \Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP \Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 • 1 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would not go into too much detail tonight noting that 2 the main purpose for this meeting was to introduce the Committee members and to 3 respond to general questions. 4 • 5 Member Regnier asked if a brief explanation could be made as to why the previously 6 approved LCP was not successful. 7 8 Member Antos explained that the LCP was approved by CC, but there was one area 9 that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) chose to condition with the 10 requirement for a separate access to the public beach through Surfside, which has 11 always been a private beach area. Also all of the roadways in Surfside are private 12 and there are no public parking areas or public restroom facilities. The residents of 13 Surfside would not agree to allow public access to the private part of the beach and 14 the LCP was, therefore, never adopted and certified. Member Antos noted that 15 during the storm season that followed Surfside had requested an emergency permit • 16 for a means to protect the homes from flooding, and when the regular permit was to 17 be approved, the CCC again conditioned the permit with the requirement that 18 Surfside allow public access to the beach. Surfside was then granted a court ruling 19 in favor of their denial of beach access. Member Antos then noted that hopefully 20 with the new updated LCP and the previous court decision, the CCC might now be 21 forced to approve the LCP. 22 • 23 Mr. Whittenberg explained that after the emergency permit was issued, there was 24 another case in California that stated there must be a "rational nexus" between the 25 dedication that is being required and the permit being requested. He said that in this 26 case, the court eventually ruled that the issue of emergency protection for homes by 27 putting in a rock revetment has no rational nexus to coastal access issues and, 28 therefore, this permit cannot be conditioned on this level. He emphasized that the 29 main focus of this GP /LCP update process is to take the elements and update the 30 maps and goals and policies. 31 32 Member Antos stated that although there are not many areas available within the 33 City for new development, he noted that there is still land within Old Town, like the 34 property off of Marina Drive and First Street, for which discussion of appropriate 35 zoning should take place to ensure that any new development is compatible with 36 City goals. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this discussion could take place when - 37 updating the LUE. He added that with regard to the property at First St. and Marina 38 Drive, the City has started the process. of General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the 39 _ property to go to a Residential Medium Density (RMD) designation, which is 40 generally what the designation is for the surrounding properties in that area. He 41 indicated that the owners had been Mobil and Exxon, and the owners are now 42 Texaco and Chevron. He stated that as these transfers of ownership have occurred, 43 the new owners have chosen to back up and look at the process to ensure that they 44 are headed in the direction they wish to go. He said that Staff had begun to meet • 45 with developers to discuss potential site layouts for housing developments. He 46 noted that there do exist provisions for a Limited Commercial Zone (LC) around Seal Z:1Carmen data1Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 Beach Boulevard (SBB) between Landing Avenue and Electric Avenue that allows 1111 2 for a mixed use of residential and commercial on the same pieces of property, but 3 this type of combination of uses is not allowed anywhere else in the City. He 4 indicated that this designation has been in place since 1992 -93 and has not been - 5 very successful, consequently, many of the property owners in that area have 6 returned to the City to request that it allow a straight residential use while 7 maintaining the option of having a mixed use. He said that this process is to be 8 scheduled for public hearings before the PC and the CC to look at making this 9 change in the allowable uses, which will require a GPA. He stated that this would 10 probably precede the work on the LUE. Member Monroe asked whether the Boeing 11 Project would proceed before the Committee begins work on the LUE. Mr. 12 Whittenberg explained that the Boeing Company has submitted a Specific Plan for a 13 build out of the vacant properties around their existing campus. He noted that the 14 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) contains language that generally 15 incorporates what the Boeing Specific Plan proposes. He stated that the EIR will 16 probably be released around January 1, 2003, and the Committee will have an 17 opportunity to review this document. He indicated that the Boeing Project would not 18 affect the zoning, which is currently Light Manufacturing (M -1). He said that Boeing 19 is proposing approximately 700,000 square feet of additional business park/research 20 and development light industrial uses, a 120 -room hotel, and about 35- 45,000 21 square feet of additional retail space. He stated that the hotel and retail space would 22 be located on the far east end of the property, with the rest of the dirt properties to 23 the west and south of the Boeing facility to be utilized for new 'streets and utilities to • 24 allow for future construction. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this project would go 25 through an Environmental Impact Review public hearing process with the 26 Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) on the adequacy of the EIR, and also 27 with the PC and ultimately with CC to consider approval of this Specific Plan and, if 28 necessary, clean up amendments that must be made to the current provisions of the 29 Land Use and Circulation Element, etc., to reflect what that plan will entail. The 30 Director of Development Services stated, that currently the consultants are adding 31 proposed language to the Specific Plan DEIR that will appear in brackets to provide 32 the opportunity to see if this plan as it is proposed would be approved. 33 ' 34 Member Voce requested that at the next meeting a map of the Seal Beach 35 delineating the Coastal Zone be provided. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Coastal 36 Zone encompasses everything from Westminster Avenue south to the ocean. 37 Member Voce then requested a map of the Coastal Zone with the two properties in 38 question (First Street/Marina Drive and the Boeing property) shaded in to delineate 39 them. 40 - 41 Inaudible.Question regarding State Lands property: 42 - 43 - Mr. Whittenberg's Response: It was incorporated into the Hellman Specific Plan 44 and that plan had retail uses on it and was approved by the City. The California 45 Coastal Commission (CCC) later modified the plan. If you might recall there was a • 46 golf course involved -in the Hellman Project, and the golf course has been deleted Z:ICarmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 • 1 and as of 2001 that area is now a 100 -acre, deed restricted wetland restoration area. 2 The State Lands property, because of the pulling out of the golf course, has reverted 3 back to the previous Specific Plan, which was for a hotel on the site. 4 5 Member Voce asked if the 'State was no longer donating that acreage to the . 6 wetlands project. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the State Lands Commission still 7 owns the property, but at this time it is unknown what they will eventually decide to 8 do with it. Member Voce said that there had been talk of the State deeding this land 9 over to whatever entity involved in restoring the Mr. Whittenberg stated 10 that this may still happen and the State Lands Commission may end up taking the 11 100 -acre deed restricted area that Hellman now owns and combine it all into one 12 large project. He noted that this 100 -acre area is to be deed - restricted for a period 13 of 25 years, and over this period the Heliman's must sell the property to a willing 14 buyer at a "wetlands appraised" price for the property. He said that the Heliman's 15 had gone through a negotiation process with_ the _State Wildlife_Conservation Board 16 (SWCB), and an appraised price had been agreed upon, but then the issue of 17 contamination came up from the previous oil operations on the property so the 18 SWCB said they do not wish to acquire the property in its contaminated state. He 19 stated that the issue now is whether Hellman will clean up the property and then sell 20 it, or try to find someone else who is willing to accept title to the property in its 21 current contaminated state. 22 • 23 2. Discussion Re: Anticipated Meeting Schedule with General-Plan/Local Coastal 24 Plan Consultant and City Staff. 25 26 Mr. Whittenberg asked if the day and time for today's meeting would be a good 27 schedule for future meetings. He indicated that he had selected Wednesdays at 28 5:30 because he usually works late every other Wednesday when the PC meetings 29 are held. A Committee Member stated that meeting at 6:00 p.m. rather than 5:30 30 p.m. would be more convenient. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Committee could 31 meet at 6:30 p.m. on a Wednesday alternate to the PC meetings. He noted that if 32 the Ad Hoc Committee met on the same night as the PC meetings this would allow 33 only one hour as the PC meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. He recommended that the 34 Committee meet once a month and stated that Staff anticipates holding - 4 -6 35 meetings altogether. He said that many of the elements could be combined and 36 dealt with 2 or 3 at a time. He noted that the Committee would not be dealing with 37 the Housing Element, as it is a complex one. He explained that in the State of 38 California attorneys usually end up having to write HEs, as they are one of the most - 39 litigated elements in a GP. He said that the HE is to be prepared by a consultant 40 that specializes in handling this. 41 42 Mr. Whittenberg then stated that he was not certain that the consultant would have . 43 documents ready for review for a January 15, 2003 meeting. He said that it appears 44 at this point that the first meeting to review documents would probably take place in • 45 February 2003. He indicated that he would complete a schedule of meetings for 46 distribution to the members of the Committee so that any conflicts can be addressed Z:1Carmen datalAd Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 at the February meeting. Member Shanks asked if members of the Ad Hoc II 2 Committee are subject to the Brown .Act. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that they are 3 subject and he explained that this means that there cannot be a majority of the 4 members meeting outside of the Committee meetings to discuss Committee 5 business. He encouraged the members to feel free to call if they have any questions 6 or concerns regarding any of the documents they are reviewing. • 7 8 Member Antos noted that the Noise Element is one of the most elements in 9 the GP and he inquired as to how it is to be handled. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 10 the scope of work required the use of a Noise Consultant that went out to the 11 previously measured locations to take readings at those locations to get a 12 comparison over time as to what change there has been. He said that it was also 13 determined if there were any additional locations where it was felt to be appropriate 14 to take measurements based upon development since that point in time. He 15 indicated that the Traffic /Circulation Element was also quite technical and would 16 require updated traffic counts at all of the main intersections in town. He stated that 17 typically a traffic consultant would be hired to do this. 18 19 The Director of Development Services explained that writing a GP can be a very 20 involved process and some cities will take 3 -5 years to go through this process. He 21 - said that in most cases a city is looking at making substantial changes on what the 22 allowable future development will be. He noted that this would not be a major issue 23 for the City of Seal Beach other than some of the particular locations in town. II 24 . 25 Member Hood asked for further clarification on what the objective of the Committee 26 would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would like to see a document that is more 27 condensed and is up to date as far as goals and policies of what the City would like 28 to see happen. Member Voce asked if it would be possible to have this on one . 29 page. Mr. Whittenberg said that in 1996 when the City updated the Main Street 30 - Specific Plan (MSSP) a Vision Statement of goals was created and this statement is . 31 generic enough so that it could be adapted for use as the City's statement of 32 objectives. 33 34 Member Ribal inquired about parking in the Coastal Zone. Mr. Whittenberg stated 35 that this would be addressed in the LCP part of the process. He said that the City's 36 parking standards are different than the standards that the California Coastal 37 .Commission (CCC) uses to determine what is appropriate for uses. 38 39 Mr. Whittenberg stated that after the beginning of the year he would be in 40 communication with the Committee Member and the Consultant to determine what - - 41 their respective schedules are. He again reiterated that he believed the first meeting 42 would be scheduled in February. Member Voce noted that on January 29, 2003 at 43 6:30 p.m. the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) would be reviewing the 44 Boeing EIR and it might be a good idea that the Ad Hoc Committee members that _ 45 are not on the PC or CC attend that meeting. III 46 Z:1Carmen data4Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 • 1 Member Unrath asked what type of environmental review document would be 2 required for this effort. 3 4 Mr, Whittenberg stated that his best guess is that it would be a Mitigated Negative 5 Declaration (MND) and this would depend upon some of the land use issues that will 6 ultimately determine the direction the City will take. He said that other than land use 7 he could not think of anything that would trigger an EIR, but there may be the need 8 for a MND for some land uses. He said that most of the circulation issues would 9 have to do with deleting future roadways that are shown in the current GP, like the 10 extension of the 605 Freeway through Leisure World to Pacific Coast Highway 11 (PCH) and the extension of Edinger Avenue through the National Wildlife Refuge to 12 PCH. . 13 14 15 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 16 17 None. 18 . 19 _ 20 STAFF CONCERNS • 21 22 None. • 23 24 ,25 ADJOURNMENT 26 27 The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. . 28 29 30 Respectfully Submitted, 31 • 32 33 • .34 0 "_ ,, ,, „9_� �)-NVe� - 35 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 36 Planning Department 37 38 ' - 39 APPROVAL 40 41 The Committee' on 2 - 27- Cjapproved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 42 Plan /Local Coastal Pla itizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Wednesday, 43 December 18, 2002. Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Citzens Mtg 12- 18- 02.doc 7 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report III July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 3 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 2003 - REVIEW OF DRAFT LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE/RECREATION /CONSERVATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN • • Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 7 • 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 FIag. 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 Aft • 44 NOES: None 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Z: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc 1 • 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 closed 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 III 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:\Carmen_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 III 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 II 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. Ill 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 Tight 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 and 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 411 Z:1Carmen_datalAd 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 III 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:ICarmen 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 asa 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 F 27, 2003 III 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 closed, 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 and 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:1Carmen_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 III 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. Ill 46 Z:\Carmen_datakAd 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_datalAd 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 III 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 17 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 III 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 II 46 course is really underutilized, but green areas are important and make for a nicer Z:1Carmen 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 II 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: \Carmen 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 change's'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 _ _ 31 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 32 Planning Department 33 34 35 APPROVAL 36 37 The Committee on 6 J2-LZ3approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 38 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, 39 February 27, 2003. 40 • Z:1Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 02- 27- 03.doc - 12 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee "Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report III July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 4 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - MARCH 13, 2003 - REVIEW OF DRAFT CIRCULATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN ID . , III Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 8 • 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 S 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 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Z:\Carmen_datakAd Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 1 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) III 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 III Z:1Carmen_data\Ad 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 • • CCommittee 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 light 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: \Carmen data\Ad Hoc GP LCP1Ad 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 Ill 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 "D" 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 Tight 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 Ill 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 III 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 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 include d 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 IP 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_datalAd Hoc GP LCP1Ad 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 % ,_ _ 1 '- • 45 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 46 Planning Department Z:\Carmen_data1Ad 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 431..r,) )2, 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:\Carmen_data1Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 03- 13- 03.doc 8 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee `Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report III July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 5 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - MARCH 27, 2003 - REVIEW OF DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN • III . _ • • , . Receipt of Committee Report CC Staff Report 9 • 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. S 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 ' 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 1 /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 Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2003 1 is an ongoing issue not from the Bixby project, but from regional traffic that flows IIII 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 II 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. 1 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 the 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 110 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 II 24 25 0 �. 26 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr 27 Planning Department 28 29 30 APPROVAL 31 _ 32 The Committee on3ut,)6, r 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 33 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, March 34 27, 2003. , • III 6 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee 'Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report • July 19, 2003 ATTACHMENT 6 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - APRIL 10, 2003 - REVIEW OF DRAFT NOISE AND • SAFETY ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN , III III . , Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 10 , • 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 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 SCHEDULED MATTERS • • 2 , 3 1. Receive Staff and Consultant Presentation; Committee and Public Discussion; 4 and Receive Committee Direction Re: . 5 (a) Preliminary Draft Noise Element of the General Plan. 6 (b) Preliminary Draft Safety Element of the General Plan. 7 8 Staff Presentation — Noise and Safety Elements _ 9 10 Mr. Whittenberg introduced Mr. Fred Greve, the noise consultant who completed the 11 noise analysis for the City, and Andi Culbertson, of Culbertson Adams & Associates. 12 He then asked Ms. Culbertson to provide a brief overview of the document. 13 14 Ms. Culbertson stated that the Noise and Safety Elements are both mandated by 15 State law. She indicated that the Noise Element must identify what the existing 16 noise environment is and how the Land Use. will be brought into compatibility with 17 the existing noise environment by mitigation measures or policies that aim toward 18 protecting people from the hazards and nuisance of noise. She said that if this is 19 based upon street arterial noise, several areas are considered. She noted that this 20 is not a noise ordinance, which states what time and how loud noises can be. She 21 said that this is more policy relating to how to deal with land use noise interfaces 22 along streets and highways. She explained that it is based on Community Noise 23 Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is a 24 -hour weighted average, and penalizes III 24 noises that occur at night more than noises that occur during the day. She said that 25 the CNEL contours along roadways are based upon the traffic study. Ms. 26 Culbertson noted that the document also deals with aircraft noise, although the City 27 is fairly well pre - empted by what is done with the Airport Land Use Commission 28 (ALUC) where they apply the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. She indicated that 29 the Noise Element encourages the use of berms and walls in the City for noise 30 attenuation with development projects. 31 32 Ms. Culbertson then discussed the Safety Element noting that it is one of the more 33 technically complicated elements, because it handles a wide range of safety issues 34 and the supporting data is very complex. She explained that this element handles 35 emergency response, hazardous materials, geologic hazards, and Alquist - Priolo 36 zones (specific zones established by the State for special treatment in the event of 37 earthquakes). She noted that tsunami and seiche information, which will be of use 38 to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the fire hazards and shoreline 39 protection are also discussed. She said that the policies are very similar to the 40 policies already in the Safety Element, but they have been updated. 41 42 Committee Questions /Comments 43 44 Member Monroe stated that the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) has a very 45 expensive and elaborate Directorate Department that employs approximately 30 full II 46 time people on safety. He noted that they are concerned not with the safety of the 2 • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 • 1 entire community,'but with the transport, handling, storage, and loading of munitions 2 and explosives. He said that he hoped the Safety Element would incorporate 3 mention of some of this information and acknowledge the existence of this 4 department. Ms. Culbertson stated that the CCC is very interested in having Seal 5 Beach pay to prepare the LCP provisions for parcels that it has no control over such 6 as the NWS and the Sunset Aquatic Park, which is owned and operated by the 7 County. She said that she and the Director of Development Services have resisted 8 this because the City should not have to pay for this, and as such, she explained 9 that her lack of attention to the NWS is in some cases deliberate because she does 10 - not want the CCC to see an imbalance in the document. _ 11 - 12 Member Barton suggested that the Noise Element •address leaf blowers, 13 motorcycles, and noisy trucks. Ms. Culbertson said that leaf blowers are matters 14 that are addressed in the Noise Ordinance, but an introductory policy on these types 15 of things can be included in the Noise Element. Mr. Greve interjected that truck 16 limitations are used in primarily residential areas. He said that there are noise ' 17 standards set by the State for trucks and motorcycles, and some cities have posted 18 noise meters and have police ticket vehicles exceeding the noise limit. 19 20 Member Voce stated that the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) looked 21 into this several years ago and wanted to ban leaf blowers outright. He said that at - 22 that time the City developed a program to provide training on how to properly • 23 operate leaf blowers to minimize noise. He stated that nothing came of this 24 program. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that a policy could be incorporated into the - 25 Noise Element to have the City consider a regulation program for leaf blowers or ban 26 them altogether. He explained that City workers do use the leaf blowers as it is 27 faster and there is limited staff to do this work. He indicated that many of these City - 28 jobs are contracted out and this might be a good time to address this issue again to 29 require contractors to properly operate leaf blowers or to even ban them. 30 31 Chairperson Antos noted that recent water quality policy requires that City Staff and 32 . contractors using leaf blowers sweep up whatever goes onto the street, while 33 landscapers for private residences are not required to sweep after using leaf blowers 34 and this becomes the..street sweeper's responsibility. He noted that this might be a 35 timely issue as now both issues can be covered: the correct operation of leaf 36 blowers and the requirement to sweep up whatever goes out into the street to 37 prevent this trash from going into the gutters. Member Voce stated that the 38 tendency is to blow toward the aprons and the trash ends up in the gutters. Mr. 39 Matthews asked if the EQCB had considered recommending leaf vacuums. Member 40 Voce stated that he had suggested this, but this would be a technology conversion, 41 which could be costly and noise would still be an issue. He said it would make more 42 sense to use electric leaf vacuums with filters, as they are quieter. 43 44 Mr. Whittenberg said it might be helpful to include this issue not only in the Noise • 45 Element, but also in the Water Quality and the Safety Elements. Member Unrath 46 stated that it should also be included in the Air Quality Element. Ms. Culbertson said 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 it would also be an appropriate policy for the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Land Use Ill 2 Plan. 3 4 ' Member Fitzpatrick referred to Page 30 and asked how the document could justify a _ 5 half -mile slice through Seal Beach in the Alquist - Priolo map. Ms. Culbertson stated 6 that this is an official statement from Sacramento. She said that the City is required 7 to identify the Alquist - Priolo zones, which change periodically. She explained that 8 Alquist - Priolo is designed for earthquake protection, and until this law was passed 9 many developers were building homes straddling the San Andreas Fault. She said 10 that Alquist- Priolo is also looking at liquefaction, particularly based upon the 1933 11 Long Beach earthquake where horizontal displacement of flat ground occurred. She 12 also noted that there is a lot of sandy soil and high ground water in this area, which 13 is prone to liquefaction. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the oil drilling borings in this 14 area have helped identify the earthquake fault lines. He stated that this does not 15 mean you cannot build in this area, but you must have special geology studies done 16 to verify where the actual fault lines lie. He noted that the new homes on Hellman 17 Property would be constructed in this zone. Member Voce asked if these structures 18 would require special earthquake protection construction standards. Mr. 19 Whittenberg confirmed that there are special construction standards for the base 20 material before pouring the foundations, for the foundations themselves, and other 21 different bolting systems for bolting the wood into the foundations. He cautioned that 22 the one thing that is prohibited is to build across an identified fault line. 23 ID 24 Member Regnier stated that in the past there had been much discussion about the 25 Army Corps of Engineers doing an underground tube study for backpassing sand for 26 both Surfside Beach and the main beach. He asked if this was ever completed. Mr. 27 Whittenberg stated that he did not believe it was. He said that on the main beach 28 the City has done some surface backpasses with vehicles. Member Regnier stated 29 • that perhaps mention should be made that this has been discussed with the Corps of 30 Engineers. He said that the description as it is written may leave the impression that 31 it becomes the problem of the City of Seal Beach alone to replenish the sand, rather 32 than leaving the door open to having other agencies participate. 33 34 Regarding the Noise Element, Member Rallis stated that beach maintenance activity 35 that takes place between the hours of 4:00 -5:00 a.m. creates quite a disturbance. 36 He asked if this issue could be addressed in the Noise Element with the stipulation 37 that these activities not begin before 7:00 a.m. Mr. Greve stated that this issue 38 should be addressed in the Noise Ordinance, but some policies that refer to this 39 concern could be included. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there might be some 40 competing interests as these vehicles usually begin activity when people begin to 41 come out to the beach. Member Rallis commented that the oil boat coming in at 42 morning is sometimes quite loud. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the beach cleaning 43 crew usually starts work early, as they do not want to have this activity going on 44 when children may be on the beach. Member Rallis referred to the provision 45 regarding sleep interference and he said it should either be acknowledged or an • 46 exception to it made. 4 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 • 1 • 2 Member Unrath asked if the Safety Element specifies who the Disaster Service 3 Coordinator is. Mr.. Whittenberg stated that the Captain of the Seal Beach Police 4 _ Department (SBPD) serves in this capacity. Member Unrath asked if this is spelled 5 out in the Safety Element. Mr. Whittenberg said that individuals are assigned by 6 SBPD as they express an interest. Chairperson Antos interjected that the City does 7 have a Disaster Preparedness Plan, which is administered primarily by SBPD. He • 8 asked if the Safety Element notes that the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Center 9 (JFTC) is the major disaster preparedness area for all of Southern California. He 10 referred to the discussion on major disasters, primarily earthquakes, and College 11 Park West (CPW) having only one lane in and one lane out of the neighborhood. He 12 said that it is conceivable that were there a strong earthquake it would isolate CPW 13 as well as many other areas as a result of bridges collapsing. Mr. Whittenberg 14 stated that the Land Use Element could be revised to include this information and 15 the Emergency Operations Plan could be reviewed to make sure that this concern is 16 adequately addressed. 17 18- Member Unrath stated that dispatch services for Los Alamitos, Cypress, and Seal 19 Beach have been combined, with close cooperation between Los Alamitos and Seal 20 Beach as far as disaster preparedness and mitigation is concerned. He asked if as 21 far as the Safety Element is concerned, does Seal Beach have a problem because 22 back up emergency communications is in Los Alamitos? He noted that Seal Beach • 23 has the second largest disaster communications team in the County. Mr. 24 Whittenberg asked for the name of the group and Member Unrath stated that the 25 name is RACES (Radio Amateur Communication Emergency Services). He then 26 noted that Leisure World averages approximately 3 paramedic calls per day and it is . 27 imperative that the City ensures paramedics can easily access Leisure World and 28 then travel north on Seal Beach Boulevard to the Los Alamitos Medical Center on 29 Katella Avenue. Member Unrath then inquired about the aircraft from the JFTC 30 coming down in Seal Beach, especially into Marina Hill. He noted that there were • 31 very large natural gas pipelines running across Westminster Avenue, and this should 32 probably be addressed in the Safety Element. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 33 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)- handles this. Member Unrath stated that in 34 terms of safety and possible threats to Seal Beach, he assumed that the Emergency 35 Operations Plan would also cover aircraft. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it does, but 36 the plan from the JFTC reflects that 97% of flight operations involve helicopters and 37 not fixed wing planes. He noted that there are no identified crash zones off of the 38 base, because the worst time for a crash is when helicopters are landing or taking 39 off. Ms. Culbertson said that to prevent assuming liability it is best to not identify 40 crash sites outside of what has been officially identified by another public agency. 41 - . 42 Chairperson Antos stated that there are high - pressure gas pipelines and eventually 43 the City will need to work with the Division of Oil and Gas for the State of California 44 to identify where all of these pipelines are located. He commented that • 45 approximately 15 years ago the City was dealing with a gas line running between 46 Seal Beach Boulevard behind The Hill and into Long Beach that ruptured. He said 5 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 1 this is a high - pressure line and the City was unaware that it was there and no one - III - 2 knew how long it had been leaking. He said that when the rupture was discovered 3 there were 40 -mile an hour Santa Ana Winds creating a 35 -foot high gas jet when 4 the line was flared. He said that every day the winds were blowing from inland 5 toward the beach and the gas fumes were causing people to have headaches. Mr. 6 Whittenberg stated that he is aware of one that runs along the 405 Freeway near the 7 north boundary of the Naval Weapons Station (NWS). He noted that the gas line 8 that runs through the Hellman Property is being relocated as part of the development 9 of new homes. 10 11 Member Ribal arrived at 7:30 p.m. 12 13 Member Unrath stated that walls and berms are mentioned as a means to minimize 14 noise, but vegetation is also a good buffer for noise. He noted that planting lawns, 15 shrubbery, etc., could also help mitigate noise. Ms. Culbertson stated that - 16 vegetation is probably more psychologically satisfying than actually effective in 17 muting noise. Member Barton interjected that it does help visually and keeps graffiti 18 down. Mr. Greve noted that the Federal Highway Administration has done detailed 19 studies that show you would need 100 feet of dense brush in order to experience a - 20 significant drop in noise levels. Ms. Culbertson stated that adding vegetation to a 21 sound wall could contribute to reducing the impact of sound pressure into the wall 22 and out. Member Unrah then recommended adding the Old Ranch Tennis Club as a 23 - noise sensitive land use. He noted that there is no sound wall there to help mute the IIIII 24 traffic noise from the 405 Freeway. 25 26 27 COMMITTEE CONCERNS 28 29 Member Regnier inquired about the status of the bike trail. Mr. Whittenberg stated 30 that some work has been completed and he will have one of the Engineering staff 31 - call with an update. 32 33 Member Ribal inquired about when the sand berm would be removed. Chairperson 34 Antos stated that it would be removed the first part of May as storms and unusually 35 high tides are projected for the end of April. Member Ribal discussed the possibility - 36 of relocating the berm in the future to prevent pedestrians having to climb over the 37 berm and also to minimize obstruction of the view of the ocean. He also cautioned 38 about the practice of pushing the berm sand toward the ocean when removing the 39 berm, as the loose sand is easily carried out into the ocean creating a permanent 40 loss of sand. He noted that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permits to 41 replenish the sand are conditioned so that the City must use a grade of sand that is 42 compatible with the existing beach sand, otherwise this degrades the cohesion of 43 the sand creating a light silt that is easily blown around and into homes on Seal 44 Way. He stated that he would submit his comments in writing. Chairperson Antos 45 interjected that Member Ribal's comments were relevant to the Local Coastal Plan III 46 (LCP) and would be addressed at the meeting to review that document. Mr. 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 • 1 Whittenberg stated that many of Member Ribal's comments had to do with 2 engineering design issues and implementation issues rather than goal and policy 3 issues that you would see in the General Plan (GP), particularly in the Safety 4 Element. He said that some of these issues could be addressed more. specifically in 5 the LCP. He noted that each year the City has a coastal engineering firm provide a 6 design for how the berm should be constructed based upon tide projections. 7 Chairperson Antos commented that pushing the sand into the ocean when the berm 8 is taken down seems wasteful. Mr. Whittenberg stated that based upon information 9 from the engineers, because of the tidal currents the sand is carried out to the ocean 10 during the summer but when the tides change in the winter, the sand returns and 11 builds up the beach. He noted that backpassing sand from one side of the beach to 12 the other is much less expensive than purchasing sand and transporting it by truck 13 or rail. Member Barton asked if sand could be purchased from Huntington Beach or 14 Long Beach. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Long Beach no longer has much sand on 15 the beach due to all the dams along the San Gabriel River. He said that Surfside 16 has served as the feeder beach for both Huntington Beach and Newport Beach as 17 these beaches also have problems with loss of sand. He explained that in Seal 18 Beach the two jetties and the wave action cause the currents that reduce the supply 19 of sand on the main beach. 20 21 22 STAFF CONCERNS • 23 24 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the draft of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is scheduled for 25 review at the next Ad Hoc meeting. Ms. Culbertson explained that it would follow a 26 different format that that of the General Plan (GP). 27 - 28 Mr. Whittenberg then reported that the response from the Orange County Transit 29 Authority was received regarding the 22 Freeway widening project and apparently it 30 has been redesigned so that the College Park East (CPE) homes will not be 31 impacted, and the connector lane from the 405 to the 605 Freeway has been 32 lowered to reduce the impact to Leisure World and CPE. He said that the City is to 33 receive the final redesigned EIR document on April 18, 2003. 34 . 35 36 ADJOURNMENT 37 38 The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 39 40 41 42 43 44 • 45 Respectfully Submitted, 46 7 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2003 2 • •_ 3 —Or �L 4 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 5 Planning Department 6 7 8 APPROVAL 9 10 The Committee on June 12, 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 11 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, April 10, 12 2003.x. • • • 8 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan. - Citizens Advisory Committee `Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report 1111 July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 7 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN /LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - APRIL 24, 2003 - REVIEW OF DRAFT LOCAL COASTAL PLAN III III { • Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 1 1 • 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: Me.mbers Calden, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Pontac, Shanks, and Silberling. S 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 ' 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 III 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 II ' 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 Apnl 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, Ill 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 III 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 22 023 24 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secrets 25 Planning Department 26 27 28 APPROVAL 29 30 The Committee on�r. 6.. r2, 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 Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee `Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 8 AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - MAY 22, 2003 - REVIEW OF FINAL DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND FINAL DRAFT LOCAL COASTAL PLAN 1111 . . • III Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 12 • 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, 2 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. S 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 III 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 III 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 II 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 r 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 No. 13158, The Marine Protected Area Network, which proposes 33 that cities are not sufficiently protecting their offshore areas. He indicated that Seal 34 Beach should have some offshore areas that are protected, and that Anaheim Bay 35 should be one of those areas. He stated that Executive Order No. 13158 allows ' 36 cities to have their own areas defined as needing special protection and makes the 37 city eligible for grant monies to clean up the beach. He recommended researching 38 this matter further. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the city offshore boundary is one 39 mile. Member Monroe recommended that the one -mile boundary be indicated on 40 the planning area map. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a dashed line could be included 41 on 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 III 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 III 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 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 110 46 Voce asked if truck traffic could be managed by vehicle weight? Mr. Whittenberg 4 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 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 III 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 Tong -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 II 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 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 III 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. III 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 3 E 12 , 2003 approved the Minutes of the Ad Hoc General 32 Plan /Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting of Thursday, May 22, 33 2003. G.V• • 9 • Receipt of Ad Hoc General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Citizens Advisory Committee `Memorandum of Recommendation" City Council Staff Report • July 14, 2003 ATTACHMENT 9 JUNE 12, 2003 - AD -HOC GENERAL PLAN/LOCAL COASTAL PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE . MINUTES - APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES AND MEMORANDUM FORWARDING THE "FINAL DRAFT GENERAL PLAN" AND THE "FINAL DRAFT LOCAL COASTAL PLAN" TO THE CITY COUNCIL • . • Receipt of Committee Report.CC Staff Report 13 • • 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 1 Absent: Members Calden, Evans, Hood, Pontac, Regnier, and Ribal. 24 AGENDA APPROVAL 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 IP None. 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Z:\Carmen_datalAd Hoc GP LCPIAd Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12- 03.doc 1 • Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 , 1 SCHEDULED MATTERS III 2 3 1. Approval of Minutes of Meetings of the Ad Hoc General Plan /Local Coastal Plan 4 Citizens Advisory Committee for: - 5 (a) February 27, 2003. 6 (b) March 13, 2003. , 7 (c) March 27, 2003. 8 (d) April 10, 2003. ` 9 (e) April 24, 2003. 10 (f) May 22, 2003. 11 12 Recommendation: Approve Minutes of the meetings with any corrections 13 - determined appropriate by the Committee. _ 14 15 16 (a) Minutes of February 27, 2003. 17 18 Change noted to Page 10, Line 18. Member Rallis stated that he had not made this 19 comment. Since no other member owned the statement Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that 20 if Member Rallis had no objection, they would leave this statement as it appears. 21 Member Rallis agreed. 22 23 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Minutes of February 27, 2003 IIII 24 as presented. 25 26 MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 7 27 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Shanks, Unrath, 28 and Voce 29 NOES: None 30 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Harrison, Hood, Pontac, Regnier, and Ribal 31 32 33 Members Pontac and Ribal joined the meeting at 6:36 p.m. . 34 35 - (b) Minutes of March 13, 2003. - 36 37 MOTION by Voce; SECOND by Monroe to approve the Minutes of March 13, 2003 as 38 presented. 39 40 MOTION CARRIED: 8 — 0 — 5 — 2 41 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Rallis, Shanks, Unrath, 42 and Voce 43 NOES: None 44 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Harrison, Hood, and Regnier 45 ABSTAIN: Pontac, Ribal III 46 Z:\Carmen dataSAd Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12 -03.doc 2 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 II (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 0 4 Member Voce asked whether Joyce Parque had made a statement regarding this. 'Chairperson Antos said that Ms. Parque had begun her statement but it was determined 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 4 Member suggested recommending to CC that the Ad Hoc Committee reconvene when the HE is ready for review. 6 Z:1Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12 -03.doc 3 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 Member Ribal reiterated that at some point in the future the City will be confronted with III 2 issues that go beyond the number of garages, and number of bathrooms that a house 3 can have. He commented on how anyone would choose to purchase a home in Seal 4 Beach if they could not add an extra bathroom. He called this bizarre planning. The 5 Director of Development Services interjected that this was a decision made by the CC 6 on a whole different issue than GP documents. He stated this was about an existing 7 provision of the Zoning Ordinance that deals with an expansion to legal nonconforming 8 uses. He said that these issues are not addressed in the GP. He noted that the 9 concerns expressed could be forwarded to CC. He said that the large homes 10 constructed in town were constructed within the confines of -what the existing zoning 11 allows, and these are things that are allowed by right to the property owner. He 12 indicated that many cities do have Design Review Boards or an Urban Design Element 13 to their GP. He noted that the 25 -foot Old Town lots were subdivided in 1906 and it is 14 difficult to build anything with a lot of variation on this size lot. He then returned the 15 focus of the discussion to the approval of the minutes. Member Rallis asked how this 16 would be resolved in Ms. Parque's statement. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the minutes 17 provide generally what was said and are not designed to be verbatim, but if the 18 Committee so desired they could have verbatim minutes done or just a specific section 19 - of the minutes prepared verbatim. 20 21 Member Ribal stated that when you start talking about a discussion or reflection of ideas 22 on Land Use Elements versus zoning you learn that there is a sharp distinction between 23 the two, and he wasn't certain that this was represented. He said that Land Use and IP 24 - what you do with the land and zoning are very closely related. He noted that recent 25 extreme actions have made it quite difficult for the owners of a duplex to do anything as 26 • their property has been frozen. He said that this is a rather extraordinary limitation for 27 anyone wishing to sell their home within this 10 -month period, as they have no idea of 28 what is going to happen and they may encounter difficulty getting financing. 29 30 Member Voce asked if this was not what was reflected in the minutes. Member Ribal 31 stated that the minutes do not quite reflect what happened. 32 33 MOTION by Rallis; SECOND by Monroe to approve the Minutes of March 27, 2003 as 34 presented . 35 36 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 — 4 — 6 37 AYES: Antos, Rallis, Ribal, and Unrath 38 NOES: None 39 ABSENT: Calden, Evans, Hood, and Regnier 40 ABSTAIN: Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, Shanks, and Voce 41 - 42 (d) Minutes of April 10, 2003. 43 - 44 Member Unrath noted a misspelling of his name on Page 6, Line 15. 45 III Z:\Carmen_datakAd Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12 -03.doc 4 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 II 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 6 ABSTAIN: Fitzpatrick, Pontac, and Shanks • 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 Recommendation: Approve Memorandum with any revisions determined appropriate by the Committee. Z: \Carmen_data Ad Hoc GP LCP■Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12- 03.doc 5 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 2 Chairperson Antos stated that the Committee should decide whether they wish to 3 ` reconvene to review the Housing Element (HE) when it is complete. Member Voce - 4 stated that this recommendation should be included in the draft memorandum to City 5 Council (CC). Member Monroe asked whether Committee concerns that prompted this 6 recommendation should be included in the memorandum. Member Shanks asked if the 7 HE would initially be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg stated 8 - that all of the GP elements would be presented concurrently. Chairperson Antos 9 questioned whether the HE would be presented separately. Mr. Whittenberg said that 10 as he recalls, when CC formed the Ad Hoc Committee it was agreed that the Committee 11 would not be reviewing the HE as it was a more technical legal document, and the 12 attorneys for the City prepare this document to ensure that there would be no legal 13 action from any of the housing advocacy groups throughout the State of California. He 14 recommended that the Committee make its request to CC and the issue can be - 15 revisited and CC may change its mind regarding review of the HE by the Committee. 16 Member Voce asked if Counsel for the City would be reviewing the document. Mr. 17 Whittenberg confirmed that legal counsel would be present to provide guidance when all 18 of the GP Elements go through the public hearing process. He explained that 19 comments regarding review of current development standards on housing setbacks, lot 20 coverage, heights, building mass, etc., can very easily be added to the HE, but it would 21- be CC's prerogative to decide whether to send the document to the Committee for 22 review or simply consider the comments and incorporate them into what the City 23 Attorney would review. III 24 25 Member Barton asked when the HE would be on the CC Agenda. Mr. Whittenberg 26 stated that review of the documents by legal counsel should be scheduled at the end of 27 June or early July, and it will then be included as part of the environmental document 28 that must be prepared on all of the elements of the GP for public review and comment. 29 30 Member Ribal stated that an explicit statement should be included stating that the • 31 Committee has not studied the HE with any degree of thoroughness nor has community 32 - input been included. He indicated that he is not willing to turn the whole concept of the 33 HE over to the Department of Development Services. He said that he does not see the 34 HE and zoning as mutually exclusive and there are issues that the California Coastal 35 Commission (CCC) might raise regarding this. 36 37 Chairperson Antos asked Member Shanks if the PC would prefer that the Committee 38 review the HE. Member Shanks stated the he believed the PC would appreciate having 39 input from the Committee. 40 41 Member Pontac asked if the Committee could review the HE before it is presented to 42 legal counsel for review? Mr. Whittenberg reported that the HE has been in preparation 43 for 2 years and is almost in its final form. Member Monroe asked if the document has 44 gone before legal counsel? Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that legal counsel has reviewed 45 it. He explained that by State law it must go to the State Department of Housing & III 46 Community Development (HCD) for their comments before it can be go through the Z: \Carmen_data Ad Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12- 03.doc 6 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 III 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 • The Committee was in agreement with incorporating this text. 4 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 stated that Edison Park is not within the Coastal Zone, which 43 runs from Westminster Avenue down to the beach. 44 Member Voce stated that the Gum Grove Nature Park Group had met to review the It Open Space /Conservation /Recreation Element and had forwarded their Z:1Carmen_datalAd Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12- 03.doc 7 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 recommendations for changes they wished to add, but unfortunately, these changes did 111 2 not get to Mr. Whittenberg until today. He said that this was 'something that the 3 Committee should have looked at and if any of that is to be included, it now has to 4 happen when the elements go before the Planning Commission (PC) and then City . 5 Council (CC) for review. He apologized to the Committee members for not having this 6 information available before tonight. He said that much of the language had to do with 7 clarification and elaboration on the Gum Grove Nature Park use. He asked Chairperson 8 Antos if Committee members would get a copy of these changes. Chairperson Antos _ 9 stated that copies of the document could be provided to the Committee members. Mr. 10 Whittenberg stated that any comments could be forwarded to Staff and Staff would 11 provide copies to the PC. 12 13 Member Unrath thanked Chairperson Antos for taking the time to chair the Ad Hoc 14 Committee and he also thanked the Director of Development Services for the work done 15 by Staff and the consulting team. 16 - 17 Member Shanks stated that the PC has frequently looked into many of -the issues 18 discussed during the Ad Hoc meetings and has made recommendations to CC, and 19 hopes to make more in the future. 20 21 Member Barton also extended her thanks to Staff for their assistance. She stated that 22 the problem in town is that everyone has moved to Seal Beach for the small town 23 quaintness, and it is frustrating to observe the overbuilding. She noted that the very II) 24 thing that attracts people to the city is gradually changing, and although they are paying 25 a lot of money for a little piece of land, she still hopes the PC stays on top of this to 26 prevent the Toss of that quaintness. 27 28 Member Monroe asked Chairperson Antos to communicate thanks to City Council for , 29 being democratic and being willing to commit the money, time, and the Staff to this 30 process in allowing the community to be involved. 31 32 Chairperson Antos thanked the Committee for their hard word and for their input. He 33 ' stated that when the GP elements go before CC, it is his belief that it will accept all of 34 the Committee's work and probably pass it on without review to the - PC after the 35 appropriate environmental documents are prepared. He explained that at that point the 36 PC may hold study sessions, but they must hold public hearings to receive input from 37 the public. 38 39 Member Ribal stated that although he imagined there must be practical reasons for not 40 having the minutes presented to the Committee at each subsequent meeting, he did 41 check with the California First Amendment Coalition and he found that minutes are to be 42 prepared and made available for review at the next session of a committee meeting. He 43 noted that this makes for easier recall of the discussion in approving the minutes. 44 45 Mr. Whittenberg extended his appreciation to the Committee members for their ID 46 participation in review of the GP elements and the LCP. He stated that when the final Z: \Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12- 03.doc 8 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 documents are ready to go to public hearings, Staff would provide copies to the 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 MOTION CARRIED: 10 — 0 — 4 AYES: Antos, Barton, Fitzpatrick, Monroe, Pontac, Rallis, Ribal, 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 ary 37 Planning Department 38 39 40 APPROVAL 41 42 The Committee on June 12, 2003, approved the following Minutes of the Ad Hoc 43 General Plan /Local Co st ., I Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings of: 44 February 27, 2003. Af . March 13, 2003. ,ifh March 27, 2003. A A . Z: \Carmen data Ad Hoc GP LCP\Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12 -03.doc 9 Ad Hoc General Plan Local Coastal Plan Citizens Meeting Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2003 1 April 10, 2003.41 .. • 2 April 24, 200 #' . 3 May 22, 2003.` . 4 • • Z:1Carmen_data\Ad Hoc GP LCP1Ad Hoc Gen Plan -LCP Mtg Minutes 6- 12 -03.doc 10