SEAL BEACH : Commission Rejects City Housing Plan

The Planning Commission on Wednesday foiled the City Council’s hopes of passing the city’s updated, state-required housing plan before a new council is seated May 15, rejecting it a second time.

The commission voted 3 to 2 against the plan, saying it conflicted with the city’s general plan and was confusing and sometimes inaccurate. They also complained that commission members as well as the public had been given too little time to study the 100-page document, which was available only one day before the meeting.

The commission decided to discuss the plan again at a May 2 meeting.

The city has worked non-stop on the plan since the state said last week that it would be considered inadequate until numerous changes are made.

The rejected plan, which outlines how the city will deal with future housing needs, also failed to consider how the 149 acres of land previously committed to the Mola Development Corp. for a $200-million high-income residential project could be used to provide low-cost housing in the city.

Even though Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Ronald L. Bauer ruled in March that the city’s agreement with Mola was invalid because the city lacked an updated housing plan, the project is referred to as “committed” throughout the document.

It states that between January, 1982, and December, 1989, “355 new housing units were approved by the city.”

This number, according to city development director Lee Whittenberg, author of the plan, includes the 329 units Mola hopes to build on the Hellman Ranch Property, which were invalidated by the court decision.

Further, the plan states that the California Coastal Commission and the City Council found that “environmental constraints rendered affordable housing infeasible and inappropriate on the Hellman/Mola site.”

When questioned on this point, Whittenberg conceded that the commission had not made that finding and called the mention a “mistake.” When he was asked to clarify whether the council had actually declared the site infeasible or had voted it down for other reasons, Whittenberg said the distinction was a matter of “semantics.”

“The City Council voted against it, so that means it was not possible,” Whittenberg said. “Either way you look at it, a project is not feasible if you can’t get the five votes.” Planning Commissioner Phillip Fife led the move to reject the plan.

“It seems to me we have a requirement to provide low-income houses,” Fife said. “I don’t think the kind of houses projected in the Mola project will provide that.”