HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1999-10-20
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of October 20, 1999
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
October 20,1999 Agenda
I.
II.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
III.
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(e) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any Items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one mollon unless
prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the public requests a specific
Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 8, 1999.
2. Receive and File: Seal Beach Weapons Support Facility - Installation Restoration Program -
Slatus Report Re: RAB Project Update.
3. Receive and File: "The Congressional Budget Office's 'Regulatory Takings and Proposals for
Change: One-Sided and Uninformed."
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. Resolution No. 99-37 Honoring Brian Brown.
5. Resolution No. 99-38 Honoring Craig Sleele.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Height Variation 99-4
A-8 Surfside
ApplicanllOwner:
Request:
David & Julie Evans
To construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) In excess of the
35-foot height limit in Surfslde at A-8 Surfside. Specifically, the proposed
structure would exceed the height limit by approximately 4.5 feet.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of October 20, 1999
Recommendation: Recommend approval sUbject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
No. 99-34
7. Variance 99-3
1605 Seal Way
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Jim McCoy
Addition of new bedroom and bathroom to third floor of existing legal
non-conforming residence In a RHD Zone located In Old Town.
Recommendation: Recommend denial and adoption of Resolution No. 99-35
8. Zone Text Amendment 99-4
Citywide
Applicant/OWner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of Surfside to
be 10 feet, deep. Currently, 1 D-foot decks are only permilled on the 101
floor, with 5-foot decks permilled on the 2nd and 3rd floors. This
amendment would allow the owner to choose to place the 10-foot deck
either on either the 101 or 2nd floor, but not both; and in no case would a
10-foot deck be permitted on the 3rd floor.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
No. 99-36
9. Negative Declaration 99-1
General Plan Consistency
Applicant/OWner:
Request:
Recommendation:
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
City of Seal Beach
Approval of Negative Declaration 99-1 and General Plan Consistency for
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrosslng Widening Project.
Adopt Resolution No. 99-39 and instruct Staff to forward to the City Council
for consideration in their review of the subject document. Receive and File
Staff Report.
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of October 20, 1999
1999 Aaenda Forecast
OCT 20
NOV 03
NOV17
Sludy Session - Retaining Walls
DEC 08
DEC 22
TO BE SCHEDULED:
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Sludy Session:
Sludy Session:
Sludy Session:
Slaff Report:
Sludy Session:
Permilled Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6198)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10m98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10m98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
Retaining Walls
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrilQ Review (April 2001)
ADA handicapped-accessible restrooms (April 2001)
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of October 20,1999
Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20, 1999. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Hood
Commissioners Brawn, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon
Also
Present: DeDartment of DeveloDment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Chairman Hood noted receipt of a memorandum requesting that Item No.7, Variance
99-3 be continued to the November 3, 1999, meeting.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Hood opened oral communications.
1 These Minutes were trenscrlbed from audiotape of the meeting.
10.20-99 PC M1nut..
1
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. 23
-.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
Ms. Sue Corbin commented that the issue of how the Planning Commissioners are
receiving their mail was supposed to have been presented as an agenda item. She
stated that she had not yet seen this appear as an agenda item. She asked when this
item would appear. She stated that she wondered why the Planning Commissioners
and the Chairman as a body was allowing Staff to determine which items would appear
on the agenda.
Reg Clewley stated that on June 23, 1999, the Planning Commission received a Staff
Report on Ordinance 1419. He said that at that time there was a question regarding
retaining walls and Staff had indicated that the matter would be revisited on July 21,
1999. He said that since that time the Planning Commission had cancelled two
meetings due to lack of business. Mr. Clewley stated that he felt that the study session
scheduled for November 17, 1999 was a little late to address the appeal to Variance
99-2. He asked the City Attorney why there was such a discrepancy of time for some
issues to appear before the Planning Commission or the City Council. He stated that
when a variance was denied and an appeal was filed, the appeal must be heard by the
City Council within 40 days. He said that the rules differed for other types of requests.
Mr. Clewley stated that it was his impression that the City Attorney "is digging up rules
out of a hat," as there was no set standard for hearing requests for a variance, minor
plan review, height variation, etc. He said that the same rules did not apply to
everyone. Mr. Clewley went on to say that although the rules for hearing these items
had been set, there was no consistency in applying them. He stated that he believed a
study session should be scheduled on how the City Attorney operates.
Chairman Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 8, 1999.
2. Receive and File: Seal Beach Weapons Support Facility - Installation Restoration
Program - Status Report Re: RAB Project Update.
3. Receive and File: "The Congressional Budget Office's 'Regulatory Takings and
Proposals for Change: One-Sided and Uninformed."
Commissioner Larson noted that since he was not present during the discussion on
Conditional Use Permit 99-9, his name appearing as a second on the Motion on Page 6
of the Minutes of September 6, 1999, should be removed and the minutes corrected.
Mr. Whittenberg apologized for the error and stated that the correction would be made.
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Consent Calendar as amended.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Brown, Cutull, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
10-20-99 PC MlnUloll
2
-~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
47
City of Seal B8lICh Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 2q 1999
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. Resolution No. 99-37 Honoring Brian Brown.
Chairman Hood read and presented Resolution No. 99-37 Honoring Brian Brown for his
service to the community as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 3 years.
Commissioner Brown thanked the Commission and Staff for this recognition.
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve Resolution 99-37 Honoring Brian
Brown as presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: . Brown, Cutull, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5. Resolution No. 99-38 Honoring Craig Steele.
Chairman Hood read and presented Resolution No. 99-38 Honoring Creig Steele for his
service to the commission as Attorney for 6 years.
The Assistant City Attorney thanked the Commission Members and Staff Members for
their assistance and stated that his experience in working with the Planning
Commission and Department of Development Services for the City of Sear Beach had
been a very unique and positive one.
Mr. Whittenberg thanked Craig Steele for his efforts on behalf of the City and for his
ability to work so well with the members of the Planning Commission and Staff. He
wished Mr. Steele well and took the opportunity to introduce Mr. Terrence Boga, the
new Assistant City Attorney who will replace Mr. Steele.
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Larson to approve Resolution 99-38 Honoring Craig
Steele as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutull, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Height Variation 99-4
1G-2O-IllI PC M1nuta
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Ses/ Besch Pfenning Commission
Meeting MInutes of October 20, 1999
A-8 Surfside
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
David & Julie Evans
To construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in
excess of the 35-foot height limit in Surfside at A-8 Surfside.
Specifically, the proposed structure would exceed the height
limit by approximately 4.5 feet.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution No. 99-34
Staff Reoort .
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Plaming Department.) He provided some background on the project and stated the
Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) was to be constructed in conjunction with the
construction of a new family dwelling on the property legally described as Orange
County Assessor's Parcel 178-502-20 located in Surfside. He described the property as
rectangular in shape with a lot area of 1430 square feet. Surrounding land uses to the
property are:
NORTH
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone and
open space located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.
The Pacific Ocean
Single family dwellings in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone at
Surfs ide.
SOUTH
EAST & WEST
Mr. Cummins stated that Section 28-2317 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. does allow
for CRAS to be a maximum of 7 feet above the 35-foot height limit subject to certain
criteria that the Planning Commission can review in approving this type of request. The
criteria are:
1. Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the structure being
constructed.
2. Whether such variation is appropriate' for the character and integrity of the
neighborhood.
3. Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any property
located within 300 feet.
In reviewing the case, Staff determined that the architecture is in substantial conformity
with the proposed structure. Within the neighborhood several height variations of
similar nature have previously been approved. Mr. Cummins noted that in conformance
with the City Policy Statement adopted in 1991, the straight run stairwell meets the
criteria of 38 feet. No habitable living space will be added to the structure and it will not
10-20-89 PC M1nutea
4
..~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of 5881 Beech Pfenning Commlsalon
Meeting Minutes of October 2q 1999
significantly impact the view of any property within 300 feet. Staff recommends
approval subjeq to conditions and adoption of Resolution No. 99-34.
Co~missioner Questions
None
Public Hearinc
Chairman-Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Evans stated that he would be happy to answer any questions regarding the
plans for construction of the CRAB and new dwelling. He stated that with regard to the
stairwell, there were already 30-40 other such structures within his neighborhood and
he did not believe that it would be a problem.
Mr. Glenn Mitchell stated the he was the property owner of A-9 in Surfside, which is
adjacent to the applicant's property. He stated he had recently remodeled his home
with a different roofline structure that excludes the need for any stairway. He said that
there would be no interference or intrusion on his property by the new structure. Mr.
Mitchell stated that he wanted to support the applicant's petition.
Mr. Reg Clewley spoke in opposition to CRAB. He stated that it was not because he
didn't like people building things, but because CRAS look like warts or tumors growing
out of the top of structures. He stated that they were entirely incompatible with the
architectural features of the rest of the building. He said that there were too many
people not obeying the law and pointed out that directly behind the Vons Supermarket
there were five different residences that the Planning Commission approved for CRAB.
Although all fit within the height limit, what happens is that this creates a situation where
people have low-pitched roofs with big boxes to try to stay within the height limit. He
stated that it would be more architecturally pleasing to use the real height limit, which is
not always the height limit set .by the City Code. Mr. Clewley stated that because
property owners were allowed to build beyond the height limit, the result were these
"great big boxes' built to the absolute height limit, and the height'limit was generally the
guard rail of the roof deck. He stated that once construction of a deck is approved, any
deck could be enclosed upon appeal to the City Councilor to the Superior Court. He
said that every time the Planning Commission meets, there is another request for
approval of construction of a CRAB. Mr. Clewley stated that this is creating an unsighUy
skyline in the City. He stated if the Commission was going to allow property owners to
build to any height whatsoever, then that would be the height limit, and this would allow
for all kinds of "interesting" architectural features. He said that many people are building
the guardrails on top of the height limit of roof decks. He questioned how a disabled
person would gain access to a CRAS, and speculated on the problems for accessing
the roof deck, should a member of the household become disabled. He discussed the
10.20-99 PC Minutes
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
CIty of 5e. 8fIach Plsnning Commission
MBBling Minutea of OotobBr 20, 1999
. .
potential need for wheelchair ramps to allow access to roof decks. Mr: Clewley stated
that the Planning Commission needed to re-address the entin~ notion of'CRAS instead
of simply approving them every ott:rer week. He stated that property owners should be
encouraged to build. interesting and attractive architectural features instead of the
"trash" that was being put up all over the City. He recommended denial of this request.
Mr. Whittenberg noted a letter received from Henry and Sally Biets of A-18 Surfside,
recommending approval of this request.
Chairman Hood closed the pUblic hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Larson stated that the City had adopted the laV' that permits that an
application be granted and that this was not the time or place to state that the
Commissioners do not like the law. He stated that the structure may be considered
ugly, but if this is what the property owner wants, so be it.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that the residents of Surfside have very small lots and need
to utilize every inch of footage in the house including the roof deck. He stated that he
felt it was important to allow CRAS.
Commissioner Brown stated that the request was well within the guidelines and he had
not objection to construction of the CRAS.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve Height Variation 99-4 and adopt
Resolution 99-34.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 99-34 begins a 1 D-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
8. Zone Text Amendment 99-4
Citywide
Applicant/Owner:'
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of
Surfside to be 10 feet, deep. Currently, 10-foot decks are only
permitted on the 1st floor, with 5-foot decks permitted on the
2nd and 3rd floors. This amendment would allow the owner to
10..20-99 PC Mlnulee
6
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.47
CIty of SfHII Beach PIlmnlng Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 2q 1999
choose to place the 10-foot deck either on either the 1 st or
2nd floor, but not both; and in no case would a 10-foot deck be
permitted on the 3rd floor.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution No. 99-36
Before delivering the Staff Report, Mr. Whittenberg again announced that Item No.7,
Variance 99-3 for 1605 Seal Way was to be continued to the November 3, 1999
meeting.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background on this item and stated this was
a request made by the Surfside Colony to amend the City Code to allow decks on the
2nd floor of homes along the A-Row of Surfside to' be1 0 feet deep. He stated that
currently the Code allows 10-foot decks only on the first floor with 5-foot decks allowed
on 2nd and 311I floors. He stated that Surfside Colony had already approved this
amendment and made it a part of their lease agreement and approval of Zone Text
Amendment 99-4 would be the next step in the progression to allowing these decks.
Staff is of the opinion that placing a deck on the 101 or 2nd floor is a matter of personal
choice. He stated that there is a provision in the Code that if a 10-foot deck were built
on the 2nd floor, construction of a 101 floor deck would be limited to a depth of 5 feet.
Staff recommends approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 99-36.
Commissioner Questions
None
Public Hearina
Chairman Hood opened the publiC hearing.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated he was in opposition of this Zoning Text Amendment. He stated
that once a deck has been established it can be enclosed, and the 10-foot decks on 2nd
floor could be enclosed. He stated that there was not a problem with having decks on
the 101 floor or 5-foot decks on the 2nd floor, as they did not obstruct anyone's view. He
stated that if 10-foot decks were allowed on the 2nd floor, people would not be able to
see the first floor. He speculated that a subsequent property owner might prefer to have
a deck on the 101 floor and would then construct a 1st floor deck. Mr. Clewley stated
that the City would be allowing 5 extra feet of buildable space to all residences of
Surfs ide, which could potentially be used as habitable living space. He stated that there
was nothing to stop residents from building on the first floor underneath the 2nd floor
deck. He said that neighbors would not complain about this so as to avoid conflict
within their community. He stated that it was well known that there were no
enforcement actions taken in this city unless a complaint is received. He said that
lo.20-llIl PC Min"l..
7
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beech Pfenning ComtII/$sion
Meeting Minutes ofOclObe, 20. 1999
allowing 1 Q-foot decks on the 2nd floor would eliminate any hope of open space: . He
stated that apprOving this ordinance would create confusion and would make
enforcement of this code amendment very diffICUlt. Mr. Clewley stated that the Planning
Commission was creating exceptions to laws that others may bllild upon in the future.
He said that eventually there would be neither height limits in the City nor would there
be any tapering effect for decks. He stateCl that it was a horrible thought to think that
the Commission would approve this type of "nonsense."
Mr. David Evans spoke in favor of this Zoning Text Amendment~ He stated that
property owners in Surfside have had a deck lease for quite some time, and the
residents were attempting to clean up the colony to conform all decks to one standard
for a consistent, uniform deck building program. He said that there were many houses
with 2nd floor decks, and some with intermediate height 6-8 foot decks, and that a
couple of homes were recently approved to build 2nd floor decks. Mr. Evans stated that
for those homes abutting the Naval Weapons Station, the view for these homeowners
has been e!iminated due to a low grade, and being able to build decks on the 2nd floor
would be of benefit to them.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with allowing homeowners to build
2nd floor decks. . .
Commissioner Larson said that Surfside appeared to be a cohesive community that
would enforce rules. He stated that the residents of Surfside all seemed to be in
agreement, particularly those that have had their view blocked by the berm, and this
seems to be an appropriate way to solve the problem.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he agreed with Mr. Clewley's statements. He noted
that the situation with the 1Q-foot deck on the 2nd floor is a major blockage of some of
the neighbors' views. He said. that he used to live in Surfside and the 2nd floor was
typically the main floor of this type of home. He stated that there are usually windows
on the sides of the 2nd floor and a deck would block the view of the ocean.
Commissioner Cutuli also noted that the possibility of property owners enclosing the
deck to create habitable living space was a very real one. He stated that after having
served on the Board of Directors for Surfs ide, he did not feel that enforcement of rules
was consistent. He stated that he would definitely vote against Zoning Text
Amendment 99-4.
Commissioner Brown stated th~ although he understood the intent of Zoning Text
Amendment 99-4, he believes a 1Q-foot deck on the 101 or 2nd floor would be "a little bit
weird." He stated that to have a'10-foot deck on the 2nd floor and a 5-foot deck on the
101 floor with a 5-foot overhang seems strange. He said that he was having trouble
imagining what the structure would look like. Commissioner Brown stated that from an
10-2O-lIIl PC Minutes
8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beech P1l1f1ning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 20. 1999.
aesthetic !Standpoint, two 10-foot decks would be more appropriate. He said he was not
sure what the purpose of this was and that unless he received some clarification, he
would ha~8 to oppose this Zone Text Amendment.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that the reason this amendment had been brought before the
Commission, was because Surfside residents had developed this program as a way to
most appropriately deal with the issue of decks on the A-Row. He clarified that this
amendment would only apply to the A-Row properties that front the ocean, and would
not apply to the interior properties. He stated that the residents of Surfside believe this
program to make sense within their community and approached the City to request that
the City Code be changed to conform to the program they had developed regarding
decks on the ocean front properties. Mr. Whittenberg noted that over the past few years
the City had developed a good relationship with the Surfside Gommunity, and ~rrently
there is a process in place where prior to the City accepting the applications from
Surfs ide, they must be approved by the Surfside Board of Directors. This creates a
check and balance system to ensure that when a project comes. to the City it has met all
of the requirements for Surfside. He stated that the City is attempting to make their
standards more compatible with what th~ Surfside Community feels is most appropriate
for their particular area. As for the issue of view blockage, Mr. Whittenberg stated that
the City had never looked at view blockage on a diagonal situation from one unit to
another. He stated that although this issue had been discussed a number of times, the
Planning Commission and the City Council had determined that the only time there can
be a view blockage is when blockage of the primary view occurs. The primary view is
looking directly out from the property to the ocean, not up or down the coast, as
structures on either side would obstruct those views. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he
understood Commissioner Cutuli's comments because should this text amendment be
approved, the structure of the properties along the oceanfront would change. He noted
that whether or not this is good or bad is something the Commission has a right to
consider. Mr. Whittenberg stated that. should the Planning Commission feel that they
require more formal information from .the Surfside Community, he would suggest that
the Commission continue this item until the next meeting so that Surfside could make a
more formal presentation at that time. Commissioner Brown stated that after reading
further in the lease he noted that the 111 floor deck was allowed to be glass enclosed,
with an 8-foot high wall of glass. He noted that if a 10-foot deck were extending over
that it would be possible to create another room out of the 111 floor deck. Commissioner
Brawn clarified that in Surfside, the front of the home can be built up to the lot line. He
said that he would be in favor of more clarification on this issue from Surfside.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to continue Zone Text Amendment 99-4 to the
November 17, 1999 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
Cutull
None
10..20-98 PC M1nul8s
9
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.47
CIty of S8BI Beach Pl8nnlng Comm;s8/on
Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999
9. Negative Declaration 99-1
General Plan Consistency
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
Approval of. Negative Declaration 99-1 and General Plan
Consistency for Seal Beach Boulevard! 1-405 Overcrossing
Widening Project.
Adopt Resolution No. 99-39 and instruct Staff to forward to the
City Council for consideration in their review of the subject
document. Receive and File Staff Report.
Recommendation:
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background on the project stating that the
City had contracted the consultant firm of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates to
prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He noted that a representative of this firm,
Mr. Kevin Thomas, was present this evening to answer any questions regarding the
information in the Mitigated Negative Declaration document or in the Response to
Comments.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this matter had come before the Environmental Quality
Control Board (EQCB) on September 29, 1999, at which time they had adopted a
memorandum setting forth their concerns regarding the document and had included
some additional conditions that they felt should be invoked upon the project. He said
that a copy of the September 29 EQCB minutes had been provided for each
Commissioner. Mr. Whittenberg also noted that a copy of the consolidated and revised
Mitigation Measures as set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the
additional conditions and revisions to those conditions set forth in the Response to
Comments prepared by the consultant was also included with the additional conditions
recommended by the EQCB.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that the basic objective of the project was to widen the Seal
Beach Boulevard overpass over the 405 Freeway. He noted that Seal Beach Boulevard
is indicated on the City Circulation General Plan as a major street with 120 feet of right-
of-way and is developed with 3 traffic lanes in each direction from Pacific Coast
Highway to the northerly City boundary at the City of Los Alamitos. with the exception of
the bridge overpass of the 405 Freeway. He stated that at that particular point the
roadway narrows down to two travel lanes in each direction instead of three. This
reduces the capacity of the street to carry traffic from 56,000 vehicles per day down to
approximately 37,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would widen the bridge
out in each direction, reconfigure the on/off ramp entrance points, and provide a double
left-turn lane from southbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto the southbound 405 Freeway
onramp. He stated that these improvements "!ould resolve the current situation during
1o.>>lIII PC M1nul88
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.~~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal a8{JCh Planning Commission
Meetjng Minutes of 0c/0btIf' 2Q 1999
peak traffic hours of cars stacking up in the left-turn lane leading onto the southbound
405 onr'8mp. He said that the project would also provide new pedestrian sidewalks and
bike paths qn the bridge itself that will m~et all current CalTrans design. and safety
standards. He noted that some widening would occur on the north side of the bridge
near the'Bixby Ranch Development, and that some dedications would be required in
that ar~a for the widening. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the south side of the bridge was
City property and that retaining walls would be constructed along with the 'building out of
the roadway in, this area. He stated that the improvements would decrease the current
traffic congestion levels during peak hours on the bridge for both north and southbound
traffic. He said that the current Level of Service (LOS) was "F," which means that there
are more than 37,000 Cars traveling through this area at peak hours. He seid that the
improvements WQuld lower the LOS rates down to Level Band C fOr southbound traffic
anq to Level D for northbound traffic because of some of the on/off ramp configuration
issues that remain.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the finding of Consistency with the General Plan. He noted that the
consultant had 'prepared a list of mitigation measures to resolve certain environmental
impacts. Mr. Whittenberg noted conditions for approval would be included to mitigate
concerns regarding aesthetic issues, primarily having to do with trees currently located
within the cloverleaf of the off-ramps and how these trees will be replaced or relocated
during completion of the project. He stated that the City would require a minimum 1:1
replacement ratio of trees within this area, and for eucalyptus trees within the project
areas, a 2:1 replacement ratio would be required. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
conditions would be placed upon traffic management planning during the construction
phase to ensure adequate traffic flow across the bridge for normal traffic and for
emergency vehicle purposes. He pointed out that there were also a number of other
measures regarding soil and geology issues that must be dealt with as part of the
reconstruction of the bridge. He noted that all of the mitigation measures were
described in the Negative Declaration. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in addition to
recommending approval of the Negative Declaration to the City Council, the State also
requires that public improvements be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with
the City's General Plan. Mr. Whittenberg said that since 1975 Seal Beach Boulevard
had been designated as one of the major roadways within the city, and that since then
the long-term goal has been to improve the bridge to its full 3-lane capacity in each
direction. He said that this project has been included in the City's 7-Year Capital
Improvement Program for funding and that the City has obtained approximately half of
the funds for this project through the ~easure M Program for the County of Orange. He
explained that Measure M is a voter approved additional tax on gasoline sales from
which funds are provided to jurisdictions for roadway improvements within their local
communities. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that the remaining portions of
funding would be provided from Traffic Impact Fees for the Bixby Old Towne
development project, should it receive approval for completion. He stated that the
project is shown on the Regional Transportation Plans of the California Association of
Governments, which is the overall transportation planning agency for Los Angeles and
Orange Counties and for parts of the San Bernardino and Riverside area, and it meets
lQ.3J.911 PC Minutes
11
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of 0c/0b8r 2q 1999
all of the criteria for financing through the Federal Highway Program. He said that S~aff
feels the project is consistent with the General Plan and recommends approval. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that a visual presentation had been prepared for viewing tonight, but
that the computer components were not properly configured and the presentation could
not be made. He noted that Resolution 99-39 was scheduled for public hearing before
the City Council on Monday, October 25,1999.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Lyon commented that driving across the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge
during peak hours was "terrifying", as there was so much traffic congestion.
Commissioner Cutuli asked how many lanes of traffic would be open during the
construction phase. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this had not yet been determined.
He stated that one of the mitigation measures was that a traffic management plan had
to be prepared and approved both by the City and CalTrans. He stated that he
assumed that there would be a minimum of one lane at all times, and that his best
guess was that the construction would be phased so that two lanes in each direction
would be available during peak traffic hours. Commissioner Cutuli then asked what the
projected date of completion for the Old Towne Center would be, . should it receive
approval. Mr. Whittenberg responded that at this point a date for completion is "up in
the air," as a referendum petition has been submitted to the City that, if qualified, would
place on the ballot for the March elections the question of whether or not the two
commercial portions of the project should be allowed to proceed. Commissioner Cutuli
asked if a delay in completion of the Bixby project would be good as it would be better
to have improvements for the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass completed prior to
beginning work on the Bixby Ranch development. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it
was difficult to predict that at this time as it would depend upon whether the petitions for
the referendum will q~alify as a ballot measure. He stated that he believed the City
anticipetes that this will occur, and that an election will take place in March. Pending
the results of the election, this will determine whether the commercial components of
the Bixby Ranch development can proceed. Hl;l stated that if the commercial
components do not proceed, the amount of transportation impact fees that the City
would collect on the remainder of the project would not be adequate to fully fund the
Seal Beach Boulevard improvements, and they would not go forward as anticipated at
this point in time. He clarified that because improvement to the Seal Beach Boulevard
overpass has been a long-term objective of the City (since 1975), the conditions of
approval imposed by the City on the Bixby Old Towne Center did not require
improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard to be completed as part of the Bixby
development. He stated that the existing problem of traffic congestion in that area is a
result of existing traffic flows, regardless of whether or not there is a Bixby development.
He explained that the Seal Beach Boulevard improvement is a separate project from the
Bixby development for both environmental review purposes and financing purposes.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that if the City is not able to obtain money from any future Bixby
development to offset the cost of the construction, the City would apply to the County of
Orange through the Measure M Program and talk to CalTrans to get financing for
10.211-88 PC M1nutee
12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.~~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
CIty of See/ Besch Planning Commlaslon
Meeting Minute. of October 2q 1999
sharing the cOst. of the improvements. He stated that in actuality the bridge. i~ a
CalTrans bridge, owned by them, and it must be designed to their !ltandards and
specifications. He said that what the City was attempting to do was. to move up the
improvements on the CalTrans schedule to be in place' more closely to the time that the
Bixby project mioht possibly be completed.
Public Hearina
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that this was an issue that was far from ready for being decided
upon and that many questions remained regarding this Negative.Declaration. He said
that the City was jumping ahead of itself, and that this did not need to happen. Mr.
Clewley stated that no one was advised regarding this item bei':lg on the agenda
otherwise the Council Chambers would be filled with people voicing their objection to
approval of this project. He stated that this project would not be going anywhere until all
of the other issues surrounding this project had been resolved. Mr. Clewley stated that
this would not come. to pass until' after the election in March. He said that there were
over 2800 signatures from registered voters in this City in favor of the ballot vote. He
stated that the City was not going to be able to do away with these signatures, and that
the people should have the opportunity to revisit this issue. Mr. Clewley stated that he
had not been made aware of a lot of the documentation until this evening, and that he
was not able to acquire a complete agenda packet to review and study prior to the
meeting. He stated that just like Zoning Text Amendment 99-4 was to be continued, he
felt that Negative Declaration 99-1 should be studied for about 6 months before voting
on it. He stated that he was disgusted with the manner in which Staff presents
information, and the "underhanded tactics with which they are delivered." He stated that
he wanted more time to study the document and that he believed the citizens of College
Park East would like more time to study it also. Mr. Clewley said that he did not believe
that the Commissioners had had sufficient time to study the document and that they did
not fully comprehend its contents. He recommended studying this item for at least a
couple of weeks, if not 6 months before voting on this project.
Ms. Sue Corbin inquired regarding the minimum public review period of 20 days for the
mitigated negative declaration. She asked when the document had been presented.
She stated that this was the first she had heard of it, and asked if the document should
have been presented so that the public could have seen it before tonight. Ms. Corbin
stated that if under The Brown Act Staff could answer this question, she would like an
answer. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the question had nothing to do with The Brown Act
and said that as indicated in the Staff Report, a Notice of Preparation and Comment
Period appeared on July 23, 1999. A 30-day public comment period was allowed,
increasing it over the 20-day minimum under state law, and that the comment period
ended on August 23, 1999. He stated that Staff had received written comments from a
number of different agencies as listed in the Staff Report. He stated that no comments
on the document were received from the public, and that for the public hearing tonight,
in excess of 600 notices were mailed out to property owners, business occupants, and
10-20-99 PC Minutes
13
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
_ City of SSBI Beech P1enniflg Commis8lon
Meeting Minutf18 of October 2~ 1999
residential occupants within Leisure World and to the surrounding area within the
required notice for this type of project. He stated that the Negativ~ Declaration has
been a public document since JUly 23, 1999, and that the process is ongoing at this
point. Chairman Hood asked that Staff explain again where notices were mailed. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that notices for this meeting were mailed out to everyone within
a 300-foot perimeter from the boundaries of Seel Beach Boulevard at Beverly Manor
and at the northbound 405 Freeway off-ramp at Bixby Old Ranch Parkway. Ms. Corbin
stated that she felt that the Staff needed to draw more attention to the c;locument as she
was totally unaware of it and she believed that had the public been made aware, there
would have been more people in attendance at tonight's meeting. Mr. Whittenberg
again noted that over 600 businesses and residential addresses within the City had
been notified, which he felt was very substantial notice to the public. Ms. Corbin stated
that she didn't know who Staff was trying to fool, but that the last time the Bixby Project
came up for approval, it was stopped dead due to lack of funds for the overpass
improvements. She stated that now "all of a sudden" the funds were available through
Measure M. She said that this was all done in order to "aid and abet" -Bixby. She stated
that this never would have happened but for the Department of Development Services
desiring to "aid and abet" the Bixby Project. She also pointed out that on Page 25 of the
Final Comments and Responses, it predicted a maximum 7.0 for the Newport!
Inglewood fault zone. She stated that this was inaccurate, as there have been stronger
earthquakes within this fault zone. Ms. Corbin requested that monitors from the correct
tribes be assigned during the excavation phase to prev.ent tribal friction. She stated that
they are available for these types of assignments. She said that she could not
understand how Staff could say that these projects were interrelated but not directly
connected. Ms. Corbin said that if it were not for the Bixby project, the improvements to
Seal Beach Boulevard would not have been completed. She stated that she believed
the archaeological findings had not been adequately addressed.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Chairman Hood inquired as to when construction was projected to begin. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that this was not an issue of construction, but an issue of insuring
that the environmental reviews for the project are completed within the time period to
meet the commitment for the Measure M funding deadline. Chairman Hood inquired as
to the deadline date. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he wasn't sure of the actual date
as the Engineering Department is the contact for this agency, and that Engineering has
indicated that this is the schedule that the City needs to follow in order to ensure
retention of the Measure M funds. He stated that to his knowledge the deadline date
was sometime in mid-November. Chairman Hood asked if after the Measure M funds
were designated for this project, and if the Bixby Project did not receive voter approval,
would the City have sufficient funding for the project? Mr. Whittenberg responded that
at this point the amount of funds allocated through the Measure M program would not
fund the entire Seal Beach Boulevard improvement project. He stated that should the
City be unable to provide the required additional funding, the City would then have the
10-20-99 PC Mlnutn
14
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.
CIty of Seal Beech Planning Commission
Meetin9 Minutes of October 2q 1999
opportunity to apply to the Transportation Authority to request supplemental funding
from the Measure M program, which would be done, should the Bixby commercial
project be voted down.
Mr. Whittenberg again explained that this was a project that l:1ad been in the City's
General Plan since 1975, and again emphasized that this project was not totally driven
by the Bixby Development. He stated that an obvious interconnection was presented
because the City did not have all of the funds needed to complete the Seal Beach
Boulevard Project without the Traffic Impact Fees that would be generated by the
commercial developments of the Bixby Project. Mr. Whittenberg again explained that all
this indicated was that if the City was not able to provide the funds, the City would still
have the environmental analysis completed for the project and would not have to do this
at some later time. The City would then apply to the County for additional funding to
proceed with widening the bridge regardless of whether or not the Bixby development is
approved. He stated that the bridge was currently servicing at a substandard level, and
the goal of the City for 24 years has been to widen that bridge to allow traffic to flow
through this section as freely as it does on Seal Beach Boulevard north and south of
that particular bridge.
Mr. Whittenberg then responded to issues presented during the public hearing
regarding the NewporUlnglewood fault zone. He stated that 7.0 is a design standard
that has been established by the United States Geological Service and the California
State Division of Mines and Geology. He stated that these agencies designate
maximum credible earthquake intensities for all identified earthquake faults within the
State of California. He stated that the 1933 Long Beach earthquake measured 6.3
magnitude.
Regarding the issue of Tribal Monitors, Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City selects the
monitors, and that Ms. Corbin's comments would be taken under consideration. He
stated that the ultimate determination of the monitor was up to the City and there is no
desianated tribal monitor under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said
that there was no designated tribe for this area, but that there was a lot of discussion
between several different tribal organizations within Southern California as to whose
territory this is, and he did not know that this issue would ever be resolved.
Commissioner Lyon stated that Staff had failed to 'mention that the State had already
allocated funds for improvements to the intersection of Westminster Avenue and Seal
Beach Boulevard. He stated that he was 100%' in favor of the Seal Beach Boulevard!
1-405 Freeway Project, regardless of whether or not the Bixby development is approved.
He pointed out that the bridge section of Seal Beach Boulevard was overcrowded now
with traffic backing up before the bridge near the cross street leading to the fire
department and the hospital.
Commissioner Larson stated that whether or not the Bixby project is approved, this is a
"bad bridge," and is very dangerous for users of the bike path. He stated that the
10-2ll-9II PC M1nulee
15
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
CIty of S8BI Beech Plennlng Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 20. 1999
curves are bad and that the on-ramps and exits to th, freeway are easily confused with
other side streets. He stated that he believes the bridge needs to be improved.
Commissioner Brown was in agreement with the previous Commissioner comments.
He stated that the one aiticism he continually hears from residents is "why don't you do
something about the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge overpass." He too stated that
regardless of whether or not the Bixby proj~ct is built, the bridge needs .to be widened.
Commissioner Cutuli seconded the comment.
Chairman Hood stated that it was important for residents of Leisure World to have better
access to emergency services. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Larson.
Thi~ is a bad bridge. He stated that although he had different views on the Bixby
Project, he is in favQr of widening the bridge. He commented that his first day as a
resident of College Park east was the day that the signal at Lampson and Seal Beach
Boulevard was opened. He said that previously there had been no signal, only a stop
sign, which testifies to how little traffic there was at that time.
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to adopt Resolution 99-39 and instruct Staff to
forward to the City Council for consideration in their review of the subject document.
Receive and File Staff Report.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutull, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that as a future public hearing item at the City Council level,
this item is to be considered on Monday, October 25, 1999, and the public is invited to
make additional comments.
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Larson commented on the smooth transition from one chairman to
another. He complimented Chairman Hood on the manner in which he handled
tonight's meeting. Commissioner Cutuli seconded the compliment.
Commissioner Brown commented on the Response to Notice of Preparation of Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bixby Long Beach Project, City of Long
Beach. He stated that this was a massive project that is to include 524 homes to be
10-20-89 PC Minutes
16
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Ses/ Beech Pfenning Commission
MssI/ng Minutes of October 20, 1999
located in the area of Westminster Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway near the 2nd
Street area. Commissioner Larson interjected that this project would include the
extension of Studebaker Road from Westminster Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway.
Commissioner Brown went on to state that the size of the industrial area was 444,000
square feet. He noted that entire Bixby Project measured 286,000 square feet. He
stated that he drives through this area quite frequently and that he would assign an "F.
to the level of service for traffic movement. He said that Studebaker Road had recently
been repaved and the pavement is already buckling. He stated that the land designated
for this project was a wetlands zone, and, therefore, unstable, and the idea of building
524 home in this area was "mind boggling." Commissioner Brown stated that this new
project would certainly affect the residents of Seal Beach and the citizens need to be
made aware of this and to have the opportunity to make comments on this EIR. He
stated that the City should do everything possible to fight this project so that it does not
receive approval.
Mr. Whittenberg commented that this matter is on the agenda for the next City Council
meeting. He stated that Staff had prepa~d a Draft of a Comment Letter on the Notice
of Preparetion and addressed it to the City of Long Beach highlighting issues that the
will need to taken under consideration while preparing the Draft EIR. He stated that the
majority of those issues focus on traffic and air quality impacts being adequately
presented as to how they will impact the community of Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg
noted that, as previously stated by Commissioner Larson, one of the project
components is to extend Studebaker Road from Westminster Avenue through to Paci~c
Coast Highway. He stated that the City's response letter would also address concerns
related to this street extension. He said that the City Council will send this letter to the
City of Long Beach, and the City of Long Beach would then prepare the Draft EIR and
forward a copy to Staff for review. Staff will prepare a letter for review by the City
Council and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB). This letter will be
reviewed at the regular meetings of the City Council and EQCB, and interested
residents will have the opportunity to comment. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was
the beginning of a 6 to 9-month process of preparing environmental documentation for
the project, so it will probably be quite some time before a Draft EIR will be available.
Commissioner Brown encouraged citizens to participate in making comments regarding
this project.
Commissioner Larson asked whether the City had taken any action in opposition to the
future widening of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the position
of the City regarding this issue is that the number of travel lanes on Pacific Coast
Highway within the Seal Beach city limits will not be increased from the current two
lanes in each direction. He stated that he would exPect the City Council to maintain this
position. Commissioner Larson asked if CalTrans maintained the same position. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that although CalTrans does pay attention to the desires of
communities, there have been cases both in Seal Beach and Newport Beach, where
there were proposals for increase in travel lanes and CalTrans ultimately decided not to
do so.
10-20-89 PC MInu1e8
17
;
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.
City of 5e8/ Beach Pfenning Commlaslon
Meeting Minute. of October 20, 1999
Commissioner Brown commented that many times in focusing on mitigation of traffic
impacts only, there was a tendency' to see only the trees and forget about the forest.
He stated that traffic could always be mitigated, but that there were bigger issues
involved here, specifically with regard to the stability of the land in that area and the loss
of the wetlands zone. Mr. Whittenberg responded that these issues would be
addressed at the time of review of the Draft EIR.
Commissioner Larson noted that should Studebaker Road be extended, this would
divert some of the traffic from Seal Beach Boulevard. For those cars accessing the 405
Freeway from Seal Beach Boulevard, many would be able to access the freeway from
Studebaker Roael.
ADJQURNMENT
Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
(\ n \. "-,,,,-I:, "'-^ C)~i'<"' \. ~
Carmen Alvarez
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on November 3, 1999 approved the. Minutes' of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 20,1999. (\...~ .
10.20-99 pc Minutes
18