HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1999-11-17
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of November 17, 1999
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
November 17,1999 Agenda
I.
II.
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this Is the time to:
(a) 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 adion 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 motion 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 November 3, 1999.
2. Minor Plan Reviaw 99-10
209 - 13th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Christian Neser
Expansion of a bedroom to a non-conforming structure. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to add approximately 145 square feet.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditIons and adoption of Resolution 99-.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Variance 99-3 (Continued from November 3,1999)
1605 Sea' 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 99-.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission" Agenda of November 17, 1999
4. Zone Text Amendment 99-4 (Continued from October 20, 1999)
Citywide
AppllcantlOWner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of Surfslde to
be 10 feet, deep. Currently, 1 D-foot decks are only psrmilled on the 101
floor, with 5-foot decks penniUed on the 2nd and 3rd floors. This
amendment would allow the owner to choose to place the 1 D-foot deck
either on either the 101 or 2nd floor, but not both; and In no case would a
1D-foot deck be permitted on the 3'" floor.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
No. 99-36
5. Conditional Use Permit 99-12
13956 Seal Beach Boulevard (Layla's Cafe)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Frank Tahvlldarl/ Frank Ayers & Son Management Corp.
A land use entitlement for an alcohol-related land use at Layla's Cafe.
Specifically, the entitlement allows the sale of beer and wine for on-
premises consumption, and within the enclosed outdoor dining area.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 99-.
6. Negative Declaration 99-2
Minor Plan Review 99-9
2700 Westminster Avenue
AppllcantlOWner:
Request:
The Boeing Company
To permit a 36,000 square foot temporary office facility utilizing modular
office units at the Boeing Space and Communications Division property, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 28-2320. Said facility to be
located adjacent to Buildings 85, 86, and the heliport, approximately 500
feet northwest of Seal Beach Boulevard.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 99-.
VIII. STUDY SESSION: RETAINING WALLS
IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
4
.
.
~
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission" Agenda of November 17, 1999
1999 Aaenda Forecast
DEC 08
DEe 22
TO BE SCHEDULED:
Permilled Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (516198)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10m98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10m98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrilQ Review (AprtI2001)
ADA handicapped-accessible restrooms (April 2001)
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Sludy Session:
Sludy Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
5
"
,
r
i
""- 1
.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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of November 17,1999
Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 17, 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: Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the application for Item No.3, Variance 99-3 had been
withdrawn, and no further action would be required on this item. He also reported that
as late as 5:00 p.m. today, further discussions with the representatives of Surfside had
taken place regarding Item No.4, Zone Text Amendment 99-4, regarding construction
of decks within the Surfside Community. He stated that these discussions revealed that
the proposed changes to the Code were not exactly in line with what the Surfside
Community had in mind. Mr. Whittenberg requested that the Commission authorize
Staff to re-advertise and re-notice this item to provide clarification on what is being
proposed by Staff for consideration by the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
1 These Minutes were trenscribed from audiotape of the meeting.
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
City of SNI Beech P/enning Commission
M99Iing Minutes of November 17, 1999
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Hood opened oral communications.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that after reading Ordinance 1419, which was approved over 6
months ago, he noted that the Ordinance provides that all residents having decks
constructed without the benefit of a building permit would have 12 months to apply for a
Minor Plan Review to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He inquired of the City
Attorney as to what the procedure would be for residents who fall under this
requirement and who do not apply for a Minor Plan Review within the allotted 12-month
period. Mr. Clewley stated that he wished to again issue a complaint against those
residents who had not yet applied for approval. He asked if the one-year period begins
tonight or if it began when the Ordinance was approved, or 12 months after approval of
the Ordinance.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that now might not be the appropriate time to respond to this
inquiry as Mr. Clewley had made reference to comments made at a City Council
meeting by City Attorney, Quinn Barrow. He noted that Assistant City Attorney,
Terrence Boga, might not be familiar with Mr. Barrows comments and would, therefore,
not be able to respond to Mr. Clewley's questions at this time. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that Ordinance 1419 became effective in June 1999, and that those residents with
non-permitted deck structures have until June 2000 to apply for a Minor Plan Review.
He said that should they not apply by this deadline, they would then be in violation of
the City Code and enforcement proceedings would commence. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that today a notice and copy of Ordinance 1419 were mailed to the property owners
along the impacted areas making them aware of the deadline for applying for a Minor
Plan Review. He stated that severa' property owners had already visited the
Department of Development Services to inquire as to the procedure for application for a
Minor Plan Review.
Commissioner Larson stated that under the law this particular issue should not be
discussed or responded to by Staff unless it is an agendized item. He said that all the
Commission and Staff can do is listen, and if further discussion is required the item
should be placed on a future agenda.
Chairman Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999.
2. Minor Plan Review 99-10
209 - 13th Street
ApplicanUOwner: Christian Neser
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
City of Ses/ Beech Pfenning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
Request:
Expansion of a bedroom to a non-conforming structure.
Specifically, the applicant proposes to add approximately
145 square feet.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 99-44
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Conditional Use Permit 99-12
13956 Seal Beach Boulevard (Layla's Cafe)
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Frank Tahvildari I Frank Ayers & Son Management Corp.
A land use entitlement for an alcohol-related land use at
Layla's Cafe. Specifically, the entitlement allows the sale of
beer and wine for on-premises consumption, and within the
enclosed outdoor dining area.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 99-45.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided background information on the application and
stated that specifically, the applicant is requesting approval to serve beer and wine for
on-premises consumption only, both within the restaurant and in the outside patio dining
area. Mr. Cummins displayed photographs of the restaurant whose seating capacity he
stated to be 65 persons, with proposed patio seating for 24 people. The restaurant
measures 1950 square feet with a patio area measuring 320 square feet. Staff feels
that seating for 24 in the patio would be too many people given the size of the patio, and
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 Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
is recommending that the Planning Commission consider approval of seating for a
maximum of 18 persons. He noted the proposed hours for operation as from 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. He stated that Captain Maiten of the Seal Beach Police Department
(SBPD) had reviewed the application and has no reservations for approving it. Mr.
Cummins listed the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH & WEST Residential High Density Housing (RHD) located within Leisure
World.
SOUTH The Boeing Facility located in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zone
as well as a small commercial strip located in a General
Commercial (C-2) Zone.
EAST The Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, located within the Public
Land Use/Recreation (PLUlR) Zone.
Staff has received no comments either for or against this request, and has contacted
the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) to check for over concentration
of alcohol licenses within this area. Based on the figures provided by ABC, the census
tract within which the applicant is applying has a current ratio of 1 ABC license for every
939 residents. With a population within Census Tract 995.10 of 4460, 5 on-premises
alcohol licenses would be allowed. Currently there are 0 on-premises licenses and 2
off-premises alcohol licenses issued. Staff recommends approval of the alcohol license
based on lack of over concentration in the area and because SBPD has recommended
approval as the subject area is not in a high crime-reporting district. Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) 99-12 is consistent with the General Plan, and the building and property
are adequate in size, shape, topography, and location for the proposed use.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Larson clarified that the applicant was not proposing outdoor seating as
the outdoor seating was already in existence. Mr. Cummins clarified that the proposal
was to serve beer and wine in the outdoor patio area. He also stated that if the
Commission felt strongly enough, they could approve limiting service of beer and wine
to the inside of the restaurant only.
Public Hearino
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
The applicant declined to speak at the pUblic hearing.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he did not find a reference to the inclusion of handicapped
restrooms and stated that he would like to see this as a condition for approval for all
new businesses. He stated that there were many businesses on Main Street that did
not provide restrooms that are accessible to the handicapped. He noted that although
4
- 1
.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
City of Seal S....ch Pf..nnlng Commission
Mealing Minut..s of Novsrnbsr 17, 1999
outdoor dining areas were a nice feature for smokers, the provision of handicapped
restrooms was more important. He noted that it would make the City a better place by
having restaurants provide restrooms for the handicapped. He encouraged the
Planning Commission to consider making this a condition of approval for new
businesses within the City.
Ms. Sue Corbin noted that the Staff Report did not include information on the applicant's
previous ownership of a business within the City, and inquired as to why this information
was omitted. Mr. Cummins stated that he was not aware of the prior history. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that the applicant currently operates the Primrose Restaurant in
Seal Beach. He stated that all applications for an ABC license are routinely reviewed by
the SBPD. Ms. Corbin inquired as to whether the applicant had held an interest in
another business within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the applicant's
brother had been the owner of Papillion's Restaurant on Main Street. Ms. Corbin asked
if the applicant had maintained an interest in this business. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
he was not aware of the applicant owning an interest in Papillion's. Commissioner
Larson stated that he did not feel that this information was significant. Ms. Corbin
responded that it was important to include this information in the Staff Report, as there
had been a problem with Papillion's not following the rules. She stated that she was
very much against serving beer and wine in the patio area, as it was difficult to monitor
levels of consumption. She also noted that the applicant had not yet applied for the
ABC license and she felt that this should have been done prior to coming before the
Planning Commission so that the Commission could be aware of any conditions the
ABC has included. She also endorsed the inclusion of information on whether or not
restrooms for the handicapped would be provided. Ms. Corbin stated that the follow-
through on the CUP for Papillion's was very poor, and that the past history of business
ownership by applicants should be included in the Staff Report. She said that police
officers need to carry a copy of the CUP for each business with them in their vehicles in
order to ensure proper enforcement of conditions. With regard to live entertainment,
she stated that applications for approval were being filed after the fact, with approval
being easily granted. Ms. Corbin argued that although Papillion's was supposed to
have been an establishment serving fine wine and cheese, it later became an
entertainment zone that was .out of control."
Chairman Hood asked if the applicant wished to present a rebuttal to public comments.
Mr. Frank Tahvildari stated that he had been a business owner in Seal Beach for 17
years and that he has served beer and alcohol in his restaurant patio for years with no
violations or problems. He stated that he had not had an interest in Papillion's, and he
did not know what Ms. Corbin was referring to. He said that if she wished to perform a
background check, she was free to do so.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. He then asked Mr. Whittenberg if there were
any issues related to this application that he wished to clarify. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the ABC would not accept applications for a new alcohol license until
the CUP has been approved at the City level.
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 SeBlBBach Pfenning Commission
Meetin9 Minutes of November 17, 1999
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Lyon commented that the average age for the citizens in this district is 78
years, and there are not many teenagers in this area. He noted that the restrooms were
large enough to accommodate walkers, but he was not sure if the doors were large
enough to accommodate wheelchairs.
Commissioner Larson stated that although he understood the concerns with the history
at Papillions, he noted that it would be difficult to get a person with an accordion inside
Layla's because it was a small eating place. He said that the change was simply to
provide beer and wine to patrons desiring to have a drink with their meals. He stated
that he did not see the possibility of this becoming an after hours nightclub.
Commissioner Brown asked if the restrooms were accessible to the handicapped. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that they were not. He stated that they were existing restrooms
and that under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, provision of
handicapped restrooms would be required only if an interior remodeling or addition to
the building were being completed. In this case, no remodeling is being done;
therefore, the applicant would not be required to meet this provision. Commissioner
Brown noted the statement in the Staff Report: "The subject property has never had a
restaurant operate in the proposed location.' He stated that it was his impression that
the restaurant was already in existence. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the restaurant
has not been in existence for very long, and the restaurant itself does not require a
CUP. He stated that the request for a liquor license for the sale of alcohol is what
requires the CUP. Commissioner Larson stated that there had been another restaurant
at this location for a short period of time and it is now under new ownership.
Commissioner Brown stated that from reading the Staff Report, his impression was that
this was a new restaurant. He stated that although he had no Objection to the request,
he did agree with the public comments regarding provision of historical information
related to business applications.
Chairman Hood stated that based upon the police record, which reflects no problems or
violations, and that there is no over concentration of alcohol licenses in this area, he
feels that this would be an acceptable use.
Commissioner Brown asked how the restaurant was constructed to begin with without
including handicapped restrooms. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was an existing
storefront with minor remodeling to the kitchen area, which did not trigger ADA
requirements for modification of the restrooms.
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Conditional Use Permit 99-12
and adopt Resolution 99-45.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
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 S98I Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of NoV6fTlbar 17, 1999
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 99-45 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
6. Negative Declaration 99-2
Minor Plan Review 99-9
2700 Westminster Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
The Boeing Company
To permit a 36,000 square foot temporary office facility
utilizing modular office units at the Boeing Space and
Communications Division property, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 28-2320. Said facility to be located
adjacent to Buildings 85, 86, and the heliport, approximately
500 feet northwest of Seal Beach Boulevard.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution Nos. 99-42 and 99-43
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided background information on the application and
stated that specifically, the applicant is requesting approval to establish 36,000 square
feet of temporary office space on the existing property at Seal Beach Boulevard and
Westminster Avenue. He stated that The Boeing Company must transfer approximately
300 employees to this location over a short period of time. In order to do so while they
evaluate long-range plans for permanent relocation of these employees, they are
requesting that this temporary office space be permitted for 1 year. In reviewing the
environmental issues, Staff made the determination that a Negative Declaration was
required to fully evaluate the potential environmental effects of the project. He noted
that a copy of the Negative Declaration was provided to the Commissioners at the last
Planning Commission meeting. He stated that this document was circulated for the
required 20-day public comment period, and two responses were received: One from
the Southern California Association of Governments who indicated the project was not a
regionally significant one and had no comment. Another response was received from
the Orange County Fire Authority indicating that in addition to reviewing the building
plans, they also wish to review the site plan for the designated office areas.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Section 28-2320 of the Municipal Code of the City of Seal
Beach permits temporary installation of modular office facilities subject to the approval
of a MPR. Mr. Whittenberg noted that there is a provision in the Code that allows for
application for an extension to the one-year allowance period. The Boeing Company is
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 Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
required to provide 2500 parking spaces for this property and currently provides over
4000 spaces. Mr. Whittenberg again noted that the Negative Declaration indicates that
there are no significant environmental impacts of the project with the mitigation
measures as noted in this document.
Mr. Whittenberg displayed photographs of the Boeing Company property and the
proposed location for the modular units. He stated that Staff mailed approximately 600
Public Hearing notices out to property owners and business owners within a 300-foot
radius of the Boeing property. Staff is recommending approval of Neg. Dec. 99-2 and
Minor Plan Review (MPR) 99-9 and adoption of Resolution Nos. 9942 and 99-43
subject to conditions of approval.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Cutuli asked what provisions were being made for restrooms. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that existing sanitation lines on the property would be used that
eventually hook into the City sewer system. He also noted that the restrooms would
meet ADA guidelines for new structures.
Public Hearina
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
The representative for the applicant declined to speak at the public hearing.
Ms. Sue Corbin asked regarding which agency would be responsible for inspection of
the modular offices. She indicated that it is important that the City inspect these units to
ensure that they are safe and serviceable for the specified use. She stated that she
believed it necessary to set a 2-year limit for extensions of use.
Mr. Victor Gutierrez, representative for the Boeing Company, indicated that before
installation of the modular units, a complete set of plans and all documentation would be
submitted to the City and the California Coastal Commission for approval.
Commissioner Larson asked about several units the size of a house trailer that had
been parked on the Boeing parking lot. Mr. Gutierrez responded that these were trailers
that were temporarily parked in preparation for installation at the Boeing Huntington
Beach facility.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Chairman Hood inquired as to the time limit for installation of the modular units. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that under the City Code the initial approval is limited to no
more than 1 year. He explained that there is a proviSion in the Code that allows the
Commission to consider an additional1-year extension, if necessary, but no more than
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 Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
1 year. Chairman Hood confirmed that approval ended after 2 years, including the
extension. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if another extension were required at the
end of the initial 1-year extension, the applicant would have to reapply to the
Commission for approval of any subsequent 1-year extensions.
Mr. Whittenberg poinled out a correction in the title of the Resolution adopting Negative
Declaration 99-2. He stated that third line of the title should be stricken, as the Planning
Commission can adopt the Negative Declaration without recommending approval to the
City Council.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve the Negative Declaration 99-2 and
Minor Plan Review 99-9 and adoption of Resolution Nos. 99-42 and 99-43.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 99-42 and 99-43 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
STUDY SESSION: RETAINING WALLS
Chairman Hood asked that Staff present the information for the study session and then
the Chair would open for public comment. He noted that this would not be a question
and answer period. Chairman Hood stated that after this the Planning Commission
would discuss the issue. He announced that this was not an action item and there
would be no vote on this issue tonight.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg reaffirmed that the purpose this evening was 00110 make any decisions
or take action regarding a proposal for retaining walls, but simply to receive information
from Staff and comments from the public regarding this issue. The Commission may
also provide direction to Staff on future proceedings related to this issue.
Mr.Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided background information on the application and City
Council discussion on Zone Text Amendment 96-1 related to the deck issues along the
Hellman/Gum Grove property. He stated that the existing provisions of the ordinance
do not limit the height of a retaining wall, but indicates that retaining walls can be built
within the City and that on top of the retaining wall a six-foot high fence can be built.
Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the current language of the Zoning Ordinance
and found nothing in it that limits the height of retaining walls. He stated that during the
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
City of Seal Beech Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
City Council discussion this became an issue, and the Council has requested that the
Planning Commission revisit the issue to determine if it would be appropriate to set a
height limit for retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Building Code did not
address the height of retaining walls, but only included a description of a retaining wall
and how it should be constructed. He said that the City Engineering Department was
approached to establish what the accepted engineering practice for the City would be
for retaining walls. They indicated to Staff that this would entail standard plans that
have been developed by the California Department of Transportation (CAL TRANS), and
standard plans for public works construction issued by the American Public Works
Association, Southern California Chapter. He pointed out that the sample plans
included in the Staff Report were primarily designed for large public works and
transportation projects and so the heights of the retaining walls would vary from 8 feet to
35 feet. He stated that for residential and commercial development within the City these
maximums did not make a lot of sense. Mr. V\lhittenberg reported that Staff researched
standards from other cities in the area and he noted that samples of these standards
appear in the Staff Report of zoning ordinances and subdivision ordinances or standard
plans for these cities. He stated that most of the cities had a standard height for
retaining walls of 6-8 feet.
Mr. Whittenberg then initiated discussion on retaining walls within the front setbacks of
properties. He stated that this is the area that is most visible to the street in most cases.
He reported that the City has an existing limit of 42 inches for fences within the front
setback of residential properties. He stated that Staff is recommending a limit of a
30-inch high retaining wall in the front yard area, with a maximum fence height of 42
inches. For areas that are not within a front setback, Mr. Whittenberg presented the
following options, as recommended by Staff:
1. That retaining walls of less than 30 inches be automatically permitted without having
to apply to the City for any discretionary review.
2. By Building Code provision retaining walls that are exactly 30 inches high be
required to have a 42-inch high guardrail constructed to prevent people from falling
off the deck structures.
3. Retaining walls greater than 30 inches in height would be permitted subject to a
Minor Plan Review at the Planning Commission level. The maximum height limit for
a retaining wall section would be 48 inches. Also, as Code allows, a fence with a
maximum height limit of 6 feet could then be constructed on top of the 4-foot
retaining wall. Should the retaining walllfence combination exceed 6 feet, on the
street side or rear yard, then Staff would recommend that the base of the fence
above the retaining wall be set back two feet with landscaping within the 2-foot area.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that for properties requiring higher retaining walls, Staff was
recommending the option of constructing walls in 4-foot high stepped sections
constructed on terraced levels with a minimum 2-foot section of landscaping between
these terraced levels. Commissioner Cutuli asked if this type of wall configuration
would require the fence construction on top of the terraced retaining walls. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that only the topmost terrace level retaining wall section would
10
.~
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 Se91 Beech Plannin9 Commission
MeeUng Minutes of November 17, 1999
require a fence. He continued by stating that retaining walls greater than 30 inches
facing a public street would be required to have a minimum of 18 inches of landscaped
strip along the road face of the wall. He said that Staff is also recommending that any
non-conforming retaining walls that might be created by the establishment of new
standards automatically be allowed to remain without having to bring them into
conformance to these new standards. Mr. Whittenberg then presented several
photographic examples of existing retaining walls.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown clarified that with the 4-foot maximum retaining wall and the 6-foot
fence on top of that, the total height for the wall would be 10 feet. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the City currently does allow 10-foot high walls in certain areas of the
city. He stated that Staff felt that the 6-foot wall above the retaining wall was necessary
because a 3-foot wall did not allow for privacy from the adjoining neighbor's yard.
Commissioner Brown stated that he was not clear on when a guardrail would be
required. Mr. Whittenberg responded that wI:1en a retaining wall is higher than 30
inches a fence or a guardrail was required.
Commissioner Cutuli confirmed that the proposed standards for retaining walls would
apply to all areas of the City and not to any specific area of properties. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that Staff was recommending that the standards be applied citywide.
Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to have photographic examples
provided of retaining walls that would be acceptable under the new standards and also
examples of what would not be acceptable. He said that this would make it easier to
determine what the requirements were as opposed to reading an ordinance and
attempting to decipher what the requirements would be.
Public Hearino
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that with regard to retaining walls, he did not believe any Code
changes or revisions were necessary. He said that he felt that Staff had made an
"honest mistake" in issuing a building permit, which should not have been issued for one
particular wall construction. He noted that he wished to take issue with the original
definition of retaining walls as written. He stated that Staff was "reaching and
overreaching" to come up with a definition of a retaining wall. He said that all of the
discussion and examples of what comprises a retaining wall go back to Zone Text
Amendment 92-6. He then read from the City Code 28-233.1 pertaining to the
standards for retaining walls. Mr. Clewley also read from the Planning Commission
Minutes of October 3, 1990, in which Mr. Barry Curtis, former Assistant Planner, states
that when soil is retained over a certain height, 42-inch high safety fencing is required.
Mr. Clewley stated that ZTA 92-6 was created when it was recognized that there were
cases with substantial slopes at the end of the properties (particularly up on the Hill) that
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 Beech Pfenning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
the City Code did not address properly. He said that now Staff was returning to the
Commission with more standards for retaining walls, this time allowing for 14-foot
retaining walls. He stated that there was no need for new legislation but there was a
need for enforcement and a reasonable reading of the City Code. He stated that all of
these new rules would just make things worse. Mr. Clewley stated that he believes that
the Planning Commission should direct Staff to create a letter of reprimand or censure
to the Director of Development Services for issuing an inappropriate building permit at
1505 Crestview Avenue. He stated that the presentation of photographs made by Staff
did not show the problem retaining walls, but displayed attractive applications of
retaining walls. He again emphasized that better enforcement was needed rather than
allowing for higher retaining walls.
Commissioner Lyon asked about the inclusion of drainage holes when constructing
retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there were separate design standards
under the Building Code that require drainage holes.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli asked for clarification on what his role would be in the study
session on retaining walls. He stated that he resides on Crestview Avenue and was not
sure that he would be eligible to participate in the discussions, as there might be a
conflict of interest. Mr. 80ga responded that because this was a general legislative
matter that would be applied citywide, Commissioner Cutuli would not be in conflict and
was welcomed to participate. Commissioner Cutuli said that he had previously told Mr.
Clewley that as a resident of Crestview Avenue, he would not be able to participate in
the discussion on retaining walls. He apologized to Mr. Clewley for having misinformed
him. Commissioner Cutuli commented that there were many issues involved in the
retaining wall situation. He stated that along Crestview Avenue there were issues of
extension of the yards, and that the main reason retaining walls are being constructed
would be to decrease the slope on the backside of the properties along Gum Grove
Park. He noted that the question of the safety of the walls, the view from both sides of
the wall, and also the functionality and necessity of these walls would have to be
addressed. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he felt making a citywide ruling on this
issue might be a little premature, as certain areas of the city have different
requirements. He said that in order to make a citywide ordinance, special consideration
had to be given to the geographic areas of the walls. He stated that although he would
not be eligible to vote on this issue, he personally believed that there should be a height
limitation for retaining walls, as the too high walls present a visual barrier within Gum
Grove Park and the other areas where they exist. He said that for outside retaining
walls that are visible to the public, he believes that the City should recommend a
structure that is appealing, yet functional and safe. Commissioner Cutuli emphasized
that further discussion would have to take place before making a decision on this issue,
and that he would like to participate in these discussions.
12
-I
.~
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 Plenning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
Commissioner Brown stated that previously Staff had maintained that there is no limit
on retaining walls. He inquired if now Staff was proposing to limit the height of retaining
walls to 4 feet. Mr. Whittenberg responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown
then confirmed that currently a 10-foot retaining wall was allowed in certain areas of the
City. He asked if Staff was proposing that a 10-foot wall could be built on top of the
4-foot retaining wall, or whether the total height of the structure from any side would be
10 feet. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was recommending that inside retaining
walls be a minimum of 6 feet in height, but that the Commission could vote to allow a
higher wall. He stated that Staff was proposing this minimum height requirement, based
on the likelihood that most of these walls would be constructed on a street side or rear
yard, or adjoining some public property. He said that a 6-foot wall would provide
sufficient view blockage. Commissioner Brown confirmed that Staff was not proposing
a height maximum for retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg affirmed that Staff was not. He
stated that the Code allows 10 feet for certain areas, and as Staff interprets the Code
and as the City Attorney's office has interpreted the Code, the10-feet would be
measured on the inside of the property. Based on where the outside property line ends,
this could mean that the retaining wall could be 14 feet high and be perfectly legal.
Commissioner Brown stated that according to Staff's interpretation a 3D-foot retaining
wall could be built on a property. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would depend
upon how much "fill dirt" would be needed to make the lot level. He emphasized that
the lot could not be built higher than the existing level of the high point. He said that
after driving around town to view existing retaining walls, Staff found that with the
exception of the stub streets off of Ocean Avenue, most of the "high" walls are located
on the back of Gum Grove Park. Commissioner Brown commented that these are the
two areas that are most visible to the public. He said that it was not good to have
visitors to Gum Grove Park, who are there to enjoy the natural surroundings, to be
confronted with a 30-foot high cement wall. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was
why Staff was recommending a 4-foot height limit for retaining walls with the stepped
landscaping to break up the view. Commissioner Brown stated that he believed a
height limitation of 10-feet from the lowest point of the property should be required. He
noted that a 4-foot retaining wall with a 10-foot fence, creating a 14-foot wall was too
high. He suggested that mandatory landscaping in front of the walls on the street side
could help make the view more attractive. He emphasized that an overall height limit on
retaining walls should be required.
Commissioner Larson stated that every law that is adopted prohibits something that is
already allowed, or allows something that is already prohibited. He said that he would
like to see what is being allowed and what is being prohibited in writing. He stated that
he was having trouble in visualizing all of the exceptions. He said that the City had too
many areas with existing exceptions and there wasn't much land left where a general
provision could be applied.
Chairman Hood asked whether most of the exceptions were already built, or if Staff was
still receiving a lot of applications for Minor Plan Reviews or requests for Variances. Mr.
Whittenberg replied that for retaining walls today there was no Variance or Minor Plan
Review required. All that was needed was a building permit. Chairman Hood asked
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
C/1y of Seal Seach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999
whether anyone with an existing wall would be grandfathered. Mr. Whittenberg affirmed
this. Chairman Hood confirmed that these discussions were related only to what would
be done in the future, as there would be no affect on existing retaining walls. Mr.
Whittenberg confirmed this. Chairman Hood stated that it appeared to him that the high
retaining walls off of Gum Grove Park and Ocean Avenue had been there for a long
time. He asked if there was realistically any further development that would be done in
addition to what currently exists at these locations. Mr. Whittenberg responded that in
the stub streets there could be some new construction if the property were sold and the
new owner decided to tear down the old property and rebuild. He stated that for the
properties that abut Gum Grove Park and the Hellman Property, he anticipated that in
the future the Department of Development Services would have a number of
applications from property owners wanting to level off their rear yards to make those
areas more usable than the slopes that a lot of them now have. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that these revisions to the zoning ordinance would control how these future requests for
construction would be handled. Chairman Hood asked of all of the properties facing the
Hellman Property, what percentage would Staff determine to be unretained. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that out of 90 properties to which notices were sent,
approximately 6 or 7 currently have retaining walls. Chairman Hood commented that he
had been under the impression that most of these properties already had retaining
walls. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that Staff's impression was that most of these
properties did not have retaining walls. Commissioner Brown interjected that that was
how this study session came about, as a result of the decks that were being constructed
along this area.
Direction for Staff
Commissioner Brown stated that he believed that there should be a height limit for the
public side of retaining walls and he believed that 10 feet was a high enough wall. He
stated that this restriction could also be applied to the properties along the stub streets.
He said that in recalling the visual presentation, he was not sure what the actual height
of one of the walls along the stub street was. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the
height of the wall for the majority of that property on the inside was 6 feet. He said that
there were some walls that were 12 to 15 feet high. Commissioner Brown stated that
he still felt that a height limitation of 10 feet with a landscaped area at the base of the
wall would be a good idea. Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff felt the landscaping
made a big difference in screening off the walls from public view.
Mr. Whittenberg then recommended scheduling another study session to return to the
discussion on retaining walls. He stated that at that point he would like to have a draft
of the provisions prepared with pictures of what would be allowable. He said that given
the current schedule, it appeared that the next study session would take place after the
first of the year, either mid-January or February.
Commissioner Cutuli requested that Staff re-state the requirements for retaining walls
for properties on the Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently, throughout the City,
there was no limit on the height of a retaining wall. He stated that because of the
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
~46
City of Seal Beach Planning CommissiOll
Mae/ing Minutas of November 17, 1999
topography of the properties along the Gum Grove side of this area, most of these
properties had a 15 to 18-foot grade level difference from the pad level of the homes to
the low point of the property at the back of Gum Grove Park. He said that in most cases
under today's standards, a property with an 18-foot grade level difference would have a
18-foot retaining wall with a 10-foot wall on top of that retaining wall. Commissioner
Cutuli confirmed that what Staff was proposing was that rather than building an 18-foot
retaining wall, a terraced effect be created with 4-foot retaining walls at stepped levels.
Mr. Whittenberg affirmed this.
Chairman Hood closed the study session.
ITAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff anticipated that the Planning Commission
meeting for December 22, 1999 would be canceled. He stated that at this point there
were only a couple of items to be heard at the December 8, 1999 meeting. He also
advised the Commissioners that a settlement had been reached on the challenge to the
Coastal Commission approval of the Hellman Ranch Project. He stated that the formal
terms of the agreement were not yet available, but it was his understanding that the
agreement would allow the Hellman Family to proceed with the residential component of
the project at this point. He commented that Staff would probably begin processing
development plans after the beginning of the year.
Commissioner Larson asked how many homes were to be built. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that a maximum of 70 homes were to be built along Seal Beach Boulevard.
He stated that extensive archaeological investigations must be completed on the
property before any grading activity begins.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Cutuli inquired as to the status of the Bixby Project. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the signatures on the petitions had been verified and the measure has
qualified for a referendum vote scheduled by the City Council to be held on March 7,
2000. Commissioner Larson inquired as to the work that had already been completed
on the project. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this had been allowed under a court
order that was Challenging the first suit to complete "rough grading" for the site. He said
that the referendum was only applicable to the two commercial components of the
project. He stated that the Bixby Company would be proceeding to complete the golf
course and bring it back to operation. He said that a number of plan submittals would
be required to complete final grading and drainage before continuing with the grading.
Commissioner Cutuli recommended that the Commission members take some time to
walk around the City and Gum Grove Park to view the existing retaining walls. He
stated that he felt that this would help in making an informed decision on this issue.
15
.
.
, -
,
J,
~~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
.
City of Seal Beech Plenning Commission
Meeling Minutes of November 17, 1999
Commissioner Larson inquired as to what was taking so long with the remodeling for
Mr. K's Restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he believed the interior remodeling
program was more aggressive than they had anticipated, and was taking longer than
expected to complete.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Oi"1.u..,,,,,~ .. ()&;~1W-
Carmen Alvarez
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on January 5, 2000 approved~~~nutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, November 17,1999. .
16