HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2008-03-19
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
2
3
Minutes of March 19, 2008
4
5
6
7 Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. The meeting was
1
9 held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.
10
ROLL CALL
11
12
13 Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and
14 Roberts.
15
16 Also
17 Present: Department of Development Services
18 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
19 Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
20 Steve Flower, Assistant City Attorney
21
22 Absent: None
23
AGENDA APPROVAL
24
25
26 Mr. Whittenberg noted that Chairperson Deaton had not attended the meeting of
27 February 20, 2008, so this item should be removed from the Consent Calendar.
28 Chairperson Deaton stated that she had viewed the video recording of that meeting and
29 would be voting on Item 2.
30
31 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by DeLay to approve the Agenda as presented.
32
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
33
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
34
NOES: None
35
ABSENT: None
36
37
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
38
39
40 Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications.
41
42 On behalf of the Seal Beach Chamber & Business Association Seth Eaker conveyed
43 appreciation to City Council, the Planning Commission (PC), the Department of
44 Development Services, and in particular, the Department of Public Works for their
1
These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
th
1 assistance with the 25 Annual Springfest Celebration, which was “a huge success.” He
2 said that in reviewing the PC Minutes of February 20, 2008, he noted that Rich Welter, the
3 applicant for the Seal Beach Townhomes Project, has not yet communicated with the Seal
4 Beach Chamber. Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that the application for the Seal
5 Beach Townhomes Project had been withdrawn by the applicant.
6
7 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral
8 communications.
9
CONSENT CALENDAR
10
11
12 1. Building Activity Report – February 2008
13
14 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2008.
15
16 3. Minor Plan Review 08-4
17 4540 Ironwood Avenue
18
19 Applicant/Owner: Stephen Shepherd / James & Pattie Blake
20
21 Request: To construct a new freestanding barbecue and counter
22 structure within the required rear and side yard setback
23 areas; and a new prefabricated fireplace and trellis structure
24 within the required rear yard setback area..
25 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
26 08-7.
27
28 4. Minor Plan Review 08-4
29 125 Coastline Drive
30
31 Applicant/Owner: David H. & Mary O. Baldovin
32
33 Request: To construct a new freestanding barbecue and counter
34 structure and a wood framed patio cover within the required
35 side yard setback area; and a new 240 square foot
36 accessory building within the required rear and side yard
37 setback areas.
38
39 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
40 08-8.
41
42 Commissioner Roberts asked if any further correspondence was received since the
43 publication of tonight’s agenda. Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff has received no
44 communications, written or otherwise.
45
2 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve the Consent Calendar as
2 presented.
3
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
4
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
5
NOES: None
6
ABSENT: None
7
8
9 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 08-7 and 08-8 begins a 10-day
10 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and
11 the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
12
SCHEDULED MATTERS
13
14
15 None.
16
PUBLIC HEARINGS
17
18
19 5. Final Draft – Municipal Code, Title 11: Zoning
20 Citywide
21
22 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach
23
24 Request: To conduct Public Hearing by receiving Staff Report, public
25 comments, and Commission discussion; consider the “Final
26 Draft Title 11: Zoning” and public comments; and provide
27 comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close or
28 continue the public hearing.
29
30 If the Commission determines to close the public hearing,
31 take the following actions:
32
33 Provide any comments regarding Initial Study/Negative
?
34 Declaration 08-1, and
35 Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the
?
36 Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
37 Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal
38 Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning,
39 in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning.
40
41 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
42 08-13.
43
44
45
3 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 Staff Report
2
3 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
4 He provided some background information on this item and noted
Planning Department.)
5 that this is the initial public hearing for the Final Draft – Municipal Code, Title 11:
6 Zoning. He explained that the Planning Commission (PC) serves as a recommending
7 body to the City Council, which is the final decision-making body for approval and
8 adoption of the revised Zoning Code (ZC). He stated that once public hearings before
9 the PC are concluded and a resolution is adopted with any amendments to the final
10 draft document, the ZC packet will be forwarded to CC for public hearing and eventual
11 adoption. He noted that tonight members of the public may also comment on the Initial
12 Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared for this project, and the Environmental
13 Quality Control Board (EQCB) is also to review the IS/ND at the scheduled meeting of
14 Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at 6:30 p.m., and the public may also provide comments
15 at that meeting. He stated that the IS/ND evaluates the adoption of the ZC, as
16 proposed, and indicates that there are no adverse environmental impacts from the
17 adoption of the ZC.
18
19 The Director of Development Services then explained that once the PC closes the
20 public hearings, a draft resolution prepared by Staff for adoption by the PC will be
21 forwarded to CC with any recommendation for amendments or revisions. He noted that
22 Staff has already included one revision based on comments from Robert Goldberg
23 regarding the language in one particular section. He noted that Staff has provided the
24 following memoranda regarding:
25
26 1. Memo 1 – Public Comment Received – Pubic Hearing Title 11, Zoning
27 a. E-mail from Rickie Layman expressing her opposition to 3-story structures
28 b. E-mail with attached letter from Robert Goldberg suggesting amendment to the
29 proposed ZC that would make shared parking programs subject to the
30 Conditional Use Permit review process, and technical corrections on cross
31 references in the ZC.
32 c. E-mail with attached letter from Seth Eaker, with the Seal Beach Chamber &
33 Business Association, indicating their support of the proposed language
34 regarding non-amplified music at commercial locations.
35
36 2. Memo 2 – Proposed Numbering – Title 11: Zoning
37 a. Proposed renumbering of the ZC as recommended by the City Clerk, City
38 Attorney, and Staff.
39
40 3. Memo 3 – Provision of Draft Minutes of March 5, 2008.
41
(Memoranda are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.)
42
43 Mr. Whittenberg then provided a brief history of the ZC study sessions, noting that the
44 PC has been in the process of review for approximately 13 months, with study sessions
45 commencing in February 2007 and consisting of 3 joint sessions with the PC and CC in
46 February and early March. The PC subsequently continued with an additional 10 study
4 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 sessions to discuss various aspects of the new ZC. He noted that the Staff Report
2 contains the minute excerpts for all of the above-noted study sessions for reference
3 purposes, and Staff has also compiled two notebooks with copies of all Staff Reports
4 presented throughout this process.
(Notebooks are on file for inspection in the Planning
5
Department.)
6
7 Mr. Whittenberg then reiterated that this is a complete revision to the existing ZC and
8 Staff believes that the proposed revision reflects the most appropriate and best
9 available development regulation standards to meet the desires of the community as
10 expressed to Staff, the PC, and CC, over an approximate 2-year time period. He noted
11 that the last revision of the City ZC was in 1974, at which time the entire ZC was 97
12 pages long, but due to the changing environment in the world and the evolving issues
13 that cities must deal with and address, the proposed revised ZC is approximately 600
14 pages long,. He explained that because this is a comprehensive revision, tonight’s
15 presentation will highlight those areas where significant change both procedurally and
16 for the development regulations has been incorporated into the new ZC.
(Copy of
17 . He explained that the
Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.)
18 new ZC does not propose amendments to the basic lot size, density, building intensity,
19 setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, parking, or sign regulations of the existing ZC. He
20 stated that what has been added are design regulations, particularly in the residential
21 and commercial zoning districts, and complete revisions to the procedural sections, with
22 the major change is the creation of the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process, which
23 replaces the current Minor Plan Review and Height Variation procedures. He explained
24 that the AUP would be a Staff review function, with Staff decisions subject to appeal to
25 the PC. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process has been retained
26 and a number of nonexistent discretionary reviews have been placed under the CUP
27 category. The Director of Development Services continued by noting that the major
28 new provisions relate to design issues such as Floor Area Ratio, building envelope, and
29 other accessory design issues regarding residential and commercial uses. He indicated
30 that Attachment 3 of the Staff Report provides a section-by-section overview of the
31 major provisions of the entire ZC, and in some cases, subsection by subsection. He
32 added that Attachment 4 is a summary overview of what was presented at the study
33 sessions, including public comments and PC and CC comments and/or direction. He
34 noted that this summary was prepared to facilitate reviewing this information without
35 having to go through the minute excerpts.
36
37 Mr. Whittenberg then explained that in going through this process, Staff has attempted
38 to identify the major issues that remain concerns to the public, like creating the means
39 for limiting mass, bulk, and monotony of residential development, while allowing
40 property owners to retain reasonable use of their property in a manner that would not
41 adversely affect neighboring property. He then commented on the question of “How far
42 can the City go into these types of regulations?” and noted that in preparing the
43 Preliminary Draft Zoning Code, Staff reviewed zoning ordinances from approximately 40
44 California coastal cities that are dealing with some of the same issues related to the
45 effects of teardowns of older homes to rebuild very large new homes in the midst of
46 existing neighborhoods. He explained that in reviewing these codes Staff provided a
5 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 number of studies and ideas to the PC for consideration on ways to deal with bulk and
2 mass, as follows:
3
Setbacks Building Volume Ratio
??
Lot Coverage Landscape Volume Ratio
??
Floor Area Ratio FAR
?
4
5 He noted that currently the City only uses lot setbacks and building coverage, which
6 allows for construction within a defined area on a lot, not to exceed the height limit. He
7 explained that FARs provide an additional layer of regulation along with the existing
8 standards, and these combined standards will define the “maximum building envelope”
9 where the maximum habitable area of a residence can be built. He then listed other
10 design elements presented to the PC, most of which are incorporated into the proposed
11 ZC, as follows:
12
Roof Orientation Windows
??
Roof Styles Entry Detail
??
Building Orientation Materials
??
Trim Detailing Garage Doors
??
Porches
?
13
14 He then referred to Attachment 1 of the May 23, 2007 Staff Report, which provides
15 excerpts from an American Planning Association (APA) 2004 document entitled “Too
16 Big, Boring, or Ugly: Planning and Design Tools to Combat Monotony, the Too Big
17 House, and Teardowns.” He noted that Staff used some ideas and references from this
18 article to look at what other cities are doing to deal with these issues. He stated that
19 another APA 2005 article entitled “Mansionization and Its Discontents,” discussed
20 additional efforts by cities in dealing with teardowns and rebuilding of large homes, and
21 several ideas from both of these documents were incorporated into the proposed ZC.
22 He then said that in the opinion of Staff, based upon the comments received by the PC
23 and CC throughout the last two years, current standards are not sufficient to address
24 the concerns of the community. Mr. Whittenberg said Staff recommends that the FAR
25 be incorporated into the ZC and although there are other building envelope standards
ndrd
26 and setbacks for 2 and 3 floors to deal with mass and bulk, Staff continues to believe
27 that the FAR is a good tool to clearly indicate how large a home can be constructed on
28 a lot. The Director of Development Services then briefly reviewed the May 23, 2007,
29 Staff Report that presents further discussion on the proposed use of FARs. He
30 indicated that at that time Staff had evaluated 15 developments in Old Town and 15 on
31 The Hill area and found that there was 1 in the RLD-9 and 4 in the RHD-20 District that
32 exceeded the proposed FARs, and noted that in the RHD-20 District those properties
33 that exceeded the FAR were primarily the result of large third stories. He explained that
34 converting the current lot coverage and height standards to an FAR would generally
35 allow between a 0.82 and 0.855 FAR, and the new proposed standard ranges from 0.70
36 up to a maximum 0.85. He noted that generally most people have not built to the
37 maximum lot coverage allowed. He then reviewed the “Overview of Average Residence
38 Size vs. Allowable Residence Size,” as shown on Pages 21-23 for 2-story and 3-story
6 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 homes within the RHD-9 and RHD-20 Districts, noting that in the RHD-20 District
2 current lot coverage allows for a FAR range between 1.37 and 1.43, increasing based
3 upon lot width up to an FAR of 2.09 to a maximum of 2.11 for 3-story homes. He stated
4 that the new standards propose an FAR range of 0.80 to 1.00 for a 2-story home, with
5 an additional .10 to 0.15 for the third floor. He said that currently the average size of a
6 home in the RLD-9 District is 2,900 sq. ft., with a current allowable size of up to 4,400
7 sq. ft. and indicated that the proposed FARs generally reflect what is currently being
8 built, with the new ZC providing additional provisions to deal with side yard
9 neighborhood compatibility.
10
11 The Director of Development Services then continued by reviewing Proposed FAR
12 Provisions for “Third Floor Living Areas Based on Planning Commission Direction on
13 May 23 and October 10, 2007, and February 6 and March 5, 2008,” as shown on Pages
14 24-34, followed by a review of “Proposed FAR Design Incentives and FAR Deductions –
15 Third Story,” on Pages 35-42.
16
17 Mr. Whittenberg then briefly discussed the issue of ”Utilization of Floor Area Ratio
18 Results in a ‘Taking of Property’,” as presented on Pages 43-44, which states that
19 “under well-established law, a government regulation will not constitute a ‘taking’ where
20 the action advances legitimate state interests and does not completely deprive the
21 property owner of all economically viable use of the land.” He explained that property
22 owners are still able to construct homes on their lots, although it would not be as large
23 as those being constructed under the current ZC. He also referred to Attachment 5 in
24 the Staff Report, which identifies at least 31California cities and 1 county that utilize
25 FARs in their zoning codes.
26
27 A brief review of “Utilization of Main Building Envelope/Daylight Plane Standards,” on
28 Pages 45-55 then followed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the purpose behind daylight
29 planes is to reduce the mass of rooflines adjacent to side property lines. He noted the
30 exceptions for Gable Roof Elements, Multiple Dormers, Single Dormer, Shed/Flat Roof
31 Elements, and Combination of Gable Roof and Dormers.
32
33 Mr. Whittenberg then continued with the section on “Complexity of Overlapping
34 Regulations,” on Pages 56-62 and stated that perhaps some of the proposed
35 regulations should be reduced, and noted that at the last study session the PC
stnd
36 eliminated a ratio of living space on 1 floor to 2 floor for lots in Old Town, but retained
37 this ratio for properties in College Park East (CPE), College Park West (CPW), and on
38 The Hill. He reiterated that Staff believes that what is proposed fits together in a
39 comprehensible manner, addresses the major issues expressed by the community, and
40 protect substantial rights of residents to design a home that reflects their individual
41 preferences, while minimizing the impacts to neighbors. He then referred to Pages 63-
42 71displaying tables comparing actual or proposed construction plans of 5 identified
43 projects each within the RLD-9 and the RHD-20 district that generally conform to the
44 proposed Chapter 2.05 ZC standards as discussed. He reminded the PC of its
45 determination to eliminate the provisions for Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS)
46 and replace this with the new standards for elevator shaft structures.
7 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 Mr. Whittenberg completed his presentation by reviewing Pages 72-80, which present
2 overviews of the proposed standards for the following:
3
4 Garage Parking Standards for Single-Unit Residences
?
5 Non-Residential Parts of “Final Draft Zoning Code”
?
6 Institution of “Administrative Use Permit” Process
?
7 Negative Declaration 08-1
?
8
9 He then opened for questions from the Commissioners.
10
11 Commissioner Questions
12
13 Chairperson Deaton referred to the e-mail message from Robert Goldberg, and
14 requested discussion on his suggestion to take shared parking plans out of the
15 Administrative Review Permit (AUP) Process and make them subject to a Conditional
16 Use Permit (CUP). She stated that because of the recent application for a Variance for
17 the Regency Center for a shared parking plan, she believes this would be a good idea.
18 Commissioner Roberts stated that he would support this. Chairperson Deaton
19 requested a motion.
20
21 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to make Shared Parking Plans subject
22 to approval through the Conditional Use Permit process.
23
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
24
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
25
NOES: None
26
ABSENT: None
27
28
29 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be included in the resolution for recommendation
30 of approval of the revised Zoning Code (ZC).
31
32 Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees with the requirement for a 5-foot garage
33 setback, but he questioned whether the term should be “offset” rather than “setback,” to
34 allow for the ability to have the garage in front of or behind the main structure of the
35 house. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes this involves the PC with a lot of
36 design work, and the PC has attempted to leave this up to the architects.
37 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt said “setback” and “offset” essentially mean the same
38 thing, but she can agree with Commissioner Roberts’ intent. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
39 the minimum setback from the front property line to the building would still be required,
40 and this provision basically states that there must be an offset somewhere behind the
41 front property line of at least 5 feet between the garage and house face, and it would be
42 up to the homeowner to decide which.
43
44 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to change the wording in Section 2.05.015X.3
45 to read “offset” instead of “setback.”
46
8 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
1
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
2
NOES: None
3
ABSENT: None
4
5
6 Public Hearing
7
8 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing, noting that it is to be continued until
9 next Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at which time members of the public may make
10 additional comments, should they so desire.
11
12 Seth Eaker stated that the Seal Beach Chamber & Business Association (SBCBA)
13 takes no position on the proposed Zoning Code (ZC) and supports the determination of
14 the Planning Commission (PC). He stated that SBCBA wholly supports Staff’s
15 recommendations as stated in Section 4.05.010 on unamplified music and tableside
16 entertainment. He then commended the PC determination to make shared parking
17 plans subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. He thanked the PC and Staff for
18 all of the hard work on the new ZC.
19
20 Mike Bubbe thanked the PC and Staff for the work done on the proposed ZC, and he
21 thanked the members of the public for their participation in the process. He stated that
22 the proposed standard have allowed the community to come to a reasonable
rd
23 compromise. He asked to confirm that 3 story roof decks would not be permitted on
24 lots 37.5 ft. wide or wider. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that this language has been
25 changed.
26
27 Carla Watson thanked the Commission for the hard work and attention to the ZC and for
28 the preservation of “historical Old Town” and preventing excessive mansionization in all
29 areas of town. She said most residents of Old Town believe that small is beautiful, and
30 she supports the proposed ZC, which is a good compromise for the community. She
31 said she hopes the Seal Beach ZC will serve as an example to other beach cities.
32
th
33 Dave Broomhead, 14 Street, concurred with Ms. Watson’s comments, noting that if
34 third stories are to be allowed, the proposed standards are a suitable compromise.
35
36 Tom Blackman, Beryl Cove Way, stated that he lives on The Hill, which has a 2-story
37 height limit, and he is very much in favor of zoning. He said that when he purchased his
38 home on The Hill all of the homes were single story homes. Now he has a 2-story
39 home on both sides of his, which has impacted his privacy and view. He commended
40 the work done by Staff and the PC in creating the new ZC, and said he would still like to
41 see the height of homes limited to 2-stories.
42
43 Mr. Whittenberg noted that the current ZC and the proposed new ZC only allows third
44 stories for single-family residences within Old Town on lots that are 37.5 ft. wide or
45 wider. Third stories are prohibited in all other areas of the City.
46
9 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 John DeWitt stated he supports a 25-ft. height limit for homes and believes that the new
2 ZC provides a “meaningful compromise.” He thanked the PC and Staff for the work
3 done on this project. He indicated that the focus of this work has not been to restrict
4 people from building what they would like, but on how large structures will impact
5 immediate neighbors and the City of Seal Beach.
6
th
7 Jim Wolfelt, 16 ‘Street, expressed his dismay at having a 3-story home constructed
8 next door to his home. He said he is “totally against 3-stories,” and they should be
9 prohibited.
10
11 Joyce Parque noted that there are many 3-story apartment buildings in Old Town. She
rd
12 stated that aside from limiting 3 stories in Old Town, the new ZC will limit the size of
nd
13 2 story homes as well. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that at the last study session there
stnd
14 was discussion on establishing a ratio for square footage for 1 and 2 floors of homes
15 within Old Town, but the PC instructed Staff to eliminate this provision, which has been
16 done. She again noted that residents in Bridgeport are enclosing their balconies to
17 create additional living space without the requirement to provide additional parking
18 space, and that a microwave dish was installed near her home without the benefit of
19 public notice or a permit.
20
21 Scott Levitt asked if the PC has completed economic studies on the loss of property tax
22 revenues that would occur if homes are smaller. He stated that limiting the size of
23 homes may deter people from moving to Seal Beach to build a home, and with each
24 square foot for a home sold in Seal Beach valued at approximately $500-600 per
25 square foot, this creates a large impact on City revenues. He then referred to Section
26 1.15.020.6 showing the standards for chimneys, eaves, and cornices and questioned
27 whether this only allows 12 linear feet of cornice on the sides. Mr. Whittenberg stated
28 that this refers to allowable projections into a setback area. Mr. Levitt then observed
29 that the standard requiring that all windows be recessed 2 inches or have trim around
30 them would limit architectural creativity. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this would only
31 apply to the street-facing elevation of the home. Mr. Levitt asked if the 15 percent
32 requirement for landscaping would include the side yards and rear of the home. Mr.
33 Whittenberg stated that this would include the front and side yards. Mr. Levitt then
34 noted that in the FAR Table Bonus, No. 14 states “total structural coverage”; however,
35 this term is not found within the new ZC, and this is totally different than “lot coverage.”
nd
36 He then confirmed that based upon FAR Table 19, every 2 story in Old Town must be
37 set back 10 feet from the first floor area. Chairperson Deaton instructed Mr. Levine to
38 provide Staff with the remainder of his questions, and Staff would provide responses.
39
40 Eldon Alexander stated that he also wanted to see an economic analysis, and was told
41 that this would be presented tonight. Commissioner Roberts stated that as he
42 understands, the PC is not to deal with the economic analysis, but that City Council
43 would do so. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Planning Commissions is not a legislative
44 body and, historically, does not deal with an economic impact because it is looking at a
45 land use compatibility issue and not an economic issue. He indicated that this is
46 reserved for the consideration of City Council, which is the legislative body. He then
10 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not consider the economic
2 impacts of a project, although sometimes cities will request that a separate economic
3 impact analysis be completed on a particular project, but zoning issues do not deal with
4 economic impacts. Chairperson Deaton suggested that Mr. Alexander bring his
5 concerns before City Council during the public hearings for the ZC. Mr. Alexander then
6 referred to Page 6 of the Staff Report regarding FARs for the RLD-9 and RHD-20
7 Districts and noted that with the proposed design regulations homes within the RLD-9
8 District would experience a 14.5% reduction in the amount of buildable space; in the
9 RHD-20 District, there would be a 41.6% reduction for 2-story homes, and 56.9% for
10 3-story homes. He then addressed the requirements for garage spaces, and again
11 noted that he does not believe there is a parking problem in Seal Beach, with the
12 exception of properties located between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway
13 (PCH), and stated there have been no studies indicating that parking is a problem. He
14 then suggested that the definition for a “bedroom” state, “Existence of a closet is the
15 presumption of a bedroom use.” Mr. Alexander then asked if the Negative Declaration
16 (ND) for this project was prepared. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it has been
17 completed and copies are available to the public.
18
19 Warren Morton stated that he believes the PC and Staff are on the right track and
20 encouraged moving forward.
21
22 Robert Goldberg thanked the PC and Staff for completion of this process and for the
23 multiple opportunities to comment and for the attentiveness extended to his
24 suggestions. He noted that this has been a long, but very interactive process. With
25 regard to the comments on an economic analysis, he noted that in simply looking at a
26 decrease in the maximum square footage allowed, obviously there will be potential
27 costs. He stated that in reviewing the City Budget although there are some long-term
28 problems, they must be addressed through the budgetary process. He said he would
29 never advocate building Seal Beach out to the maximum in an attempt to bring more
30 revenues to the City.
31
32 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton continued the public
33 hearing to the adjourned meeting of Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. She
34 noted that the emphasis at that meeting will be on commercial/industrial and the
35 remainder of the ZC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for those issues raised tonight for
36 which Staff had no answer, they will prepare a memo responding to these issues for
th
37 distribution at the meeting of March 26. Chairperson Deaton thanked all those
38 members of the public who have participated in this process.
39
40 Commissioner Comments
41
42 Commissioner Roberts stated that he would probably not be present at the meeting of
th
43 March 26 and recommended that Resolution 08-13 include language stating that the
44 public had repeatedly requested of the PC that an economic analysis be completed.
45 With regard to the Ms. Parque’s comments about a microwave dish being installed
46 without notice near the vicinity of her home, Commissioner Roberts stated that he would
11 of 13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008
1 like a response to this. Mr. Whittenberg explained that under the provisions of federal
2 law, certain size microwave dishes are automatically allowed. He noted that Chapter
3 4.70 of the new ZC deals specifically with wireless communications facilities and reflects
4 current federal and state law regarding what cities can and cannot do to regulate these
5 types of installations. Commissioner Roberts then stated that although there has been
6 a lot of discussion about parking, he believes CPE has no major issues. He said that
7 the new ZC makes a significant compromise with regard to accountable space being
8 within the parking lot and requiring 3 parking spaces for a 5-bedroom house is not an
9 unreasonable request. He agreed that a definition of a bedroom must be included in the
10 ZC. Commissioner Roberts then referred to Section 4.05.050 Drive-In/Drive-Through
11 Facilities, and noted that he sees nothing in this section that addresses trash
12 receptacles and enclosed dumpsters for food service locations. Mr. Whittenberg stated
13 that Staff is meeting with the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Orange
14 County Fire Authority to sort out conflicting issues between these agencies. He
15 indicated that Staff would revisit this issue after the ZC is adopted.
16
17 Commissioner Bello thanked all of the members of the public who have participated in
18 this process. She said she believes a good compromise has been accomplished and
19 she feels good about this.
20
21 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt also thanked the members of the community who have
22 consistently attended the study sessions and provided input. She then thanked Staff,
23 noting that they have done an excellent job of tracking and compiling all of this
24 information.
25
26 Commissioner DeLay commended Staff for the excellent work done on this project.
27
28 Mr. Whittenberg requested a motion to approve the proposed universal numbering of
29 Title 11: Zoning, as requested in the Staff Memorandum dated, March 19, 2008. He
30 noted that this would be included in Resolution 08-13 to City Council.
31
32 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Roberts to approve the proposed Chapter and
33 Section Number for Title 11: Zoning as presented by Staff.
34
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
35
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
36
NOES: None
37
ABSENT: None
38
39
40 Chairperson Deaton stated that she understands that there are people on both sides of
41 the issues that are not happy, and she received only one e-mail this week speaking
42 against third stories, but she has also heard from the other side requesting that nothing
43 be taken away. She said the PC has done what it can, and thanked the Commissioners
44 and Staff for their participation in this process.
45
46
12 of 13
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 1 g, 2008
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that this public hearing will be continued to Wednesday,
March 26, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. He noted that there would be no Staff presentation at
that meeting, unless the PC has something it wishes Staff to present.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Roberts stated that since he will not be present at the next meeting, has
wishes to state that he has no input for Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~~~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secrgtary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on April 9, 2008, approx.ed the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, March 19, 2008. ~.
13 of 13