Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1988-05-18 , . . . . . MINUTES OF MEETING SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 18, 1988 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session w1th Chairman Pro-Tem Suggs calling the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Jessner. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Pro-Tem Suggs Commissioners Jessner, Sharp, Rullo Also Present: Ed Knight, D1rector, Development Services Department Pam Walker, Admin. Asst., Development Services Dept. Mike Patterson, former Planning Intern/Aide, Development Services Department. RESOLUTION HONORING PAM WALKER Chairman Pro-Tem Suggs read Resolution Number 1507 honoring and commending Pam Walker for her accomplishments and outstanding service as Administrative Assistant, Development Services Department. Pam will be leav1ng the Department on May 24, 1988. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Jessner, second by Rullo to remove items nBn and nCn from the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED 4 - o. ITEM A. MINUTES MOTION by Rullo, second by Jessner to accept item nAn, Planning Commission Minutes of April 20, 1988, as presented. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 . ITEM B. RESOLUTION HONORING MIKE PATTERSON Resolution Number 1504, honoring M1ke Patterson, for his dedicated service to the City of Seal Beach as a part-time member of the planning staff of the Department of Development Services was read by Chairman Pro-Tem Suggs and accepted by M1ke. . Page 2 - Planning commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 ITEM C. Item "C", Plan Rev~ew 6-88 for 228 14th street concerned the add~tion of square footage to an existing bedroom, enclosing an existing porch and remodeling an existing laundry room to create a den. Commissioner Jessner pointed out that a den can't contain a closet. The applicant, Leiana Evans, came forward. She said she would remove the closet from the plans for the den and would then go forward w~th the remodeling (minus the closet). MOTION by Rullo, second by Jessner to accept item "C" Plan Review 6-88 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 4 - o. * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-87 500 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY NORM CALVIN'S RIB FACTORY . Pam Walker gave the staff report on CUP 4-87. The applicants, Soong H. Kim and Song K. Kim, requested the indefin~te extens~on of CUP 4-87, permitting on-sale beer and wine at Norm Calvin's Rib Factory in the Bay City Center. Mrs. Walker stated that staff has received no compla~nts regarding on-sale beer and w~ne, all conditions of approval have been met, no police problems have occurred and Chief of Police Stearns has not indicated any reservations about permitting th~s extension. There were no Commission quest~ons. The Public Hearing was opened. Soong' H. Kim - 8895 Brooke Avenue. Westminster. CA introduced h~mself as the appl~cant and requested the Commission note the name of h~s bus~ness ~s Norm Calvin's Rib Factory not Norm Calvin's R~b Joint. The Publ~c Hearing was closed. MOTION by Sharp, second by Rullo to indefinitely extend CUP 4-87 by adopting amended Resolution Number 1457 with seven conditions and a change of the name from Norm Calvin's Rib Joint to Norm Calvin's R1b Factory. MOTION CARRIED 4 - o. * * * . . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5-87 143 MAIN STREET OLD TOWN' WINE &: GOURMET Pam Walker gave the staff report. This CUP is a request by applicant, Connie Schuman, to indefinitely extend CUP 5-87, permitting the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the Old Town Wine and Gourmet. The condition of an annual Planning Comm1SS10n reV1ew would be deleted from amended Resolution Number 1461. There were no Commission questions or comments. The Public Hearing was opened. Conn1e Schuman - 143 Corona. Long Beach noted that the daily hours of operation, during the summertime, will be from 9:00 a.m. (not 9:30 a.m.). The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Rullo, second by Jessner to approve CUP 5-87 by the adoption of amended Resolution Number 1461 with the time changed from 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.. * * * C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-88 322 MAIN STREET, 14 Ed Knight gave the staff report. Conditional Use Permit 4-88 is a request by Jerri L. Cocks to permit the addition of massage therapy for women to an eX1sting body and skin care business in Seal Beach. The need for a CUP arises because this type of business is not defined in the commercial zones although it is generally allowed under the C-1 zone. Initially the massage service will be offered on Fridays only, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As the business expands, the applicant is planning to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (No changes in the day(s) of operation were mentioned). The Orange County Health Care Agency has stated the proposed massage business is in compliance with its requirements. Add1tionally, the Chief of Police will investigate the background of the person performing the massages. This will include a thorough review of the applicant's employment history, license history and any cr1minal record. . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 The Publ1c Hearing was opened. The appl1cant, Jerr1 Cocks - 1419 Hardwick st.. Long Beach sa1d she would be the person performing the massages and this is for women only. She said that according to a City ordinance, she is to keep records on the names, dates and types of treatments she prov1des for her clients. She felt the record keeping requirement was l1nked to Chapter 12 of the Business License Code. Ms. Cocks said this was akin to a phys1c1an's record keeping but she didn't know to whom her reports would be made available. Ms. Cocks history includes 300 hours of study at a State- approved school, the Academy of Health Science in Garden Grove. Additionally, she provided massages at the Health and Beauty Spa for five years. She had been led to believe she was working under that spa's license when, in fact, she was not and had to get her own license. . The Commission asked if there was a State, Orange County or City requirement that the person performing the massage be licensed? Ms. Cocks stated that it's strictly up to the City; the C1ty has their own ordinance. Mr. Knight said almost every community regulates this in their own fashion; it's usually through the pOlice department. Ms. Cocks said that approval of CUP 4-88 is the first step in her licensing procedure. After this, she contacts the Seal Beach Police Department and pays $500 for a background investigation. MOTION by Rullo, second by Sharp to approve CUP 4-88, subject to five conditions, by the adoption of Resolution Number 1505. MOTION CARRIED 4 - o. * * * . . Page 5 - P1ann1ng Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 D. ZONING TEXT AMEHDMEHT 7-87 STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USES AND PARKING IN FRONT YARDS. Mr. Knight delivered the staff report. ZTA 7-87 is a request to amend the zoning regulations governing enlargements or structural alterations to non-conforming residential bU1ldings and uses, and to establish regulations prohibiting parking in front yards. The applicant is the City of Seal Beach. Th1S ZTA covers three basic issues of the zoning ordinance. . Background on how each of the three issues was generated: 1. parkin9 Related to Density Generated by the City Council to address parking requirements for mod1f1cations to non-conforming residential uses. That's the Minor Plan Review process. To address the density threshold of 30 units per acre, where above that there was a requirement to provide one parking space per unit in order to be able to get the 10% addition under the Code provisions. 2. Inequities to Non-Conformin9 Single Family Residences Generated by the Planning Commission in Feb. 1988 to modify the non-conform1ng resident1al uses section of the Code and put together new procedures in regard to m1nor setbacks, allowing these uses which have minor rear/front/side setbacks to expand greater than the current 10% l1mitation. Flexibility in Surfs ide commissioner Rullo asked Mr. Knight about a letter from Surfs ide residents: did they explain what they meant by "Any unit that is non-conforming due to density or parking could not use these provisions and must adhere to the existing Surfside Code"? Mr. Knight said 1t was primarily geared to the smaller units that only have one parking space. Assurances were given that those Code sections would not be changed. Mr. Rullo said he was satisfied with this letter if the Surfside board is satisfied ... that Mr. Kendrick is a very capable and thorough person, and he would not have agreed to this if he had not obtained a consensus from everybody and they were 1n agreement. 3. Parking in Grassy Areas of Front Yards . Generated by the City Council and expressed the1r concerns of the parking of motor vehicles on the unpaved portion of a front setback. ~ Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 The Public Hearing was opened. Bruce Stark - 100 Ocean Gate. Long Beach said he thought ZTA 7-87 was a sound decision to alleviate parking problems. Discussion determined that parking would be allowed at the front on paved slabs with curb cuts. The Publ1c Hearing was closed. Parking in Front Yard Areas of Homes Commissioner Jessner requested clarification on section 4 (re parking in front yard areas of homes) and enforcement procedures. Mr. Knight said the City of Seal Beach has no formal enforcement procedure. A breach would go thru the usual Code enforcement procedures or could be considered a nuisance by the community. The City would write a letter to the owner hoping for compliance. Eventually it could end up with the City's attorney. . C1tation-type processes are used, for example, 1n Cerritos, Walnut Creek and Costa Mesa by issuing tickets. The citation process at Costa Mesa is: following a complaint, the city follows up with a letter to the homeowner. The homeowner is given 72 hours to reach compliance. At that point the homeowner is fined $100 per day. The Commission agreed they would 11ke an enforcement procedure. Parking of Motor Vehicles. Recreation Veh1cles or Boats ... Commissioner Jessner referenced the draft Ordinance, item 7, page 2. He requested the word "boat" be added for clarification. The sentence would read "In residential zones, no motor vehicle, recreation vehicle or boat of any kind may be parked or stored in any required yard or open space other than a paved driveway or a paved area on one side of the lot to the rear of the required front yard." MOTION by Jessner, second by Sharp to adopt Resolution Number 1506 recommending approval of Zoning Text Amendment 7-87, with the addition the word "boat" to item 7, to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED 4 - o. . MOTION by Jessner, second by Rullo that the staff prepare a recommendation to the City Council that a citation mechanism be adopted to provide some sort of fines for non-compliance with section 4, Item 7 of this Ordinance. *** MOTION CARRIED 4 - o. . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 SCHEDULED MATTERS A. CITIZENS SENSIBLE GROWTH AND TRAFFIC CONTROL INITIATIVE Mr. Knight directed his remarks to those items that would effect the Plann1ng Commission --- which are those items pr1marily under a zoning or General Plan aspect, although the In1 tiati ve goes well beyond that. If adopted, the Initiative would estab11sh minimum service levels for traff1c flow, police, fire, paramed1cs services, flood control improvements and parks. Prior to granting a specific development approval for a project, the City must determine that these m1nimum service levels will be maintained. Or, if the minimum service levels are already be1ng violated, the development will result in a measurable improvement or the development will participate 1n a City-wide comprehensive development and 1mprovement program that w1ll achieve a measurable improvement. . Mr. Knight described the 1965 highway traffic manual, commonly known as Circular #2-12, that 1S used by CalTrans 1n determining freeway analyses. He noted that this manual was updated in 1985, and 1S known as Circular #209. CalTrans determines five min1mum levels of serV1ce ("A" through "F") which are expressed in percentages demonstrating impact. Mr. Knight noted seven intersections in Seal Beach which do not me the min1mum level of "c" . The City Engineer, Dennis Jue, said it would cost $3.8 million to bring these intersections up to the levels of serV1ce indicated in the Initiative. It would involve widen1ng Pacific Coast Highway. Seal Beach Bl vd. could be widened wi th less impact on surrounding communities by the expansion. Westminster is somewhat lim1 ted at most of the mean1ngful corners due to development, but it is physically able to do the work. There's a trade-off to the quality of life for the people Ii ving along these properties v. increased traffic flow. . ~ Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 The Planning Department took a look at some of the potential C1ty of Seal Beach projects that could be impacted by this Initiat1ve. Taking into consideration that Pacific Coast Highway could not have a lot of capacity built into it without a lot of disruptive construction. The Initiative would affect some properties with zoning in place and that may have a spec1fic plan adopted. Those are: 1. DWP site (First & Marina) Which would add a measurable amount of traffic to PCH and would have to mitigate the traffic generated by that development. If were not able to make that measurable improvement to PCH ... the project could not cont1nue. . 2. State Lands Project (First & Pacific Coast H1ghway) This project is similar to the DWP site. It's right on Pacific Coast Highway and would have to make those mitigation measures as well. 3. Hellman Specific Plan (Seal Beach Boulevard) Would have a lot of difficulty meeting the requirements since it's required to have a Tentative Tract Map and would have to make considerable improvements to Pacif1c Coast Highway in order to make a measurable improvements from the traffic that's being generated. 4. Bixby Project The B1Xby project is still very early in its stages. There is the ability to add capacity to Seal Beach Blvd. in order to make that measurable improvement. At this time it's impossible for staff to say what the impacts on Seal Beach Blvd. are under the In1tiat1ve's requirement of using the 1985 manual. We're currently uS1ng the 1965 Circular #2-12. A new manual has been developed and is not being used widely if at all -- the 1985 manual, Circular #209. It changes many of the formulas that are used to determine traffic. It's very labor intensive and difficult to explain the formulas. . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 5. Rockwell and/or other Commercial Centers If they wanted to expand or change their operation if they fell w1thin the limitations of the Initiative they would also be affected. . Mr. Knight summarized: The basic conclusion that came out of this Initiative was there are several aspects of the Ini tiati ve that can be considered quite positive, if they were applied with clear standards and flexibility it would be a move in the right direction. Traffic c1rculation 1S a regional and a local problem. The state of California presented it nicely in the General Plann1ng Guidelines when they sa1d no city, especially in a metropolitan area, is an island and should ignore the regional circulation system that's around it. All the local agencies should look at it on a regional basis and apply clear standards and flexibility to the reg10n. If the City of Seal Beach were to adopt this, it would be the only C1 ty around here that adopted it and none of the other cities would be applY1ng these standards. They would be continuing to grow and add traffic to Seal Beach which we could not mitigate because we don't have the funds to make the improvements, we also do not have any development which would be occurring to make those improvements. You could say, "Well at least Seal Beach is making a move in the right d1rection by adopt1ng this init1ative... that it's concerned about traffic." This is true --- traffic in Orange County has gotten worse over the years. But for one city to try to tackle a regional problem without the rest of the region joining 1n would only be a lesson in frustrat10n. The Ini t1ati ve would delay or deny properties Wh1Ch currently have zoning on them which either could be a benefit to the City'S tax base, in regard to the State Land Project or DWP, or to the quality of life that we would like to 1ncrease here in Seal Beach with regard to the golf course on Hellman or to six acres of open space that's part of the DWP project. These are some of the reasons why staff has not supported the Initiative and may be some of the reasons why the City Council did not support 1t the other day. Commission Ouestions and Comments with Mr. Knight replying: 1. Why is Seal Beach the only City involved? Because this is a City ini tiati ve . It's on the Orange County ballot but it would only affect the unincorporated areas. The Initiative has also qualified in certain cit1es - San Clemente, Seal Beach, San Juan Capistrano. . . . . Page 10 - Planning commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 2. Does the state of California have any responsibi11ty - as far as improving conditions along Pacific Coast Highway? An Initiative proponent said (on Monday at the City Council Meeting) that under this In1tiative, the City of Seal Beach would not be responsible for making any improvements to any state highways since we don't have any d1scretion over State highways. Therefore any of the problems we have on arterials that are on State highways (Pacif1c Coast Highway and Seal Beach Blvd. at the north-bound and south-bound ramps) we wouldn't be compelled under this Initiative to enforce its standards. The City Attorney and I are really not too sure about that judgment on his behalf due to the In1tiative's definitions that talk about the transportation system it's unclear whether we can really preclude ourselves from not having to make those recommendations on PCH. It's a level of discretion that the City can have. We cannot make any improvements on a freeway, that's totally under the control of CalTrans. But on on-ramps and off-ramps, with the approval of CalTrans, you can have a locally funded project and make all the 1mprovements you want to. It's the same with Pacific Coast Highway. We would need CalTran's approval but if we had the funds we could go with it. commissioner Rullo noted that the City would pay for the improvement and the cost of the inspection that must be done by the State (even though we have our own inspection). Plus, whatever contractor we'd hire would be stuck with an additional cost from the State highway system -- there's all kinds of costs. Another example, if the City improves Seal Beach Blvd. and can't get approval to do the improvements on Pacific Coast Highway and we're bringing more vehicles in because we've improved Seal Beach Blvd., haven't we defeated our purpose? Mr. Knight agreed, if the City is responsible for making improvements and if CalTrans would not g1ve approval for doing so, the City would be in a bind. 3. What about a sister-city/lending-hand approach? Mr. Knight replied that Huntington Beach has just had maJor approvals for thousands of square feet of offices as well as two major hotels. The sister-city-approach, in this post-Proposition 13 era, where things such as transient occupancy tax and retail sales tax pay the cities budgets, I doubt the City of Huntington Beach would forego a two hotel projects just so we don't get any add1t10nal traffic down here 1n Seal Beach. 4. The City item on the ballot is under "F" and the County item is "Measure A". It is the same measure. If we vote no on "F" then we as a city will not be bound by it. But Orange County would be bound by 1t in the unincorporated areas. . . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1988 5. Pacif1c Coast Highway, from Sunset Beach west to the bridge going over the channel at Huntington Harbor -- on the North is Huntington Beach and on the right it's Seal Beach. How could we improve a road so d1vided? This topic was not brought up at the City Council meeting. If this Ini tiati ve is voted in, it could stop a lot of our current proJects that we would need to generate funds to operate the City with. 6. This Init1ative would create an annual update of traff1c studies which annually would cost the C1ty of Seal Beach in excess of $40,000. There is one prov1sion of the this In1 tiati ve which says that each year the City shall update and adopt a traffic monitoring report which shall assess the ability of the system to mainta1n a standard level of service. Each year the City would be compelled to prepare this report whether or not any development had occurred. We would have to use the 1985 manual in preparing the report on our arterials. It would be very labor 1ntensive. The B1Xby traffic study was approximately $24,000 and that covered three arterials and seven 1ntersections. This est1mate is in 1988 dollars. COlD1U1ss10ner Jessner said he feels that the traffic is getting horrendous. The question is whether this Ini t1ati ve going to help the Ci ty of Seal Beach with regard to traff 1C problems within the City of Seal Beach? The populat10n of the City of Seal Beach has not increased in the last ten years, in fact, it has gone down 50 persons. So there's no increase in our traffic; the traffic is coming from surrounding areas, mainly Long Beach and Huntington Beach. I would be in favor of creat1ng obstacles to make that traffic go around us. This Initiative is not going to help the traffic situation in Seal Beach -- it may create more problems than it would solve. Some of the projects that I'm in favor of (Hellman, DWP, State Lands) would significantly impacted. Instead of widen1ng Pacific Coast Highway to three lanes in each direction, perhaps we should make traffic lights longer to deter traffic from passing through. Chairman Suggs: Can Seal Beach live without growth? If we shut off our current building proJects we cut off the tax base that we need to operate our city with in the future. We have inflation and a lot of other th1ngs that are going to require monies 1n the future. \. . . . paqe 12 - Planninq Commission Minutes on May 18, 1988 MOTION by sharp, second by Jessner for the Planninq Commission opposes item nF" on the Sensible Growth Issue, on the June 7, 1988 ballot. MOTION CARRIED 4 - O. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Bruce Stark - 100 Oceangate. Long Beach He commented on the "parking prohibited" ordinance and asked if th1s 1ncluded the paved setback off alleys? The Commiss1on adv1sed the intent 1S to prohibit parking 1n unpaved front yards; keeping off the grassy areas. He suggested additional City police patrols of alley parking w1th f1nes going to the city. Add1tionally Mr. Stark pointed out that the associated costs of item "F" on the In1 t1at1 ve would be paid the developer, not by the City of Seal Beach. Mr. Stark feels that item "F" m1ght be a qood place for the City to start in control11nq traffic. The annual survey 1S only tr1ggered by development. The City would not pay for any 1mprovements if there was no development. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns at this time. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns at this time. ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Pro-Tem Suggs adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C\ Do...rt ~o...-.r""') Joan Fillmann Secretary THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. M1nutes of May 18, 1988 were approved by the Seal Beach Plann1ng Commission on June 01, 1988.