Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1974-05-01 . . . . . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COt~ISSION MEETING OF MAY 1. 1974 The P1ann1ng Comm1ss10n of the C1ty of Seal Beach met 1n regular seSS10n on Wednesday, May 1, 1974, 1n the Counc11 Chamber of the C1ty Adm1n1strat10n BU11d1ng. The meet1ng \/as called to order by Chalrman Knapp at 7:30 p.m. and V1ce Cha1rman Lann1ng led the Pledge of A11eg1ance. Present: Cook, Lann1ng, R1pperdan, Schmltt, Knapp Absent: None The m1nutes of the meet1ng of Apr11 17, 1974 were approved as presented. 1. Pub11C Hear1ngs A. Rossmoor Bus1ness Center (Robert H1rsch), CP-3a74 (cont'd) Proposal to construct a res1dent1a1 board and care fac111ty 1n the Rossmoor Bus1ness Center was rev1ewed. Variance lS requested for less than ~equ1red park1ng. Hear1ng reopened. Mr. H1rsch stated they had prev10us1y bU11t Rossmoor Park Apartments and were faml11ar w1th the area. In add1t10n~~ have bU11t other board and care fac111t1es w1th success and felt thlS property was adaptable. He p01nted out that each C1ty has d1fferent requ1rements for park1ng for th1S type of use, but through exper1ence found more requ1red than actually needed or used. He c1ted the nearby center wlth all shopplng fac111t1es. theatre and bus serV1ce. He p01nted out that the average age proved to be 78 and that t~e daffer.enae:between th1S fac111ty and conva1escem~ home was that all res1dents must be ambulatory under the 11cense. In reply to a quest10n regard1ng Vls1tor park1ng, he exp1a1ned that exper1ence showed few V1s1tors and at off hours. The slng1e elevator was d1scussed and number of persons on the second floor who would requ1re use. In answer to Mr. Cook~s suggest10n for fewer rooms and more park1ng, Mr. H1rsch exp1a1ned that the maXlmum capac1ty would be 108, but they found many wanted pr1vate rooms and maX1mum capac1ty not reached. He est1mated they probably would not exceed capac1ty of 90. D1Scuss10n of Wh1Ch agency controls 11cens1ng and the frequency of ~nspect10n. Further d1Scuss10n regarding ava11ab111ty and use of onastreet parklng 1n the area. Mrs. Lann1ng asked about organ1zed act1v1t1es. Mr. A1rsch explained proposed 1n-house act1v1t1es and also pOlnted out the adm1n1strat10n would have a vanatype veh1cle to transport res1dents for doctor's appo1ntments, etc. Wh1Ch would lessen the need for 1ndividually owned veh1cles. Mary Jane Buckley, 3151 Dru1d Lane, Rossmoor, represented the homeowners associat10n, and expressed concern about parklng and related problems. She also was concerned 1f the operat10n fa1led, Gould lt be converted to an undes1rable use with more park1ng problems. Ms. Buckley quoted the Rossmoor Homeowners' obJect10ns regard1ng the age of the ne1ghborhood, needs of the area, sU1tab11ity of the slte, the blind curve and hazards to young and old. N01se created by ambulance and emergency veh1cles could be obJect10na~le. Mr. H1rsch rebutted that a maX1mum of 8 persons would be on staff at one t1me, ser10US 111ness can happen 1n any area at any t1me and felt not a spec1f1c problem for th1s facil1ty. He also adv1sed that any change 1n use would have to be approved by the city. Hear1ng closed. . . . . e Mr. Schmltt felt off-slte parking should not be consldered; that each development should provlde ~ew~ own. Mro Cook questloned bUl1dlng a facl11ty for posslb1e 90S occupancy and the potential eXlsted to redeslgn for less rooms and proper parklngo Mr. Cook moved to deny the app1icatlon. Seconded by Mr. Schmltt and passed unanlmous1y. Reso1utlon Noo 824. Chalrman advlsed of rlght of appea10 B. Walter Babcock, V-7-74 App11cant proposlng structural al&erations to a eXlstlng restaurant, nonconformlng due to parklng, to convert eXlstlng 2nd floor apartments lnto an expanslon of the dlnlng area, and provldlng for a dental lab and restaurants. Hearlng open. Dro Babcock exp1alned the addltlona1 facl11tles would provlde more seatlng and more convenlent walting areao It wl11 also e11mlnate parklng needs for four apartments. Dr. Babcock exp1alned that most downtown buslnesses were closed durlng hlS peak of operatlon WhlCh was In the evenlng hours. In addltlon, the parklng at the adJacent dental offlces are aval1ab1e in the evenlng, spaces behlnd Ide11's Ideas had been leased, and lnforma1 permlsslon recelved to use the Bank of Amerlca lot when the bank lS closed. D1SCUSSlon of other parklng In the area, Jean Dorr, 231 6th St., commented on odors emanatlng from the fa~~11ty and asked for controls. She also asked lf change in use of 2nd floor would lncrease anJdecrease parklng need. Uom Beblk, 114 Ocean, cited that another restaurant had recently been requlred to lease parklng and felt a Maln St. restaurant should provide thelr owno Secretary explalned that South Coast Reglona1 Commlsslon was the agency requlrlng the Wong House to provlde additlona1 parklng. Dr. Babcock explalned efforts to control odors and would lnvestlgate that all procedures being followed. Hearlng c10sedo D1Scusslon followed regardlng parklng wlth suggestlon that app11cant pursue other posslbl11tles. Appl1cant requested contlnuance to lnvestigate further. Chair so ordered the hearlng contlnued to May 150 C. Ade11ne Fechter (Dennis Ga1vln), V-8-74 P~posal to construct outslde patlo area and storage area to a nonconformlng restaurant wlth less than requlred parklng and to modlfy the 10adlng zone. Hearlng open. Mro Galvln stated that he and hlS wlfe had recently purchased the buslness and were trYlng to upgrade the interlor and exterlor. Thelr lntent to lmprove appearance, make more of a famlly place and rld the sldewalk trash problem. He explained they currently had 8 parklng sp,ces and would add two, but most buslness from the street or beach, few customers by autoo Discussion followed on parking, type of operation, trash proble~s and methods to improve. Hearing closed. Mro Cook moved to approve the varlance wlth the condltlon that two parking spaces be deslgnated for employees. Seconded by Mrso Lanning and passed unanlmouslyo Resolution No. 825. Do Fotomat Corporatlon, CP-4-74 Applicant proposes to construct a drive-up fllm stand at the corner of PoC.Ho and Marlna Dro Hearlng open. Jlm Fisher, representing Fotomat, explalned that the company and Southern Californla Edlson, property owner, were worklng to improve the parcel. He feels they can offer a servlce to the resldents as well as e11mlnate an eyesoreo Appllcant agrees to make lmprovements along Marina Drlve and to provlde landscaplnq. D1Scusslon of ingress and egress and effect upon trafflc flow and safety. Facade, roof style and colorlng of the bUlldlng as well as type of landscaplng dlscussedo Hearlng closed. . . . . . Mr. Ripperdan moved to approve the app11cation subJect to prov1d1ng full 1mprovements along t1ar1na,Dr1ve to the sat1sfact10n of the C1ty Eng1neer and a more decorat1ve facade to the approval of Planning Staff. Seconded by Mrs. Lann1ng. After add1tional d1Scusslon, the vote was as follows: Ayes: Cook, Knapp, Lannlng, R1pperdan Noes: Schm1tt t10t10n carr1ed. Reso1utlon No. 826. The meetlng was recessed at 9:25 p.m. Reconvened at 9:40 p.m. E. Amendment to Zon1ng Ord1nance by add1tlon of R/C/P, Res1dent1a1 Commercla1, Park Zone Secretary revlewed the proposed amendment and past hearings. Hear1ng open. Mrs. Dobk1ns\) 20B 2nd St.\) opposed hodgepodge of zones and felt affected the value of ne1ghbor1ng property and not be benef1cia1 to the area. Dom Bebek\) 114 Ocean\) felt development should be slml1ar to the area and not 1nc1ude commercial 1n the m1dst of res1dentia1. Mr. Thurston, 212 2nd St., concured w1th Dobkins and felt each use should be separate. He also was concerned w1th 1ncreased traffic and favored the combination of residential/park. Mr. Cook relterated hlS past comments opposlng the R/C/P Zone and asked 1f any proposed developments had been subm1tted to the Cityo Secretary advised two pre11m1nary schematics had been presented, neither inc1ud1ng conwerc1alo Mr. Cook also discussed the density, whether calculated on gross or net acres. He also felt commerc1a1 development could be detrimental to Main St. businesseso Mr. Schm1tt felt the R/C/P zone gives more 1at1tude but does not prevent development as res1dentia1/park. D1xie Courtney, 1520 Marine, opposed the combinat10n of zones. General discuss10n fo11owedo Mr. Neprud explained aga1n why th1S zone proposed at the direction of the C1ty Council by adoption of the Land Use Element. After addit10na1 d1Scussion, the hear1ng was closed. Mrs. Lann1ng moved to approve the zone and recommend adoption of the amendment by the City Council. Seconded by Mr. R1pperdano Mr. Cook stated he felt the medium dens1ty prov1s10n should be made clear, it should be the same as others 1n the distr1ct of 1875 sq. ft. net not on gross acres. It should also be clear that it should be calculated on the net slte after deducting park and commerc1al areas. He felt others on the Commission were 1n agreement because there were no negat1ve comments. Ayes: Ripperdan, Lanning, Schmitt Noes: Cook, Knapp Motion carried. Resolut10n No. 827. F. Change of Zone on 9+ acre parcel of land bounded by 1st St., Mar1na Drive, San Gabriel R1ver Channel and beach from MD2 to R/C/P 1n conformance with Land Use Element Secretary expla1ned the proposal. Hearing open. No comments from audience. Hear1ng closed. Mr. Cook moved to zone the proper~ as Residential/Park. Mr. Neprud pointed o~t no such zoning eX1sts and would need public hearing to establish the zone before it could be designated on any real property. Motion w1thdrawn. Mr. Schmltt moved to cont1nue this hearing and advertise for a public hear1ng to cons1der Residential/Park Zone. Seconded by f1r. Cook. Discussion of 1ntent. Motion withdrawn w1th consent of the second. Mr. R1pperdan moved to recommend to the City Council the change of zone from M-2 to R/C/P on the above descr1bed property. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning. Ayes: Lanning, Rlpperdan, Schmitt Noes: Cook, Knapp Motion carr1edo Resolution Noo 828. e . 2. Oral Commun1cat1ons 4It There were no oral commun1cat1ons. 3. Wr1tten Commun1cat1ons One wr1tten commun1catlon rece1ved and deferred to be lncluded 'lith secretaryDs report. 4. New Bus1ness A. Rossmoor Business Center (Wll11ams Slgn Co.). PR-5-74 Plans presented for the addltlon of a 40 sq. ft. identiflcat10n sign to an eXlstlng free standlng sign structure in the Rossmoor Center. Applicant presented photos of eX1stlng slgn and explained slml1arity. Mr. Knapp moved to approve as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Lannlng and passed unanimously. Resolutlon No. 829. 50 Secretary.s Report and Other Business Mr. Cook spoke regardlng helght llm1tatlons and expressed hlS deSlre to expedlte the study. 4It Mro Neprud explalned progress on preparlng rev1sed zoning ordlnance and hoped~to begln publlC meetings soon for publlC 1nput on height. setbacks, etco The R/C/P zone requires condltional use permit to provide control. Mro Neprud reported that the Bixby proposal wlll require another publ1C hearing by the Plannlng Commisslon and explalned procedure as well as City Attorney's 1nterpretatlon. Hear1ng scheduled for May 15, 1974. Secretary Neprud also reported that a letter had been recelved from John Perr1n of Los Alam1tos Naval A1r Station 1nvitlng the Commlssion and staff for a brieflng and prel1m1nary report on May 4 at 9 A.Mo Mrso Lannlng and Mr. Neprud wl11 attend. No further business, the meet1ng was adJourned at 10:40 p.m. ~Q 1S rno~J7- Record1ng Secretary 4It CRAIG HOSMER MIEMDER Of' CONGRESS CALIPORHIA . . COMMITTI!:ES JOINT COMMITTE""- ON ATOMIC ENERGY INTERIOR AND INSIJLAR AFFAIRS . (!Congre~5 of tbe ~niteb ~tate5 ~oUSt of l\eprcsentntltJes ~b{nntJ)n, ~.(t. 20515 AprLll8, 1974 Honorable Thomas Blackman Mayor, CLty of Seal Beach CLty Hall Seal Beach, CalLforma 90740 Dear ~man It has come to my attE'ntLOn that a proposed condommmm de- velopment on apprm..Lmately eLght acres of land m College Park North wLll come beforE" the Seal Beach CLty Council on May 13, 1974. and Lf approved, may sLgmfLcantly alter the presently tight but unobstructed approach and departure pattern at the Los AlamLt?S aLrfield. The con- sequences of such d. development might lead to foreclosure of Los Ala- mLtos as a milLtary air base or for any future alternative cLvLlLan use such as a support facilLty for lLght mdustry. . It seems to me that to permLt the bULldmg of high-rise condo- mmLUms so as to mterfere wLth safe flLght patterns around an aLl' facLl- Lty IS dangerous and shortsighted and not m the best mterest or the com- mumty at large nor of those who depend on the air facility for theLr 1L ve lLh ood . And furthermore, how long do )OU thmk Lt would be until the tenants of such a development would be screemlllg bloody murder about the nOLse and air pollutLOn from aLrplanes flymg over theLr exclUSive balcomes? The aLl' facLlLty L5 an exccptLOnally valuable piece of property. I certamly hope that the Clty CouncLl wtll not do anythmg to derrogate LtS use for defense or future civiltan enterprLse. Smcerely, . cn Kmy /~ ~ - - !'o / ...r ~ <r;....'" / I / I ',,'; "17 ~ ....... .' --I' "',, I .. ~II" , ~ '7 -... '.... 11,',1 v~ c: ., ;." 1 I .t, \ -' f ~, , ... 1-, ............. I \' f!...... ,... ,.,) ("I' ~') ,'... ''": 8i /~ , \, ~ / ~/ -' I y" f.\~ r ' I ~ I ... . . .,. .. ... ..- .. "'.. . . . . ,,_"" .. Woe ~ .. .... ... \ ". Oil Q~- 202 :~Trc. nIT' .-- Ser P2/21~ 22..._ ] ~ f~ P k :: I 4 Q.C:C _ From: CON1".andl nq OfflC'C t" 1/ 1f'c~lern 01Vl.!aOn 1/ Naval Q~- Fac 11i t l.C S r nCj l.T.ccr l.nc] CO...l.:l nrl To: COJlunanchng Ofrl.eer, 1'.i~vu.l lur Stull.on, Los 1\lnrato391 20 Currently 1/ the ).rr,y I l'J~vy and lh~ 1\l.r rorce arc pr..:!pt'\r J.ng C}encral1. zed .J.CCl.I..lC nt :-'0 tCllt.J &11 70nc OJ \'l1l.ch \1111 reflect the lU'3tory of al.rcraft accl.de'nts thrlt t..::I.V~ be-en ~- e:l\.peTl.enC"cd by <111 tnrec 5crVl cc=:-. 'J.'hoc:,c trl.-scrvl.C"C' -- h 01 zoncr., ""I en apPlovcd, \/111 bccore a DC'p;lrtrr.Jnt of Defense -- (000) &tamlard iwd 'nIl su\?ct"sede t.he 1nforrat..l.on forvarued by reference (il) 0 ~ 04 Subj: Al.r In<<Jt.J.llatl.on COIl':);'} ll.bJ e U~>c Zone 1/ Crr....h lIazil!:d Zones for N~\3 I,os l' laru tor. net: : (a) WJ:S'l'Ni\vr1\Cn:GCOH 1 tr 202l1\/T :rr,1'"{ -nn Ser P2/127 of 13 Hnr 74 016 10 Rere-rence (il) for"arucd a Mnp sho.'l.WJ gencrali.:C'u he1 J.cnpter cra ',h hCl::''''"\rd are;].!3 Sllp:>r U1"10 <:(.'1.1 on the flloht pc:lt..lerr.... of the NilVCl). l"J.T St::ut~on (:1;\5) 1/ Ins 1\.](\ruto~o ThJ.<3 J.nform'-ltl.On ~,.:1.'1 b;'l c:cc1 on l1avy-wl.de crashc5 for t..he years 1967 throuqh J9720 30 Approval of the ne\ol accl.c1cnt potent] ill 7on(>Q 15 not cxpcct..cd b~[orc the' cn~ of fay. Tn ordtr to ~VO]ct tlo dJSbt.'rnl.natl.on of 1011ClCCll.r.ttc' lid Ol.:'r1cttl\Jn, furtlH. r co"'~cnt. on the C]cncn:llJ.. cd CI c '~II I' 1 7i1J. d .-U i'.:\', .J ~ l h0Y a r)ply to NJ\S, 1,os 1\l11ntl. tos sl'otllcl b0 \1J. thhc.ld P('l1tl] 1111 rc lc~sc of the DOD qcnera11zctl aLC"Jdcnt potcnt~al zones. R L rJ~!~R, JK 'By dlJcctlon BlInd Copy to: 20 202/Chron 2021A 20/AICUZ Flole Fnc..lOHurl' (I) FIL.E FlllurltH '1I1t'[ T UNO 1,"It. Illll V 7 7~1 . I. II' , " 01~ Q.!.:L_ 017 018 09A 09Al Q.!i_~ Q~n Otjhl 098~ 07 TO II 12 ~ -:-C-?--J.. {" "'J ~1!.. I ~,---,.J _ n." -,;l...... ~\/I,J r- ./(- ," C '\.~..(, - I .." J ,,1 ..... - .. --- . - .--- ?.? .-- . . . .DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. NAVAl. AIR STATION LOS ALAMITOS CALI FORNIA 90720 IN REPL,Y REFER TO 15 M'lY 1974 @ MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SubJ Status report on the ana1ys1s of a1rcraft no~se and safety factors assoc1ated w1th NAS Los A1am1tos f11ght operations Enc1 (1) WESTNAVFACENGCOM 1tr 202 JFG nm Ser P2/219 of 19 Apr 1974 1 N01se. The find1ngs and recommendat10ns 1n the Inter1m Report on the Army's He11copter N01se ~tudy presented to representat1ves of local commun1ty and county agenc1es at the Naval Air Stat10n on 4 Hay 1974 1nc1ude the fo110w1ng a The area 1nc1ud~ng the 7 8 acre B1xby parcel across from the B1xby Old Ranch Country Club 1S 1n close prox1m1ty to the CNR-2 h1gh frequency n01se zone developed from recorded data In add1t1on, th1s area 1S 1mpacted by low frequency blade slap no~se from UH-1 he11copters wh1ch wa& perce1ved but not recorded because of the lack of exist1ng cr~ter1a w1th1n the dcoustica1 state of the art for trans1at1ng blade slap and low frequency he1~- copter n01se 1nto d1sturbance factors, 1e, CNR and NEF rating schemes llowever, from ana1ys1s of College Park comp1a1nt data 1n the v1c1n1ty of the B1Xby property, 1t can be ant1c1pated that blade slap n01se dur1ng periods of heavy f11ght train1ng act1v1ty w111 d1sturb res1dents and generate noise comp1a1nts b Due to the above factors and the1r probable aggravat10n by the prox1m1ty of the area (B1Xby Parcel) to the 1ntersect10n of two f11ght patterns 1n the CNR-2 Zone and the t1ght turn 1n the UH-1 touch-and-go pattern, this 10cat10n was not found to be des1rab1e for resident1a1 developments Construct10n of Army m~11tary hous1ng would not he recommended by the U S Army Fnv1ronmenta1 llyg1ene Agency 1n such an env1ronment 2 Safety 1he enclosed communicdt1on from the Western DiviS10n of the Naval rac~lit1es Eng~neer]ng Command 1nd1cates the current status of the assessment of acc1dent potent1a1 zones. See enclosure (1) . . 3. Armed Forces Reserve Center's Fl~ght Operat~ons Wh~le present fl~ght operat1ons 1nclude only m1n1mal f1xed-w1ng activity, the Air Base continue9 to have the capab~11ty to support both fixed and rotary wing training operat1ons for the reserve components of all branches of the Armed Forces. In view- of this and the ~ntent underscored in the DOD instruction on AICUZ to ma1nta~n such capab~lity, in spite of periods of predominate use by rotary w1ng elements, the host activity continues to be prepared to support compatible fixed-wing operations by present or future armed forces tenants. The reduction of open space at the take-off end of Runway 22 could significantly compromise the operational potential for employing fixed-wing aircraft. . 4. Progress on actions toward leasing and possible acquisition via land swap to effect compatible land use. An Acquisition Report is being prepared for submission to the offices of the Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of Defense and the Armed Services Committee of Congress. The Navy as the host activity for the Armed Forces Reserve Center is endeavoring to obtain authorization to lease and/or acquire this property to insure operational compatibility with surrounding communities. The thrust of all efforts to date has been to take most prudent measures available in serving the best interest of the community including the protection of public and private property. ~.~ Resources and Community Planning . .