The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1989-09-20 .- ;;' /' . . ,. ,. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 The regularly scheduled meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on was called to order 1n C1ty Counc1l Chambers by Cha1rman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Mr. F1fe. ROLL CALL Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1SS1oners F1fe, Jessner Absent: Comm1ss1oner Rullo (excused absence due to 1llness) Comm1ss1oner Suggs (excused absence; out of C1ty). Staff Present: Lee Wh1ttenberg, D1rector, Dev. Serv1ces Dept. Also Present: QU1nn Barrow, C1ty Attorney's Off1ce CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 MOTION by Jessneri SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning CommlSSlon Mlnutes of September 6, 1989 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 2 - 0 - 1 - 2 ABSTAIN: Flfe ABSENT: Rullo, Suggs PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-88 (RENEWAL) 1780 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BAY LIQUOR RESOLUTION NO. 1553 Staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg del1vered staff's report on cup 7-88 Wh1Ch 1S a request by appl1cant, JUl1US D1bsy, to extend 1ndef1n1 tely an off-sale general llquor llcense for an eX1st1ng llquor store at 1780 Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway. Staff recommends approval of cup 7- 88 w1th the seven cond1t1ons 1n place by approval of Resolut1on No. 1553. . . -. ~ . ., Page 2 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 Commlsslon Comments Mr. Sharp sald the "no alcohollC beverage advertlslng or dlsplay devlces shall be located In the wlndow areas and outslde of the store" lS the most flagrant abuse of the Clty's ordlnances. ThlS lS true of almost all these stores. Mr. Jessner sald he thought elther the Clty has to start enforclng thls or change thlS condltlon. Mr. Whlttenberg sald he was not famlllar wlth the background of how thlS partlcular condltlon came to be lncorporated lnto the Code but wll1 research lt and report back to the Commlsslon at the October 4th meetlng. PubllC Hearlng Nelther the appllcant nor the owner were present and no one from the audlence wlshed to speak. The PubllC Hearlng was closed. MOTION by Flfei SECOND by Jessner to approve Condltlonal Use Permlt 7-88, wlth condltlons, by the adoptlon of Resolutlon No. 1553. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 - 2 ABSENT: Rullo, Suggs * * * 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-89 412 MARINA DRIVE IRVINE LIQUOR RESOLUTION NO. 1554 Staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg dellvered the staff report on CUP 11-89 WhlCh lS a request by appllcant, Baslm Hammad, to transfer an eXlstlng off-sale general 11quor 11cense In con]Unctlon wlth the transfer of ownershlp of an eXlstlng 11quor store at 412 Marlne Drlve. Staff recommends approval of CUP 11-89 Wl th condl tlons by the adoptlon of Resolutlon No. 1554. Commlsslon Comments There were no Commlsslon comments. v , . . -. Page 3 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 PubllC Hearlng Jack Kofdaru * 20231 Wlnd Cave Lane. Huntlngton Beach 92646 Mr. Kofdaru sald he lS the partner of the appllcant, BaSlm Hammad. Regardlng the hours of operatlon he and Mr. Hammad want them to be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday - Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Frlday & Saturday. Also, he wlll not have alcohollC beverage advertlslng In the windows. MOTION by Jessneri SECOND by Flfe to approve Condltlonal Use Perlut 11-89 wlth condltions by the adoption of Resolutlon No. 1554. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 - 2 ABSENT: Rullo, Suggs * * * 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-89 12343 SEAL BEACH BLVD. SUPER SAVER CINEMA 7 THEATRES RESOLUTION NO. 1555 Staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg dellvered the staff's report on CUP 12-89. The appllcant, Joshua Davls, lS requestlng the placement of twelve (12) vldeo game machlnes lnside the lobby of the Super Saver Cinema 7 Theatre. Staff recommends approval of CUP 12-89 wlth condltlons by the adoptlon of Resolutlon No. 1555. Mr. Whlttenberg lntroduced a supplemental staff report dated 9-20-89, In WhlCh Pollce Chlef Stearns lndlcated an addltlonal condltlon should be requlred. The condltion should be to evaluate CUP 12- 89 after a perlod of six (6) months for compllance on the theatre's part wlth the condltlons. Also to address the negatlve lmpacts, if any, on the surroundlng communl ty as a result of havlng the vldeo games In the theatre lobby. Commlsslon Comments Mr. Sharp sald he prefers the Clty of Long Beach requlrement that durlng the school year, no person under age 18 lS permltted to operate an amusement machlne between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Rossmoor Bowl may be the only other buslness In the Clty that has several vldeo machlnes. Mr. Whlttenberg lndlcated no CUP for the bowllng alley's vldeo machlnes was located. '--, . . -e Page 4 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of September 20, 1989 Mr. F1fe corrected Fact #9 to be corrected to show the "west" not "north" wall. Mr. F1fe would 11ke to see th1S be a requ1rement versus an opt1on for the mach1nes locat1on. Fact #10 should be mod1f1ed to clar1fy. Staff sa1d the 1ntent 1S for the mach1nes to be turned off when the last show starts. Th1S should read "at the t1me of the scheduled beg1nning of the last show of the even1ng, or 10: 00 p.m., . . .". Regard1ng Recommendat1on #2, patrons can ga1n access to the lobby area w1thout purchas1ng a t1cket. How can th1S be mon1tored? Mr. Jessner thanked staff for the very helpful and thorough supplemental staff report. He acknowledged correspondence (copy attached) from Sanford & Conn1e Barth opposed to th1s CUP. He noted staff had not rece1 ved any compla1nts re the theaters. Where does a v1deo arcade beg1n? He quest10ned the necess1ty of twelve mach1nes. Pub11C Hear1ng Ed F1nney * Century Nat10nal Propert1es. Inc. Mr. F1nney sa1d he represented Century Nat10nal Propert1es' home off1ce. He sa1d they are bU11d1ng all across the nat10n and most of the theatres have a v1deo arcade area. He would prefer to agree to hav1ng fewer v1deo mach1nes and not hav1ng to have a theatre t1cket to play the v1deo mach1nes. The Comm1ss1on expressed concerns W1 th not want1ng to have a v1deo arcade, the lack of pract1cal controls/mon1tor1ng the v1deo game area and add1t1onal l01ter1ng and/or n01se. Carl San Ph111po * 81 Avalon Mr. San Ph111pO sa1d the City should develop a 11cens1ng procedure for v1deo arcades w1th1n the C1ty. Mart1n Camf1eld * 12400 Montec1to Mr. Camf1eld presented, for the Record, a pet1t1on aga1nst v1deo games at th1s locat1on on behalf of the Rossmoor Chateau Homeowners' Assoc1at1on, represent1ng 70 homeowners. (Copy attached). He felt there was not enough 1nformat1on presented to determ1ne the n01se wh1ch m1ght be generated etc. Steve Kahn * 12400 Montec1to Mr. Kahn sa1d Century Nat10nal Propert1es appeared to have 11ttle control of anyth1ng connected with th1s proJect. The were work1ng excess1vely late hours to get the theatres open, employees and/or the1r fr1ends were congregat1ng there late at n1ght, and the garbage was empt1ed late at n1ght. He suggested adJust1ng the scheduling of the last show to end at 10:30 p.m. Joshua Dav1s * 1201 Belmont Avenue. Long Beach Mr. Dav1s 1S the manager of the theatres 1n quest1on. He sa1d they have called the po11ce only once when a patron shoved an . . -. -" Page 5 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of September 20, 1989 employee. They have the1r own security. The last mOV1e 1S over at 11:45 p.m. Marsha Ha1ns * 12400 Montec1to Ms. Ha1ns sa1d they have bU1lt a trash receptacle that's an eyesore. Staff to check permits on trash receptacle. MOTION by F1fei SECOND by Sharp to adopt Cond1t1onal Use Perm1t 12-89 W1th the follow1ng reV1S1ons by the adopt1on of Resolution No. 1555: 1. CUP 12-89 1S approved for the 1nstallat1on of twelve (12) v1deo game mach1nes 1n the lobby of the Super Saver C1nema 7 Theatre, along the West wall. 2. That persons shall be allowed to play the mach1nes only after purchas1ng a ticket. The exact control method shall be developed by the owner and approved by staff. It shall ensure that users are l1m1ted to t1cket holders. 3. That the v1deo game mach1nes be turned off at the t1me sale of t1ckets for the f1nal show of the even1ng ceases, or 10:30 p.m., wh1chever comes first. 4. That the on-duty manager of the theatre shall mon1tor the v1deo game area to prevent the l01ter1ng of 1nd1v1duals 1n the lobby. 5. That the bus1ness l1cense fee for the video game mach1nes be pa1d to complete the appl1cat1on process. 6. That w1th the appl1cant's consent, the operat1on of the theatre be between 9:00 a.m. a.m. (m1dn1ght). hours of and 12:00 7. That no person shall be permitted to play the game mach1nes dur1ng hours when any public or private school 1S 1n regular seSS10n 1n the C1 t1es of Los Alami tos, Seal Beach or the uninCOrPOrated area known as Rossmoor unless such persons's age 1S 18 years or more. Theatre owner shall requ1re 1dent1f1cation in cases of doubt. 8. Cond1t1onal Use Perm1t 12-89 1S to be rev1ewed after a per10d of S1X (6) months for comp11ance on the theatre's part w1th the above condit1ons and to address any negative 1mpacts as a result of hav1ng v1deo games 1n the theatre lobby. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 - 2 ABSENT: Rullo, Suggs . . . ,. Page 6 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of september 20, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. HELLMAN RANCH/MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORP. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT staff Report Lee whlttenberg dellvered the staff's report on the Development Agreement between the Clty and Mola Development Corporatlon for the Hellman Ranch property. He stated thlS lS a request by Mola to approve the Development Agreement for 355 single faml1y resldences, 15.02 acres of communlty parks, 36.68 acres of wetlands/open space and 11.25 acres of Gum Grove Park. Staff recommended approval of the Development Agreement and the forwardlng of 1 t to the Cl ty councl1 for a publlC hearlng and flnal conslderatlon. Commlsslon Comments Mr. Jessner sald he had questlons on exhlblts statlng they were revlsed Slnce the Plannlng CommlSSlon hearlngs. QUlnn Barrow sald CommlSSlon concerns regardlng clarlflcatlon, changes etc. should be expressed to the Cl ty Councl1 members. Tonlght, the only ]urlsdlctlon the Commlssion has lS to reVlew the Development Agreement. Mr. Whlttenberg sald the lntent of the attachments lS to represent the flnal approvals of the proJect as approved by the Clty Councl1. If there lS concern that the condltlons are not represented correctly please let staff know and staff wl11 get back (to the Councl1) to double check to see the terms and conditlons that are ln these documents are truly what was approved by the Clty Councl1. Power L1nes Along Bolsa - Mr. Jessner sald one of hlS concerns was removal of the power 11nes along Bolsa Avenue. Thelr removal does not appear ln these documents as a part of thlS development. Mr. Sharp sald the power 11nes are controlled by Edlson, not Mola. Mr. Whl ttenberg sald the lssue of an agreement between Edlson and Mola has come up. He has talked to both representatlves and the baslc posltlon lS that once the 11nes are abandoned on the Hellman property ltself, the contlnuatlon of the 11ne along Marlna, Bolsa and back up to Rockwell wl11 no longer be necessary. Mola has lndlcated they wl11 pay the cost for removal of those 11nes through a separate agreement between Mola and Edison. At thlS tlme that agreement has not been prepared. Edlson wl11 be worklng on lt and lt should be ready ln 3 - 4 months. Mr. Sharp asked about the property under the 11nes. Mr. Whlttenberg sald he was not certaln lf the llne along Bolsa lS fee ownershlp by Edlson or lf they have an easement for the 11nes. If they have an easement, the easement wl11 be abandoned once the 11nes are removed because Edlson cannot have an easement unless they have a power 11ne. If It'S abandoned, then the tltle . . . to Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of September 20, 1989 reverts back to the underlying property owner - wh1ch 1n most cases 1S the homeowner. If the 11nes are on property wh1ch 1S owned 1n fee by Ed1son, at the t1me they abandon those r1ghts to the property 1t then reverts back to the prev10us owner of the property from whom they purchased 1t. F1nd1ng the or1g1nal owner 1S somet1mes a d1ff1cult process. Staff could f1nd out what the s1tuat10n 1S and let the Comm1SS10n know. 3.1 - Beneflts to Clty - Mr. Jessner had a quest10n about (b): (b) contrlbutlon of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) to Cl ty for restoratlon and l.mprovement of Gum Grove Park; He sal.d th1s has changed S1nce 1t was rev1ewed at the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n, probably through the C1ty Council hear1ngs. During the Comm1SS10n hear1ngs there was no dollar f1gure placed on the restorat10n of Gum Grove Park. It was left to the developer to restore Gum Grove Park. Where d1d th1s $150,000 est1mate come from? Mr. Sharp sa1d 1 twas d1scussed at the last Comm1ss10n d1Scuss10n before recommend1ng 1 t to the Counc11. Mr. Sharp asked how th1s w111 be 1mplemented? W111 Mola pay the C1ty the $150,000 l.n cash? W111 Mola do the work and the C1ty pays them for 1t? Could the C1ty put the work out on b1d? Mr. Sharp sa1d he heard that 1f an 1rr1gat10n system 1S put 1n the C1ty would poss1bly get r1d of the Longhorn Borer. Therefore, the park restorat10n should be done over a long per10d of t1me - the C1ty ml.ght not have to remove certa1n trees. Mr. Wh1ttenberg referenced Resolut10n No. 3823, approv1ng Tentat1ve Tract Map 13198 (page 20, l.tem 27 (a) (1-6)). Items 1 - 6 go 1nto deta11 as to the type of actions requ1red regardl.ng the 1nfestat10n, the removal of trees, types of trees acceptable as replacement trees, 1rr1gat10n plan and access to the area plus the fund1ng of the $150,000. Staff referenced the attached documents because they d1d not want to put all of the cond1t10ns etc. placed 1nto the Development Agreement 1 tself . Mr. Jessner asked staff 1f the $150,000 f1gure had been worked through and that was enough to make the park 1mprovements? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d he would assume so but that he was not W1 th the C1 ty at the t1me the hear1ngs were conducted. The $150,000 f1gure came about as part of Counc11 act10ns. 12.10 - Parkland Purchase - Mr. Jessner sa1d what he or1g1nally approved (the concept and the plan) had baseball fl.elds as a part of th1S ent1re proJect. The proposed plan got changed where the baseball f1elds were taken out of the plan of the development area and proposed to be put across the street on the Hellman property and 5 acres was to be purchased from Hellman. H1S ma1n concern 1S that we do end up W1 th a baseball fac111 ty for the children 1n the commun1ty. Mr. Jessner sa1d th1s word1ng 1S: . . . - . Page 8 - Plannlng Commlssion Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 Ne1ther the f1nal map for Tentat1ve Parcel Map No. ____ nor the f1nal map for Vest1ng Tentat1ve Map No. 13198 shall be approved by C1ty unt11 Hellman Propert1es prov1des a wr1tten offer to sell to C1ty f1ve acres of cont1guous land for park and recreat10n purposes located on a s1te north of Hellman Ranch Road w1th reasonable access to such road. ThlS does not say we are gOlng to get thls property; we are gOlng to get an offer to sell. It lsn't sure lf the Clty lS are gOlng to get thlS property. PubllC Hearlng Opened Klrk Evans * Mola Development Mr. Evans sald Mola and thelr attorney lS present to answer any questlons they can regardlng thlS document. Regardlng the 5 acre parcel, the Hellman's have responded and have submltted an offer to the Clty and the Clty has submltted lnformatlon back to the Hellman's. The Councll made lt very clear to the Hellman's, to Mola and the Communlty that we are not gOlng to have a development wlthout those 5 acres. ThlS has been done and they are negotlatlng the price right now. The Councll met ln executlve seSSlon. 3.1 Beneflts to C1ty - Mr. Sharp sald he wants the Clty Councll to know when lt comes to the lmprovement of PCH at Westmlnster WhlCh happens to be ln Long Beach that he would llke to see negotlatlon between our Clty Councll and the Clty of Long Beach to mltlgate a problem at College Park West. 12.6 - Park Land Dedlcatlons and Monetary Contr1bution - Mr. Sharp sald he would llke Mr. Evan's comments. Mr. Evans sald the Cl ty wlll accept Gum Grove Park after 1 t lS complete and Mola plans to do the work. The process wlll be that the communl ty wlll get together and come up wlth the type of lmprovements they want. That plan wlll be presented to the Parks & Rec Commlsslon. From there the plan wlll go to the Counc11. There wlll be at least two publlC hearlngs. Phaslng of dlseased trees should be dlscussed. 12.8 - Payment of One M11110n Dollars - Mr. mllllon dollar cash payment wlll be when 3/4 of completed. The Councll accepted thlS as part of Map. Evans sald the thelr homes are the Vested Tract 12.9 - Wetlands Mit1gat1on Program - Mr. Sharp read ltem 12.9 and asked for clariflcatlon on when thlS wetlands restoratlon would be completed. Mr. Evans sald the wetlands restoratlon is a "grey area" that lS unknown at thls tlme. Mola lS to help fund a wetlands restoratlon plan. Various agencles have lnput as to . Page 9 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of September 20, 1989 what type of restorat1on plan their w1II be. Mr. Evans sa1d he d1d not have a date for restorat1on complet1on. Th1S cond1t1on was put 1n place at the urging of the C1ty Counc11 based on the event there lS no agency w1ll1ng to take over the wetlands, then after 20 years the Counc11 felt the C1ty wanted the land and that 1 t should not revert back to Mola. Mr. Sharp asked what t1me frame the State gave Mola for gett1ng 1t 1n operat1ng? Mr. Evans sa1d at th1S t1me Mola has no cond1t1ons of approval, that w1II come from the Coastal Comm1SS1on. If they have a prov1s1on requ1r1ng wetlands restorat1on there would be a t1me per1od. Mr. Jessner asked who would prepare the restorat1on plan? Mr. Evans sa1d so far Mola has been prepar1ng the plan 1n conJunct1on w1th 1nput from all of the var10US State and Federal agenc1es. If 1 t' s determ1ned the State wants that area restored, then Mola would propose a plan for restorat1on. That plan would 1nclude t1me Ilm1ts. It would come back before the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on. Mr. F1fe asked what the Ilab1l1ty for property taxes on the wetlands 1n the 1nter1m per10d --- between when Mola acqu1res t1tle and the t1me 1tS tax-exempt owner takes t1tle from you? Mola would 1mmed1ately try to put th1S 1nto an exempt status as you would a common area. If unsuccessful, Mola would pay the property taxes. . 12.11 - Development Fees - Mr. Sharp sa1d the C1 ty Counc11 lS presently cons1der1ng enact1ng an ord1nance for development fees. The t1m1ng lS so close that 1t could/could not affect Mola. Mr. Evans sa1d Mola was aware of th1S. QU1nn Barrow sa1d there was a prov1s1on 1n the draft ord1nance that certa1n proJects would be exempt from the fees 1f they've rece1ved d1scret1onary perm1ts pr10r to a certa1n date. Mola would most llkely be exempt from those traff1c m1t1gat1on fees. . 9.2 - By Clty - Mr. F1fe sa1d the C1ty lS contractually agree1ng to 1ndemn1fy and hold harmless the Developer etc. for certa1n types of cla1ms arls1ng from act1v1t1es of the C1ty Wh1Ch relate to th1S proJect. It cont1nues to requ1re the "Clty agrees to and shall defend Developer from actlons for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Clty'S actlvltles ln connection wlth the ProJect". Mr. F1fe bel1eved there are severe restr1ct1ons on the capac1ty of a governmental ent1ty to contractually agree to 1ndemn1fy a pr1vate person. Mr. F1fe sa1d he lS concerned 1f the C1ty lS glving up any of 1tS 1mmun1t1es that 1t's ent1tled to 1n the absence of any contractual agreement 11ke th1S. QU1nn Barrow sa1d the 1ntent of 9.2 read 1n conJunct1on w1th 9.1 lS that it's really a rec1procal 1ndemn1flcat1on where the C1ty lS respons1ble for 1tS own act10ns and Mola w1II be responsible for 1tS own act1ons. He dldn't th1nk any addlt10nal language was necessary as 1t'S covered by 9.1 and 9.2 read together. Mr. F1fe sald governments are generally restr1cted from 1ndemn1fY1ng pr1vate part1es but the reverse lS not true. Mr. Barrow sa1d the C1ty Attorney's Off1ce would further reVlew 9.2's last sentence to make sure the C1ty Il""'" . Page 10 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 lS not glvlng up anythlng lt doesn't have to. Davld Colgan, legal counsel for Mola, lndlcated that reclprocal lndemnlty In thlS type of sltuatlon lS approprlate. The case law he's read would not restrlct that type of lndemnl ty. Mr. Flfe sald he reads 9.2 that the Clty has to "defend and lndemnlfy" Just based on a plalntlff's allegatlons WhlCh mlght not be found to be true. If we defend for the flrst four years of the lawsult, lf the Clty was not responslble, then our defense costs would be returned? Mr. Colgan sald 1 t would most llkely be handled by everybody tenderlng lt thru thelr lnsurance carrlers and the Court would declde who's responslble. 10.1 - No Conf11ct1ng Enactments - Mr. Flfe questloned the Clty shall not enact any confllctlng enactments WhlCh affect thlS proJect. Does that clause restrlct the ablllty of the Clty to enact emergency measures that mlght confllct Wl th thlS? Mr. Colgan sald lf lt could be shown that it were a true emergency, llke a sewer overflow necessltatlng a shutdown, the Courts would recognlze that as controlllng over thlS. ThlS addresses future posslble ordlnance restrlctlng growth tlmlng WhlCh could overrlde thlS agreement. A true emergency always controls. . 12.4 - Changes and Amendments - Mr. Flfe asked Mr. Evans lf ltems A E would requlre any changes as to the tlmlng of the development and/or lmprovement of the communlty park and/or Gum Grove Park lS also a substantlve matter. Mr. Evans stated Mola always assumed that that was a materlal change that would have to come back before the Clty (If Mola trled to change the development of the parks) because lt'S a condltlon of the Tract Map approval as well. 12.6 - Park Land Ded1cat1ons and Monetary Contr1but1on - Mr. Flfe asked about: "Developer shall also estab11sh an annu1ty or other mechan1sm in a form approved by the C1ty Attorney for the ma1ntenance costs of the Commun1ty Park for a per10d of ten (10) years in accordance w1th the budget set forth 1n the separate agreement for the 1mprovement of the Commun1 ty Park". . Does the ten years begln (In the mlnd of the developer) wlth the completlon of phase I of the communlty park, completlon of phase II of the communlty park or completlon of Gum Grove? Mr. Colgan sald the ten years only relates to the communlty park. Mr. Evans sald lt would be ten years from when Mola turns lt over to the Clty. So when the flrst half of the communlty park lS complete and accepted by the Clty, then the ten year program would start. The lntent has always been that the developer would pay for ten years of malntenance for the entlre communlty park system. The communlty park wlll be bUllt In two phases and lt wlll be turned over as each phase lS completed. Mola lS to provlde the fundlng . . . Page 11 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 for the maintenance. There mlght be two annultles. sald lt flrst has to be establlshed what's gOlng In the park. The Clty and Mola wlll concur on a budget and the fundlng wlll be avallable for that malntenance. Mr. Evans communlty guarantee 12.8 - Payment of $1.000.000 - Mr. Fife asked where the money comlng from to purchase and lmprove the 5 acres for the ball dlamonds. Mr. Evans sald you'd have to ask the Cl ty Councll. Mola wlll pay the Clty $1,000,000. The Councll has not made a declslon yet how they want to go about acqulrlng the Hellman 5 acre property. The $1,000,000 lS not earmarked for the ball dlamonds. Mr. Flfe asked Mr. Evans lf $1,000,000 would be adequate to purchase and lmprove that 5 acres? Mr. Evans sald the Councll has chosen to say the purchase prlce lS gOlng to be "falr market value". The Hellman's had made an offer. QUlnn Barrow sald an appralser would determlne the falr market value wlth ltS current zonlng of 011 productlon. Mr. Sharp sald the last portlon of 12.8 should be deleted endlnq the last sentence "at the sole dlscretlon of Clty.n 12.5 - Mello-Roos Communlty Faclllties Dlstrict - Mr. Jessner asked what's gOlng to be flnanced? Mr. Evans sald nothlng has been declded. 16.1 - Perlodic Revlew. Progress lS proceedlng as proJected. The term "partles" refers to staff. Mr. Whlttenberg sald staff would keep the CommlSSlon advlsed totally. PubllC Hearlng Galen Ambrose * Wetlands Restoratlon Soclety - read a seven pOlnt Wetlands Restoratlon Soclety Comments to Development Agreement, dated 9-20-89. A copy lS attached to these Mlnutes for reference. Chalrman Sharp asked Mr. Ambrose to dlrect hlS comments to the Development Agreement and not stray lnto envlronmental lssues. Marlo Voce * 730 Catallna - Spoke on lnconslstency in lnformation to the publlC. Carl San PhlllpO * 801 Avalon - Sald he wanted the developer to provlde dust control when worklng, that the hours of operatlon be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and that malntenance actlvltles be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and not earller. He also requested deed restrlctlons for the proposed homes adJacent to eXlstlng Hlll area homes so they not have sWlmmlng pools, have no wood burnlng flreplaces (only gas) and no outslde speakers. . . . Page 12 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 Klrk Evans * Mola Development - Mr. Evans had no rebuttal. There was no further commentary and the PubllC Hearlng was closed. MOTION by F1fei SECOND by Development Agreement w1th Comm1ss1on to be cons1dered their legal counsel 1n the1r Jessner to approve the proposed comments v01ced by the Plann1ng by the C1 ty Counc11 W1 th adv1ce of approval of the f1nal document: 9.2 - By C1ty. Add statement to read: The forego1ng shall not enlarge the C1ty'S 11ability beyond what it would be 1n the absence of this language or otherw1se abr1dge or el1m1nate any 1mmun1t1es the C1ty would be ent1tled to assert. 10.1 - No Confl1cting Enactments. Add sentence to clarify: Th1S language shall not restr1ct the C1ty's ab111 ty 1n the event of an emergency to take such measures as 1t deems necessary to deal W1th an emergency even 1f such measures may be 1ncompat1ble W1th other terms of th1S Development Agreement. 12.6 - Park Land Ded1cations and Monetary Contr1but1on. Add language to clar1fy: That ten (10) years from complet1on of each of the two (2) phases ... developer shall also establ1sh an annu1ty ..... There may be two (2) annuit1es. 12.8 - PaYment of One M11110n Dollars ($1.000.000)- Remove " . . ., ei ther for (a) the purchase from the Hellman Fam1ly of an add1t1onal parcel of land located 1mmed1ately north of the ProJect to be ut111zed by C1ty for park purposes, or (b) general fund purposes as determ1ned by City". MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 - 2 ABSENT: Rullo, Suggs * * * SCHEDULED MATTERS 6. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE Mr. Whl ttenberg sald thlS matter was referred to the Plannlng CommlSSlon for reVlew and any comments you may w1sh to make back to the Councll. The Councll 1S In the poslt1on of cons1dering the adopt1on of an ord1nance that would establlsh a process to requlre development lmpact fees for allevlatlon of transportatlon problems wlthln the communlty as new developments occur withln . Page 13 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 the town. Staff has prepared an ordlnance for conslderatlon WhlCh the Councl1 wll1 be conslderlng September 25, 1989 at a PubllC Hearlng. They dld refer the matter back to the CommlSSlon for reVlew and comments as to the general dlrectlon the Clty lS attemptlng to take regardlng this lssue and the method thelr proposlng to try and resolve sltuatlons eXlstlng wlthln the communlty at thls tlme. . Mr. Flfe sald Clty'S frequently flnd themselves In lS that as each development comes In It'S the proverblal addlng of "a stlck to the back of a camel" ... we reach a pOlnt where some developer adds a stlck that "breaks the camel's back". That would requlre the slgnallzatlon of a prevlously unslgnaled lntersectlon etc. We wlnd up lmposlng unreallstlc fees on the last "guy In the door" because hlS development pushes thlngs beyond the brlnk. He sald we should glve some thought to looklng ahead ... asklng what lmpact wll1 thlS development have lmmedlately and In the future? As an example, the person who puts up an offlce bUlldlng encourages the next person to bUlld a restaurant to serve those offlce workers etc. Flnally, down the 11ne, the last developer does somethlng that pushes the 11mlt and he gets tagged wlth an lmposslble level of fees. Everyone should put In a reallstlc part of the overall costs and let it grow lnterest. Mr. Whlttenberg sald that lS the baslc lntent of thlS ordlnance. It wll1 requlre the Clty, as far as trafflc lssues go, to conduct a study of the eXlstlng trafflc levels In the communlty and determlne the eXlstlng deflclencles In the system that are there due to current development and to make a prO]ectlon as to antlclpated trafflc rate levels wlthln the communlty up to the year 2000 based on prO]ectlons of new houslng, addltlonal retal1 and serVlce uses. The DIF wll1 then be determlned based on the necessary lmprovements to handle the deflclencles WhlCh wll1 be created by the new trafflc from new development between the tlme of the adoptlon of the lmplementlng ordlnance WhlCh establlsh the fees and that year 2000. All eXlstlng deflclencles (slgnallzatlon, channellzatlon of left turn lanes etc.) ... those types of lmprovements wll1 need to be funded out of the Clty's general funds. Those cannot be charged as part of the DIFs. New development wll1 then be charged thelr pro-rata share of the antlclpated costs of the new lmprovements. It does not allow the Clty to charge a new developer a fee to correct a pre-exlstlng Sl tuatlon. Pre-exlstlng Sl tuatlons could be addressed through the envlronmental reVlew process. On new development condltlons the Clty, under thlS ordlnance and the process lt establlshes, would allow the Clty to recoup those fees on a pro]ect-by-pro]ect basls based on the amount of traffic that proJect would create. . QUlnn Barrow sald the key lS the prO]ectlon on the Clty's bUlldout. If thlS ordlnance lS passed the Cl ty wll1 hlre a consultant who wll1 determlne what the Clty'S bUlldout lS, what the trafflc levels wll1 be at that tlme. And then, on a case-by- . Page 14 - Plannlng Comrnlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 case basls how much each person wll1 be contrlbutlng on an lncremental level to that trafflc - that's what they'll pay. Mr. Flfe sald he hopes the subtle aspect of development generatlon wll1 not be lost In thls ordlnance. For example, not only the trafflc that the developer's gOlng to generate wlth a speclflc development but the extent to WhlCh he lS contrlbutlng to the ultlmate overall bUlldout of the area and what lt wll1 be when lt lS all bUllt out. Mr. Whlttenberg sald thlS lssue wll1 be dealt wlth by the consultants. ThlS wll1 be done In ten year lncrements. QUlnn Barrow sald thlS lS the flrst step of the process. The ordlnance could be adopted Wl thin the next two months. The Councl1 could lntroduce the ordlnance on Monday, 9-25-89. It's the enabllng ordinance to get the studles performed and the actual lmposltlon of fees wll1 come In the form of a resolutlon after the studles have been completed. At that pOlnt we'll have a formula based on all the studles and a resolutlon before the Councl1 glvlng the formula and the amount requlred from the dlfferent developers. ThlS lmposes the obllgatlon but doesn't set the fee. . Mr. Jessner asked lf a part of thlS wasn't a reVlew of the General Plan. Mr. Barrow sald 1 twas lnterllnked. ThlS was another dlrectlon from Councll. The Clty lS gOlng out for Requests For Proposals (RFP) to look at the General Plan. The Clrculatlon Element lS deflnl tely tled lnto thls because the lnformatlon from the studles wll1 be appllcable to the Clrculatlon Element. There wll1 be other RFP's concernlng dlfferent elements of the General Plan. That lnformatlon wll1 come before the Plannlng Comrnlsslon In the future when the studles are completed. ThlS ltem did not have to come before the ComrnlSSlon because lts not part of a zonlng ordlnance. But the Clty Council wanted some lnput from the Commlssloners. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Jessner that the CommlSS1on comments set forth in these Mlnutes (above) be passed on to the City Councll. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 ABSENT: Rullo, Suggs ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral comrnunlcatlons from the audlence. . STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. . Page 15 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of September 20, 1989 COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Jessner sald he wanted the Commlsslon to gl ve dlrectlon to staff re schedullng hearings (whenever they can be agendlzed) for the purpose of establlshlng requlrements and an ordlnance relatlng to vldeo machlnes and arcades. Mr. Whlttenberg sald a status report would be placed on the next CommlSSlon Agenda and lt could be dlscussed more fully at that tlme. Mr. Jessner sald the alcohollC beverage CUPs, advertlslng In the wlndows, has been a part of the condltlons placed on the CUPs and lS not a part of any ordinance. The CommlSSlon should agendlze and dlSCUSS keeplng thlS POllCY as lt is, modlfy lt, or do away wlth It. As dlscussed tonlght, It's being 19nored and we're not enforclng It. Staff wlll place thls POllCY lssue, WhlCh lS not codlfled, on the next Agenda (10-4-89). . Mr. Flfe sald he would llke to dlSCUSS the gradual converSlon of retall sales tax generatlng commerclal space lnto commerclal offlce usage and/or other usages which do not lnherently generate sales tax. He sald, after looking at Rossmoor Shopplng Center recently, there lS an increaslng number of buslnesses that lnherently won't generate sales tax revenues. Mr. Sharp sald thls ltem was agendlzed for the 9-6-89 Plannlng Commlsslon meetlng. At that tlme lt was tabled to walt for the Retall Sales Commlttee's report. It wlll come back to the CommlSSlon as soon as the report lnformatlon lS In. Mr. Whl ttenberg sald he was talklng wlth the Clty Manager this afternoon because the Retall Commlttee was meetlng tonlght. H1S recollectlon of thelr charge from the Councll was that thlS lS not really an lssue under thelr purvlew. He dld not feel lt was approprlate for them to conslder that lssue. He wanted to thlnk about 1 t and see lf he stlll feels that way In a day or two and we'll get back to the CommlSSlon wlth what he feels should be done. Mr. Sharp sald the Retall Sales Comml ttee may not have had that charge but they should help the CommlSSlon In maklng that type of declslon because they were charged to come up Wl th ways and means of lncreaslng the retall sales tax. Thelr study should help us complete our thoughts on thlS. Mr. Whlttenberg sald, In revlewlng materlals, hlS lmpresslon was they were speclflcally to deal wlth the lssue of CUPs for offlces In retall areas. . Mr. Flfe sald he thought 1 t would be lnterestlng to have a tabulatlon of WhlCh tenants currently have a retall sales permlt. Mr. Sharp sald he would ask the manager of the Rossmoor Center lf she would be wllllng to supply hlm wlth a 11St of the store that are retall sales. He would also request a llst of last year's converSlon from retall stores to non-sales tax bUSlnesses. . . . ., Page 16 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of September 20, 1989 ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adJourned the meet1ng at 11:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Cjgo~ ' J an F1llmann, Secretary Department of Development - Serv1ces THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER ~o, 1989 APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER ~, 1989. WERE ~ . . . September 20, 1989 WETLANDS RESTORATION SOCIETY COMMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1. Houslng Element of General Plan lS lnvalld. The Development Agreement cannot be approved wlthout a valld Houslng Element. 2. Develo~ment Agreement, Sec. 3.1: Descrlbes 36 acres of wetland. ThlS lS lnconslstent wlth amendments Just adopted In Resolutlon 3820, Resolutlon 3821 and Ordlnance No. 1279 WhlCh calls for 37.9 acres of wetlands. 3. The Development Agreement is lnconslstent wlth Resolutlon 3824 (certlfYlng the Flnal EIR) WhlCh called for preservatlon and restoratlon of 41.4 acres of wetlands. 4. Development Agreement, Sec. 3.1, calls for dedlcatlon of Gum Grove Park and the Communlt~ Park to the Clty of Seal Beach, "WhlCh amount of acreage lS In excess of the Clty's QUlmby Act Re9ulrements." No acreage lS glven In the Agreement. If the Clty'S QUlmby Act requlrements are more than 24.39 (10.65 acres for Gum Grove and 13.7 acres for the communlty park), the Development Agreement lS lnconslstent wlth Res. 3820, 3821, 3824 and Ord. 1279 (WhlCh descrlbes 26.6 acres to be dedicated). 5. The Development Agreement lS inconslstent wlth the Houslng Element of the General Plan WhlCh requlres 100 unlts of affordable houslng on the Hellman Ranch. 6. Numerous slgnlficant environmental lmpacts, le. geology, floodzone area, trafflc, water, sewage, hazardous waste, etc. ,are belng admlnlstratlvely handled lnstead of through the public revlewing process which lS lnconsistant wlth the declslon In Seqerstrom WhlCh ruled thlS procedure lnvalld. 7. Acreages of wetlands and park lands are lnconslstant from one document to the next and lnconslstant wlth the acreages In the publlC revlewlng process. ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS ARE SUBMITTED FOR ENTRY INTO THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS DATE. ATTACHMENT /9-20-89 MINUTES / -- September 18, 1989 . TO PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH Gentlemen The Board of D1rectors of the Rossmoor Chateau Home- owners' Assoc1at1on, represent1ng 70 homeowners, lS opposed to the proposed placement of twelve(12) v1deo games 1n the lobby of the eX1st1ng theatre at 12343 Seal Beach Blvd., Seal Beach, CA (Super Saver C1nemas 7). ~ Earl . ~ ~~~ -XQ/fwL Kenneth Itcheck, Treas. k~~ Max Samovar, Member at Large . ATTACHMENT /9-20-89 MINUTES . . . September 20, 1989 STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENT To. Honorable ChaIrman and PlannIng Comm1ss1on From Development Serv1ces Department RE VIDEO GAME MACHINES, 12343 SEAL BEACH BLVD SUPER SAVER CINEMA 7 THEATRE BACKGROUND CUP 12-89 The follow1ng Informat1on 1S be1ng provIded to supplement the Staff Report on CUP 12-89 Seal Beach PolIce ChIef BIll Stearns stated the conc~tlons (of the Staff report) IncludIng requestIng Super Saver CInema (SSC) to reqUIre patrons to purchase a tIc.t<et prIor to enterIn~ tbe theatre, to have the mach1nes turned off at approxImately 10 00, and to have theatre staff mon1tor the VIdeo game area were all adequate ChIef Stearns IndIcated an addItIonal condlt~on snould be reqUIred The condItIon should be to evaluate CUP 12-89, after a perIod of SIX (6) months, for complIance on the theatre's part WIth the above condItIons, and to address the negatIve Impacts, If any, on the surroundIng communIty as a resLlt of navlng the VIdeo games In the theatre lobby DISCUSSION Staff surveyed CItIes adJacent to Seal Beach regardIng theIr polICIes toward Vlaeo game machInes The CItIes Involved Incloded Los Alamltos, Westm1nster, Garden Grove, HuntIngton Beach and Long Beach BrIefly, the follOWIng are the polICIes of these CItIes Los Alamltos VIdeo arcades (any establIshment WIth three (3) or more VIdeo machInes) are prohlblteci Two (2) machInes are allowed prOVIded the applIcant obtaIns a DusIness lIcense to operate them on the premIses WestmInster Up to four (4) VIdeo game machInes are allowed through a bUSIness lIcense F~ve (5\ or more machInes at one establIshment constItute a VIdeo arcade for WhICh a Condltlona~ Use PermIt must be obta1ned ATTACHMENT TO 9-20-89 MINUTES . . . Staff Report Supplement CUP 12-89, September 20, 1989 Page 2 Garden Grove Garden Grove also allows up to four (4) vldeo game machlnes through a buslness llcense Flve (5) or more machlnes may be lnstalled upon approval of a Condltlonal Use Permlt, and only In a buslness located In tne General Commerclal Zone (C-2) only Huntlngton Beach Wjore tnan four (4) machlnes constltute a vldeo arcaae, WhlCh requlres a use permlt through the zonlng admlnlstrator (the USE:' perm1t lS a publlC hear lng, though O~lY abutt_ng property owners are not1fled) Tn 1nstall four mach1nes or less slmply requlres a buslness lIcense Lonq Beach Vldeo games are not perm~tted In any buslness wnere take-out alcohol sales const1tute more than 50% of t~e gross recelpts (~Iquor stores) Up to four (4) machlDe5 a:e pelm~tted Where allowed through a buslness llcense Durlng the school year, no pe!SOD under tne age of 18 lS permltted to oper&te an amusement machIne (vldeo, plnball etc ) betWE:'en tne nours of 8 00 a mana 3 00 P m LICENSING Sectlon 11-:;3 (25) of the Seal Beac-h mun.l.clpal COdE (SBMC; states t~e buslness 11cense fee for amusement mach1Des, 1nc.l.ud1ng electron.l.c games and pInball mac-hInes, 1S $00 00 per machIne Therefore, sho~ld CUP 12-89 be approved for the Installat10n of all twelve (12) vldeo game machInes, sse would be reqo:-ed to pay a llcense fee of $360 00 WhlCh must be renewed yearly along wlth thelr regular bUS1ness llCenSE:' ThE:' fee amount lS not pro-rateo, and the date for renewal 1S J~ly 1st of eaCh year .. . . . " Staff Report Supplement CUP 12-89, September 20, 1989 Page 3 For September 20, 1989 ""'\ O~~ .fonn Fraser Admlnlstrat~ve Alde Development SerVlces ~ " Department / / ~ =-.7" i'// /"]~ ./ /..-U ./ L/' / /' r:..~./ /~ ,-," r;- Lee Whlttenberg ./ Dlrector Development Serv~ces DepartMent · SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: CUP 12-89 , . SANFORD & CONNIE BARTH 12400 MONTECfTO RO. .301 SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 q!17/S1 . f~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~, :J-I[ ~ ~ ir ,g~ ~l ~ ?~7'1D ~. dk- t</~ ~% ~~) ~~~~~ -:e.,~ ~ ~<L ~ ~~~ ~r-8~ ~7 ~~"L ~ ~ ~ /2- V~ ~~~~~~~ 7t:::::- ~ ~ ~~ ~L- Ct.-'L-L ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ 15' ~ _.~ t~7~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~d~ ~, ~~~~ ~~~~~ . ATTACHMENT TO 9-20-89 MINUTES . . .., . \~ ~R;,~~~ ~~~ 4~ . ~ 'L'~" ~ ~pD ~ A,"rOe~ :; ~~~~~ ~~~~~ f~~p :::l;Z:: ~ ~ ~~ -.f2 ~ ,Q '.2U! . S~/~ _ ~ ~ f3~ r . . . 11,