HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-10-03
..
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 1990
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Alleglance was led by Commissloner Orsinl.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairman Fife
Commissloners Orsinl, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman
Staff
Present:
Lee Whlttenberg, Dlrector, Development Srvcs. Dept.
Barry Curtis, Admln. Asst., Development Srvcs. Dept.
Mlchael Cho, Admln. Intern, Development Srvcs. Dept.
CONSENT CALENDAR
*
HONORING JOE RULLO * RESOLUTION No. 1560
Chalrman Flfe read Resolution No. 1560, stating this was to
publicly honor and thank Mr. Rullo for hlS serVlce to the Clty
of Seal Beach as a Plannlng Commissioner from 1987 to 1990.
1.
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Minutes of
September 19, 1990 with the same correction at pages 9 and 11
to read "full height curb ~ determined to be necessary. . . ".
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Fife, Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman
***
2. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #13-90
123 EIGHTH STREET
Staff Report
Mike Cho dellvered the staff report. The applicant, Mitchell
Sheltraw (archltect) for owner Albert Brown, requested to make
mlnor structural alteratlons involving an exterior remodel and to
add 801 square feet of additional livlng area to an existing legal
non-conforming building at 123 Eighth Street. Staff recommended
the Planning Commission approve Mlnor Plan Review #13-90 subject
to three conditlons.
Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
-.
commission Comments
Commissloner orsini asked lf the west elevatlon facing 8th street
had no wlndows? Mr. Cho said the applicant could better address
thlS lssue with the Commission when maklng his comments.
Commlssioner Sharp sald he would defer his questions until the
applicant spoke.
Commissloner McCurdy noted the remodel is extensive and will change
a one-story building to a two-story buildlng. He indicated the
dens could easily be converted into addltlonal bedrooms by addlng
a shelf and clothes rod. He wondered if the Plannlng Commisslon
could approve thls proposal for 801 square feet of habltable area
with inadequate parking (a three-car garage) just one block off
Maln Street when the Clty Council had very recently turned down a
request by Jim Watson for addltional non-habitable storage space
at 101 Main street due to parking considerations.
.
Commlssioner Dahlman was concerned about a change ln staff report
format, statlng the staff recommendations are usually spelled out
when presented to the Planning Commission and this staff report
asks the Commission to approve a project subject to conditions to
be determined in the future by the Building Department.
Commlssloner Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg lf thlS a change ln
format or approach? Mr. Whittenberg said lt's been difficult to
arrange a mutually agreeable lnspection time between the owner of
the bUlldlng, hlS tenants and the Clty's Building Inspectors when
the Inspectors can get ln and look at all flve units at one time.
Mr. Whlttenberg indicated the City made a determlnation that "for
existing non-conforming residential properties that are non-
conforming due to density or parking that they can automatically
be granted the rlght to add an additional 10% floor area to that
structure without having to go through the Variance process. The
City Codes don't allow that same process for commerclal structures,
i.e., 101 Main Street". Mr. whittenberg stated lithe indivlduals
before you this evening are complying wlth the requirements of the
Code and they are not required to seek a Variance because of the
provislons of the Code".
.
Commlssioner Dahlman stated the Councll has expressed a vlewpoint
regarding lncreases in sizes of bUlldings regardless of thelr being
commercial or residential. He said "I would share his (McCurdy's)
reticence in going ahead wlth a project that does not flt in wlth
the splrit of what we're trYlng to do in town here". Mr.
Whittenberg said there was concern expressed at Councll level
regarding commercial uses but he did not hear any concern at the
tlme of the Public Hearing before Councll regarding the existlng
provisions of the Code for adding onto existing non-conformlng
residential structures. He stated "I thlnk you need to be very
'.
.
.
Page 3 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
careful to act 1n compliance with the provisions of the Code as
they currently are constructed which at th1S point in time would
allow this appl1cat10n to be approved because he meets all the
requ1rements that are currently set forth 1n the Code. I think if
you have a concern with that process ObV10usly then once you've
made your determ1nation on the item before you this even1ng to
art1culate those concerns and then let us pass those forward up to
the City Council and let them review the ent1re issue if you feel
that's appropriate".
Responding to Cha1rman F1fe's concerns on the dens and bedrooms,
Mr. Cho said the plans for th1S project show no closets in the
dens. If the Commission desires, staff can scrutinize the project
to make sure no closets are bootlegged in. Mr. Cho also indicated
staff could require that the front wall and door be removed so
there 1S a completely exposed living area.
Cha1rman F1fe asked Mr. Wh1ttenberg to summarize the d1scretion
the Planning Commission has w1th respect to appl1cations like this.
What can the Commission do and not do and what factors should be
considered? Mr. Fife said this application seemed "really out of
whack 1n terms of parking --- it's seven parking spaces short, not
just one or two". Mr. Wh1 ttenberg read Code sect10n 2 ( i) that
appl1es to this application. Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the Comm1ssion
needs to look at "if there's a way to provide additional on-site
parking given the exist1ng footpr1nt of the existing building ...
in rev1ewing the plans it does not appear there is any way to
provide add1tional legal park1ng spaces on the slte because of the
location of the eX1sting five unit bU1lding Wh1Ch already 1S
there". Cha1rman F1fe asked if the Comm1ssion could consider the
argument that if you're gOlng to tear down part of the structure,
why don't you tear down and replace 1t with a two-car garage and
an upper 11 v1ng un1 t? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d he thought the
Commission could do that and that his recollection of the plans
show they are changing some of the exterior walls along one portion
of the structure but the units themselves are basically remaining
in the1r current locations on the ground floor.
Mr. Wh1ttenberg explained that staff tracks all of the appl1cations
com1ng before the Commission by address. When someone wants to do
a project the files are checked and prev10us work, applicat10ns
etc. are revealed.
Cha1rman Fife asked how the 10% 1S calculated? Mr. Whittenberg
explained that 10% of the allowable buildable area of the structure
counting f1rst and second floor, possibly third floors. It is
calculated floor by floor.
Cornrn1ss10ner Sharp said he felt the Code 1ntended the 10% add1t10n
for single family dwellings and this 1S a five un1t apartment
complex. He noted this construction 1S practically all new,
retain1ng only what 1S necessary to reta1n the lower tax base. He
Page 4 - Plannlng Commlssion Mlnutes of October 4, 1990
tit indicated that new construction needs soils reports due to seismlc
concerns.
Mr. Whittenberg stated the Code provlsions do not specify single
famlly dwelllngs. staff interprets the Code to apply to any
resldential structure. There is also a Code provision that
interlor wall modificatlons cannot exceed 50% of the interior wall
areas and staff has already checked that calculation on this
proposal and this proposal meets the 50% requlrement.
CommlSSloner Sharp asked lf the 10% was figured on all the
buildable property and how much of the buildable property are they
remodellng? Mr. Whittenberg explained all the units were belng
remodeled except for the one unit directly above the three car
garage. It's not broken down unl t by unit, it's 50% of the
structure.
Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg lf the entlre structure could
be torn down and be rebuilt with what these plans call for? Mr.
Whi ttenberg answered no. Mr. Fife indicated that vast
rehabllitations of eXlstlng structures could increase density in
the Old Town area.
.
Chalrman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg lf there was specific direction
from the City Councl1 as to how the Commlssion should consider
seismlc and 11quefaction concerns with respect to properties in the
Clty outside the Hellman Ranch proJect? Mr. Whittenberg said "Not
at this time".
Mr. Whittenberg lndicated the proposed plans would be checked in
accordance with all the provisions of the UBC which has seismic
design standards. These are the most stringent requirements
existing ln the State of California.
commissioner Sharp sald "I think they met the State requirements
for the Hellman property, dld they not?". Mr. Whittenberg said
"The conditions of approval that were considered by both Plannlng
Commission and City Council would have required the meetlng of the
requirements of the bUllding code and as part of the conditions
that were approved by the City and also by the Coastal Commission
there were some additional ground treatment and foundation systems
that were being proposed to exceed the minimum requirements under
the Uniform Building Code adopted by the Clty. It's not a code
adopted by the State of Californla. It's a code which is proposed
by the International Conference of BUlldlng Officials and they
develop the Uniform Buildlng Code which is adopted by a large
maJorlty of cities in the State of California".
.
Commissloner Sharp noted he wanted Cl ty Council directlon on
seismlc and 11quefaction issues. He felt this application needed
structural and soils review because it is extensive remodeling and
is belng rebuilt on the old foundatlon. Mr. Whittenberg said if
Page 5 - Plannlng Commlssion Minutes of October 3, 1990
4It this proposal were approved by the Planning Commisslon it would go
through the city's plan check process which lncludes review of the
entire structure for compliance with UBC seismlc requirements. The
garage and the unit above may not be reviewed because those areas
are not belng affected by the remodel.
Commlssloner Dahlman said he wanted to ~ agree strongly with
Commissloner Sharp. The clear cut, general direction ln which the
Plannlng Commission is gOlng is that if there's a sltuation where
''It's zoned for two unlts and they have five unlts and they want
to remodel then they have to gi ve something back. Here's a
situation where nothing is being given back. In fact, lt'S not
minor structural alteratlon, lt'S major construction. To use the
part of the Code headed "Mlnor Structural Alteration" just doesn't
seem appropriate ...".
Mitchell Sheltraw * 299 Saint Joseph, Long Beach, CA
.
Mr. Sheltraw introduced himself as the project architect. Mr.
Sheltraw stated thlS project was designed in complete compliance
wlth current zonlng text. He said "...for you to sit up here and
hypothesize as to what could evolve with the project and what could
not evolve wlth the project is ludicrous". He indicated the owner
was looklng to attract a "much more substantial type clientele"
with a lease type rent. He felt the Planning Commission was "off
on tangents about liquefaction and off on things that are
completely irrelevant". He stated he had met all the legal
requlrements and said "thlS is not the time to turn this into a
kangaroo court". He stated he could understand the concerns on the
Hellman property over the liquefaction but that 123 Eighth Street
was an established site.
Chairman Fife asked Mr. Sheltraw how he would justlfy in his mind
a determlnation that the Hellman Ranch Sl te is categorically
unsuitable for housing development and yet this slte is suitable?
Mr. Sheltraw replled that the Hellman Ranch site is still vlrgin
soil and lS a mixture of a multitude of different types of soils
whereas the Old Town lots were "cut and were englneered pads". Mr.
Shel traw didn' t have proof that any of the Old Town pads were
engineered. He felt the general site had to have been engineered
but Chalrman Flfe sald he would be very surprlsed lf thirty years
ago the pads were engineered. Mr. Fife said there lS an lssue of
safety for cltizens. Mr. Sheltraw said there were no lndicatlons
of slzeable heavings, nor a hlgh expansive index, no reports of
major structural failure in Seal Beach. "We've got a good firm
building base in Old Town".
.
Chairman Flfe asked Mr. Sheltraw lf he felt the Commisslon should
consider the mandate of the Houslng Element to try and increase the
supply of affordable houslng? Mr. Fife said he interpreted Mr.
Sheltraw's lnitlal statement as getting rid of
.
.
.
Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
persons at the lower end of the economic scale and replacing them
wlth some high rollers. We have a severe problem in the city for
people who don't make $100,000 per year. Mr. Sheltraw replied "If
we're gOlng to respect that fact then it would be ludicrous for
you to go ahead and say that on a site here we've provided the
posslbillty to house five occupants where lf we went ahead and
demolish it the site would only substantiate a slngle family
dwelllng. So if we're going to talk about the realltles of needing
some available housing, this fortifies and helps the situatlon at
hand. The bottom line lS we have met all the criterla that has
been set for. For us to hypothesize and get off on a tangent it's
outright ludlcrous and that's not why we're here this evenlng.
We're here to have thlS thing put in front of you and to go ahead
and recelve an approval because we have met all the criteria".
Chairman Fife sald "Is lt your position that we have no authority
to do anythlng except stamp this approved?" Mr. Sheltraw replied
"You have the authority. But you don't have the authority this
evenlng. Because to grant yourself that authority this is
something you should have been discusslng months and months prior.
And lf you felt it necessary you should have put a moratorium on
building and there should have been some sort of zoning text
modification and that has not been done. We have met what is the
current law. If the current law reads that's what you're allowed
to do then you are allowed to do that".
Chairman Fife asked Mr. Sheltraw how the Commission was to know
months in advance that you were planning to do thlS? Mr. Sheltraw
replied "That's irrelevant. We're not the flrst ones that have
come in front of you. You act as though this is the first case
you've heard this calendar year. I find that hard to believe".
Chairman Flfe said "I don't flnd that hard to believe. This is one
of the flrst ones of this maJor a modiflcation since the City
Council determlnation on the Hellman Ranch". Mr. Shel traw said "As
Lee explained to you several tlmes here, we fall under that certaln
section that allows for the minor alterations and we're underneath
the 10% ceillng and we've compIled in every way, shape and form".
commissioner Dahlman questioned if the words "minor alteratlon"
meant an 80% to 85% remodel noting four of the five units will be
completely redone. Mr. Sheltraw said the remodel percentage is
based on the square footage and load bearing walls. Commissioner
Dahlman sald the words "minor alterations" or "minor addltions" he
lnterpreted to mean people who wanted to do about a 10% change.
He didn't interpret the rule to apply to someone wanting to take
down 80% and possibly rebuild to a larger Slze by 10%.
Commlssloner Dahlman said "You are trying to force us to adhere to
a legal interpretation which lS your interpretation". Mr. Shel traw
stated "I'm not trYlng to force you to do anything. I'm trying to
explain that we have a text that we work by and that' s you're
zoning text ... lf I follow lt by the letter of your text then I'm
to be granted the privilege of building on that piece of property
Page 7 - Planning Commiss1on Minutes of October 3, 1990
~ ... 1t 1S minor by def1nit1on because we have met all the cr1teria
... if we leave the amount/percentage of walls that we're requested
to leave and keep it with1n the ceiling of 10% allowable bU1lding
area then we have met that categorical t1tle of "minor expansion".
Comm1ssioner McCurdy said this appl1cat1on 1S actually over a 1000
square foot addition and the size of one of the apartments has been
reduced to get the square footage down. Mr. Whittenberg said the
allowable square footage under the 10% is based on the total
allowable bU1lding that can be on the site regardless of the Slze
of the existing structure.
Comm1ssioner Sharp said he was sure Mr. Sheltraw was doing all he
could for his application but he continued to have strong concerns
regarding his respons1bil1ty for the safety of bU1ldings and
seismic/liquefaction matters. Mr. Sheltraw said "Mr. Sharp, I hate
to interrupt you but I have to interrupt at this point. The UBC
and our plan checkers are the ultimate author1ty on that subject
and it's not this Commiss1on that's the authority on that. They
are the engineers and they are the ones who deem what 1S and what
is not proper for this site ... this building will comply with the
UBC and will be in excess of the UBC. We are gOlng to bring a
substandard build1ng up to well over par".
.
Comm1ssioner Ors1ni sa1d he felt Mr. Sheltraw had complied w1th the
Code provisions but felt the condit1ons for approval should be in
the staff report before the Commission approves the applicat1on.
Cha1rman Fife said he shared the concerns of Commissioners Sharp
and Dahlman, saying he had a great deal of difficulty think1ng the
term "minor enlargements or expansions" were env1s1oned by the
original enactors of this section of the Code to pave the way for
a person tearing a building down, leaving a few 2 x 4's and walls
stand1ng, and rebu1lding it and calling it "minor" because it won't
increase the total square footage over 10% of what he started w1th.
Mr. Whittenberg discussed the mun1cipal Code provisions pertain1ng
to this application. Page 325, Section 28-2407. Enlargements Or
Structural Alterations To Nonconforming Residential Buildings and
Uses was read. Sub-paragraph (g):
Interior wall modif1cations and remodel1ng which 1nvolves
removal of or structural alteration to less than fifty
percent (50%) of the structure's inter10r bearing
walls... .
.
Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
4It Sub-paragraph (i) applies:
Minor enlargements or expansions which increase the floor
area less than ten percent (10%) of the allowable floor
area, sUbJect to the followlng: ...
Mr. Whittenberg acknowledged the Commission's concern with the
square footage not belng "minor" but said the Code defines it as
"minor". Once the less than 10% requirement is met they must meet
three additional criterla:
1. Additional bathrooms are permitted ...
2. The number of bedrooms may not be lncreased if the
subject property is nonconformlng due to density
He noted that in this case the applicant is not proposing this but
as has been indicated, several of the dens could easily be
converted into bedrooms by adding an interior closet area. This
could be mitigated by removal of an exterior hallway wall,
resultlng in an open area.
3.
Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted
only if the Planning Commlssion determines that all
feaslble parking, given the availability and
location of space on the slte or the constralnts
imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is
provided.
.
Mr. Whlttenberg's review of the plans did not reveal a parking area
on the property that would not lmpinge on the existing building or
the proposed building. The proposed remodel on the ground floor
does not involve the removal of an entire unit (walls wlll be
moved) to where the Commission could require that area to be
replaced with parklng versus a residential unit.
commissioner Sharp, referencing paragraph 2, "to nonconforming
residential bUlldings", asked if a residential building was an
apartment house? Mr. Whittenberg said any structure that has
residential units, unless it has a commercial or industrial use,
is classified "residentlal" under the Code. Hotels are classified
dlfferently because they have different occupancy requirements such
as 30 day occupancy limits.
Chalrman Fife said this application is a combination of sub-
paragraphs (g) and (i). It includes the 10% expansion of floor
area and lnterior remodels to walls that are less than 50% of the
lnterlor bearing walls of the structure.
.
Mr. Whlttenberg said "I understand the concerns that the Commission
has on a number of related issues but I think you need to be very
Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
.
careful between maklng your deC1Slons on an appllcatlon that
is before you that you work within the framework of the Codes and
guidelines that you have at thlS time".
Commlssioner Sharp sald he shared Commissioner McCurdy's concerns
with the ease of the den conversions. Mr. Whlttenberg said the
Commlssion could requlre (1) the removal of the separating wall
between the hallway and den or (2) reduction ln the Slze of the den
so lt wouldn't be useable as a bedroom.
Mr. Whittenberg addressed the Commission's question on how to deal
with sites that may be slmilarly sltuated to the Hellman property
but at thlS point no one is certain if they are or are not. He
noted the city Council has been seeking additional lnformation and
staff is worklng to get gUldance documentation.
.
Chalrman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg if it were true that simply
complying with the Uniform BUlldlng Code was not sufficient with
respect to the proposed construction on the Hellman Ranch slte?
"I surely don't believe Mola planned to bUlld 329 homes up there
and 19nore the UBC". Mr. Whittenberg said "That's true - they
were not planning on ignoring the Code. As I indlcated earlier,
some of the requirements placed on the project both by the Clty and
the Coastal Commisslon required soil treatments and foundation
treatments which would be over and above the minimum building code
requlrements. In the case of the Hellman property, though, the
Clty Council in making its determination looked at several inter-
related issues --- seismlc, liquefaction, subsldence, the existence
of (not exactly) peat areas but some areas that have organic
materlal ln them. There are a number of inter-related site
constralnts WhlCh came together on that site. You might have some
of those same concerns underlYlng the Old Town area but I don't
think you find them in exactly that same combination".
Chairman Flfe asked Mr. Whittenberg about Mr. Sheltraw's comment
on the pads ln Old Town belng engineered, does staff have any
lnformation to suggest that's true? Mr. Whittenberg said he wasn't
sure how old that structure was - mid 1950's probably. If parts
of the structure were bUllt from the mid-1950's on, portions of the
buildlng pads are probably compacted. Before that point ln time
they might not have been. Staff would have to track down orlglnal
building perml ts and research bUlldlng codes to see what was
required. From 1955 on, the actual building pad for residential
constructlon was required to be compacted. From 1981 or 1982 the
entire lot was required to be compacted. They were finding that
the house itself could have been fine but when a sWlmming pool was
put in it would slnk, fences would move etc. He couldn't answer
dlrectly for 123 Eighth Street because staff has not done that
.
Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
.
research. Chairman Flfe asked how the lots were compacted, say
five years ago? Mr. whittenberg said "It would be compacted based
on the requirements of the soils report done for that indlvidual
lot. Those compaction requirements will vary from lot to lot
because the soil conditlons vary."
.
Chairman Flfe, going back to what the Council did on the Hellman
Ranch site, said "It seems the Council weighed a number of pieces
of lnformation that were brought to its attention and dld not
consider itself simply bound by the decision as to whether or not
these homes would or would not meet the UBC they weighed
together a number of factors and made a decision which they felt
was ln the best interest of the public safety... are we lacklng
in that same klnd of discretion?" Mr. Whittenberg sald "In a
manner of speaking you are. Because in this particular case the
only thing that's before you is a Plan Review to review the plan
to make sure that lt meets the criteria that are set forth in the
Code. There's no findings here that you need to make similar to
a Conditlonal Use Permit or a variance ... a Minor Plan Review has
criteria to be reviewed to make sure it meets those criteria and
that's the basls of your review". Chairman Fife asked staff if all
remodeling items listed ln Sectlon 28-2407 were being done to a
property, couldn't the Planning Commission conclude that that was
not a minor remodel? Mr. Whittenberg said "The way I understand
the Code, no ... as long as they meet those criteria there's not
a process in the Code set up for the Commlssion to deny that type
of a request". Mr. Fife said he would be more inclined to accede
to that if there were a sub-section (m) which said "(m) All of the
above". Sub-sections (a) through (k) give specific examples of
minor structural alterations and when all are comblned the
alteratlons may have changed from "minor" lnto "major".
commissioner Sharp said he would like to make a Motlon (to delay)
because the Commisslon does not have reports from the structural
and electrlcal engineers, more information is needed on the
posslbility of den conversions, the Building Inspectors have not
been able to inspect properly and the additional conditions are not
in place.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by orsini to delay Plan Review #13-90 to
the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting of November 7, 1990
to obtain further information from staff, the Building Inspectors
are to inspect the entire property and staff is to research and
report on whether and to what extent this lot was engineered, when
built.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: orsini, Sharp, Mccurdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
.
Chairman Flfe called a recess; 8:40 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
.
.
.
Page 11 - Planning Commission Mlnutes of October 3, 1990
3.
VARIANCE #5-90
1733 CRESTVIEW
RESOLUTION No. 1599
staff Report
Mike Cho delivered the staff report on Varlance #5-90. The
applicant, william Ralston, requests a variance from the rear and
slde yard setback requlrements of the municipal Code. A correction
was made on page 2, paragraph 2, to "1989" not "1990". The staff
report noted this deck was bUll t without any permits and it
encroaches into the rear and side yard setbacks. Staff recommends
the Planning Commission deny Variance request #5-90 with a
recommendation to the Clty Council lnstructing the City Attorney
to prosecute the Code violations not corrected wlthln thirty days
of denial of this request.
commission Comments
Chalrman Flfe asked why the guest house was mentioned? Mr. Cho
stated the guest house was mentioned only to alert the Planning
Commission to its existence due to the community concern re lllegal
unlts. The guest house is really a pool house and was permitted.
It doesn't have a kitchen.
commissioner Sharp asked about the dog run. Mr. Cho explained the
plans show a dog run along the back side of the guest house,
runnlng along the "lean to" shed. The shed intrudes into the set
back. Mr. Cho explained the "lean to" shed's encroachment has a
Code enforcement action being processed against it.
commissioner Dahlman sald "this in now a very complicated lssue"
lnvol ving building out the patio, patio deck in the slde yard
setback, lrrelevant guest house. Mr. Cho explained the eXlsting
guest house could raise the specter of an illegal unlt and staff
felt it was their responsiblllty to lnform the Plannlng Commission
of its existence. Commissloner Dahlman explained the guest house
was there when Mr. Ralston purchased the house.
Commlssioner Sharp asked staff about "granny flats". Staff
explained the Code allowed "granny units" which are attached or
detached separate living unit which can be allowed on Rl zoned
properties. It does require additlonal off-street parking to be
provlded and Condltional Use Permit approval through a Public
Hearing. Pool/guest houses are common for changlng areas. This
pool house is legal and permltted.
Commissioner McCurdy said he is concerned because this matter has
been continuing Slnce last December. He asked staff why this has
been going on for ten months without any action being taken to now?
Page 12 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion Minutes of October 3, 1990
. Commissioner Dahlman said "The applicant has not had a chance to
speak Mr. McCurdy - I th1nk he'll answer that quest10n very
appropriately for you". Commissioner McCurdy said "I don't know
why the City shouldn't answer it - why they haven't taken action
before thl.s - not the applicant taking action". Commissl.oner
Dahlman said his information is that when Mr. Ralston got the stop
Work Order he stopped and not what Mr. Cho just told the
Commission.
commissioner Orsin1 noted the applicant got the stop Work Order,
C1ty letters, city Attorney letters. Was there any communication
back to staff? Mr. Curt1s said in January or February the
applicant contacted staff and staff inspected the site. Staff
informed him of what had to be done. The applicant asked staff for
a time schedule of 30 to 60 days. Staff told him to stop all work
being done. A rail1ng was added for safety reasons but this did
vl.olate the stop Work Order. Mr. Curt1s said the owner indicated
a contractor did do the work.
Public Hearing
.
William Ralston * 1733 Crestview * Seal Beach
Mr. Ralston addressed the stop Work Order which was del1vered to
his home on December 12, 1990. No work has been done since then.
The deck was built as a replacement to a badly rotted out deck.
This deck 1S a little higher and more extended. Other properties
on Crestview have structures like his. Mr. Ralston said "When the
three of us built that we didn't know we were in Code v1o1ation,
it was not something to try and evade the workings of the city".
We contacted Barry when the stop Work Order was issued. He checked
out the property and told us some th1ngs that needed to be done.
Mr. Ralston said "There seemed to be some question as to what the
v1o1ation really was".
Comm1ss1oner Sharp asked Mr. Ralston 1f Barry curtis told him that
1f he put a wall up on the property 11ne that he would be permitted
to build a deck out to 1t? Mr. Ralston replied "No."
Chairman Fife asked l.f Mr. Ralston's property sloped down toward
the retaining wall? He repl1ed it did and that there is about a
twenty-four foot drop at a severe angle. The raill.ng is for safety
because of the steep drop at the end of the deck.
Chairman Fife asked Mr. Ralston if he had had his property
surveyed and if the reta1ning wall is on his property line?
Ralston said "Only from some previous surveyors marks.
retain1ng wall 1S somewhere between I' to 1.5' angled back.
deck was built according with that plan."
line
Mr.
The
The
.
.
.
.
Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
Mr. curtis sald structures cannot be built within required
setbacks. Basic flatwork, 11ke concrete, is allowed to extend to
the property lines. Ralsed materials must meet the required
setbacks. When soil is reta1.ned over a certain height safety
fenclng 1.S required at 42 inches high. The maXlmum back fll1 Mr.
Ralston could put in would be 6~ feet. Mr. Ralston could have a
ten foot wall with 3~ feet being wall and 6~ feet being retalning
and that would be consldered simllar to flat work. He could raise
the land 6~ feet. The base of the deck from the grade level,
accord1.ng to staff's measurements, lS approximately 12~ feet high.
Above that is a 3~ foot fence. The footings are fairly level with
grade, st1.cking up about 6". The portlon of the deck walked on is
12~ feet above grade.
commissioner Dahlman clarlfied wlth Mr. curtis that if Mr. Ralston
were to extend h1.s yard on the level out to hlS property line he
would not be allowed to bU1.ld this deck; Mr. curtis agreed. Mr.
curtis said staff inspected every yard along Crestview. None of
the existing decks infringe upon the rear setbacks - they are all
set back ten feet from the property 11.ne. This was the only deck
that comes to the property line and infringes lnto the setback.
The grade differential makes the optical difference. Mr. Cho
said "It has been brought to my attention that there are several
encroachments into the Hellman Ranch property however, that is a
civil matter and is not under the ]urisdictlon of the City in terms
of telling them to move back off the property. But in terms of
thlS actual structure, the City, under the Code, does have the
obligation to move that back wi thln the required setback". Mr. Cho
noted the encroachments were not structures but fences, walls,
trees.
Commlssioner Dahlman said "I think some of the confusion is, Mr.
Chairman, if you ask Mr. Curt1.s if there's a structure there then
he doesn't include a retaining wall as a structure. A deck flat
with your property level - I never thought of that as a structure
but I understand now tonight that 1.t is. The letter of these rules
lS getting so detailed ... if you just take a look at this backyard
the deck simply extends the normal elevation on thlS property back
to the property line. If lt were flat and he had a fence between
hlm and the neighbor ... I'm now informed the City would object to
a deck being built to withln anything closer than ten feet from
that fence ... every house on that slde of that street have slmllar
topography and a ten foot requlrement is very tough. So I wonder
lf there is some middle ground here that can be found".
Page 14 - Planning commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
~ Commissioner Sharp, to Commissioner Dahlman, cited many examples
of appllcations and Code enforcement matters that had come before
the Planning Commission and had to be refused due to setback
requirements.
.
.
No one wishlng to speak further on this matter, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Commission Comments
Chalrman Flfe noted the enormous differences in the degree to
which an owner can use his lot dependlng on what plannlng dlstrict
he's In. He sympathlzed with this applicant's having to give up
ten feet of hlS lot when he's got only vacant land behind him.
Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Commission, when reviewing variance
#6-89, requested staff to conduct a noise analysis on random
properties abutting arterials with dlffering heights of walls to
see if the helght of the wall made a difference as to noise
enterlng the back yard off Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg
said staff could include the properties such as this one which
backs to the Hellman Ranch in the noise study. Commissioner Sharp
said Crestview could not be considered the same as Pacific Coast
Hlghway because Paclflc Coast Highway is developed and Crestview
backs open property --- the Hellman Ranch property.
commissioner orsini sald this applicant built without plans and
without permits. He said "We just turned down/delayed a plan that
complied with ordinances and now we're looking at glving a variance
to somethlng that hasn't even had a permlt?" Commissioner Dahlman
asked staff if Mr. Ralston would incur a penalty for not getting
his Variance before bUllding? Mr. Curtls said "No there will not
be. If he dld turn in an application for a bUllding permit there
would be double fees which, for a deck of this size, are pretty
mlnute - maybe $30 extra. But as far as any type of fine for
buildlng without proper permlts he would not (owe) at this time
because we (City) have not begun an offlcial Code enforcement
(actlon) or actual Ii tlgation on this Code violatlon".
Commissioner Sharp asked if the city Attorney had officially filed
(an action) then would it be a different matter? Mr. curtis sald
"Yes".
Mr. curtis, addressing two items, said (1) different setbacks in
the different planning dlstricts in town are due to the Slze of the
lots. Old Town lots are 3,000 square feet and Mr. Ralston's lot
on the Hill lS 10,000 square feet and (2) referring to the stop
Work Order, Mr. Curtls explained that the Building Inspectors felt
the deck was lncomplete at that time. Mr. Ralston he explained to
Mr. curtis he had been out of town and had not had a chance to
finlsh it yet. Staff's second inspection showed the deck to have
been completed and that's why staff indicated it was in violation
of the stop Work Order. But if Mr. Ralston states nothing else was
done staff wlll not argue that point.
.
.
.
Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsin1 to deny Variance #5-90 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 1599 and to recommend to the city
Council that they instruct the C1 ty Attorney to prosecute the
following violations of The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA
which are not corrected with1n thirty (30) days of the denial of
this request:
1. The applicant, without submitting plans, obtaining
required permits, or hav1ng inspections, constructed a
patio deck that encroaches into the required rear yard
setbacks.
2. A "lean to" shed has been located within the required
side yard setback.
3. While the applicant's plans show the patio deck at the
rear property line, there remain questions regarding
encroachment onto the Hellman property such that a survey
should be conducted to determine the property line and
thus the proper rear setback.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 1
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife
ABSTAIN: Dahlman
commissioner Dahlman commented that he could not support the motion
because Mr. curtis sald staff is currently startlng to look at the
inequlties associated wlth owners on steep slopes at Crestvlew.
Mr. Sharp said he suspected Mr. curtis' comment was Just a comment
because there 1S no Plannlng Commission action ln effect at the
present tlme which has lnstructed anybody on staff to perform any
work on this. Commissioner Sharp advised the applicant of hlS
appeal rlghts.
Chairman Fife called a five minutes recess; 9:40 p'.m. to 9:45 p.m.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #12-89 (RENEWAL)
12343 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
SUPER SAVER CINEMA SEVEN
RESOLUTION No. 1592
Staff Report
Mr. Curtls delivered the staff report. Staff recommends a six
month extension of CUP #12-89 subject to the origlnal condltlons
of approval except for the removal of the condition requlring the
gamlng area to be completely roped off. This would be accomplished
by the adoption of Resolutlon No. 1592. The staff report indlcates
that after reviewing the vldeo game operation on several occaSlons
staff feels the requirement that the game machine area be roped off
.
.
.
Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
is unnecessary. Any police problems were not attrlbutable to the
video game area but rather the theatre as a whole. Mr. curtis said
the six months extension would allow staff to see how effectlve the
more frequent pollce surveillance of the parking lot
was. At the end of SlX months, or sooner if conditions warrant,
the CUP will be reconsidered. The theater could be required to
provide a securlty staff WhlCh would be permanently placed ln the
parking area at hours determined by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Curtls read and subml tted for the Record, a note from Sanford
Barth, 12400 Montecito Road, #301 (attached to Minutes). Mr.
curtis said he had to pay the $1.50 admission price to get in and
play the video games.
commission Comments
Commissloner Sharp said he was hesltant on having security
personnel patrolllng the parklng lot. Mr. curtis said this would
be a security offlcial. Commlssioner McCurdy said it should be two
police officers working together.
Lt. Mollohan * Seal Beach Pollce Department
Lt. Mollohan sald the Police Department has had an increase of
activity since the opening of the theaters. Chalrman Fife asked
lf the Police had observed gang members there or blcycle thefts?
Lt. Mollohan said they had no reports of gang activity nor bicycle
thefts. The Pollce Department has increased their patrols at the
theatres and have lssued a number of alcohol violation citations
there and loud noise warnings. Mr. Fife sald (just before the last
show began and/or after that show let out) he observed groups of
young men, some drinklng, hanging around 30 to 40 yards away from
the theatre entrance sort of in a threatening group. Lt. Mollohan
sald that's the actlvlty the Police are targeting. Mr. Fife asked
how theatre-hlred security staff would lnterface wlth the Clty's
Police Department? Lt. Mollohan said the Center has their own
security, they are the "eyes and ears of the Pollce Department".
If they see something they call the Pollce Department. To carry
a gun a security guard does not have to obtaln a permlt from the
Police Department. The guard has cltizen arrest authority. Lt.
Mollohan dldn't recommend armed securlty guards and hoped their
increased patrols wlll solve any problems. Officers check the area
at least once an hour for ten mlnutes. The officers are making a
concentrated effort by parking thelr cars and walking around.
Public Hearlng
The owner was not present. No one wlshed to speak for or agalnst
the applicatlon, therefore the PubllC Hearing was closed.
.
.
.
Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
Comm1ssion Comments
Comm1SS1oner Dahlman suggested 'beefing up' the Seal Beach Police
Department coverage at the Rossmoor Center 1nstead of hiring a
security guard.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to extend Conditional Use Permit
#12-89, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1592, for six months.
Approval should be subject to the original conditions of approval
with the removal of the condition requiring the video game area
being completely roped off. And if there are further problems in
the parking lot before the six months 1S due, that the Planning
Commission has the authority to review the Conditional Use Permit
at an earlier date.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2-90
ZONE CHANGE 1-90
SURFS IDE RIGHT-OF-WAY ANNEXATION
Staff Report
Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. The applicant, Surfs1de
Colony, Ltd., requests to amend the Land-Use and Housing Elements
of the General Plan and change the zoning of a port1on of the
Southern Pacific right-of-way wi thin Surfs ide Colony from S-P
parking zone to Res1dent1al Low Density. Staff recommends approval
of General Plan amendments 2A-90 and 2B-90 plus Zone Change 1-90.
The Commission could (1) recommend approval of the two General Plan
amendments and the zone change and consider the zoning text
amendment when it comes before the Comm1ssion or (2) refrain from
making a decis10n on any of the items at this t1me and then
consider them as a group when they come before the Commission w1th
the zon1ng text amendment.
Comm1ssion Comments
Commissioner Sharp, noting this is a gated community with a Board
of D1rectors, asked how much input they will have on this matter?
Mr. curtis said the homeowners 1n Surfside Colony would have the
same input as any other citizens under the Public Hearing process.
Commissioner McCurdy asked if there were garages on the front side
of B row? Mr. curtis sa1d there were garages on the front side of
certain older B row buildings. Staff is recommending they become
a non-conforming use if the zon1ng text amendment is passed. At
such time as the property 1S developed all new park1ng would have
to come off the back and they would have to abandon the front
parking. If the property remains unchanged the park1ng can remain
as it 1S. The garages on Surfs ide Avenue are integrated within the
Page 18 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
. maln dwelling unlt. The garages off the SP ROW are detached
because of the zonlng requlrements.
.
.
Mr. curtis sald those unlts wlth garages off the front would have
to come before the Planning Commlssion if they wanted to leave the
garage as such. Most of these dwellings are small and built close
to the time the Colony was established. SurfSlde is limlted to a
35 foot height requlrement but the Code doesn't speclfy a certaln
number of stories. Two stories could be bUll t on top of the
garage. There lS a three foot setback requirement on the first
floor and the existing stories can cantilever to the property line
- sort of a tunnel between the existlng unlt and the garage. When
the lots are enlarged staff recommends the maintenance of the three
foot setback.
Public Hearing
Bob Kendrick. Presldent. Surfside Colony * A 64 Surfs ide
Surfslde Colony was formed in 1933 and was, at that time,
sandwiched between the red car line and the sea. The use of the
rear was not permitted for parking because the train was back
there. The cars used to drive on a slngle lane and park ln A and
B row garages. The Colony obtained a leasehold lnterest in the
railroad property when it was abandoned in the 1960's. They've had
it under lease since that time. They have maintained setbacks on
the lots themselves. The Colony has recently succeeded in
purchaslng thlS propertYi there are 260 shareholders. The Colony's
population lS over 800 people. They voted unanlmously to purchase
it and they all chipped in to buy iti they have common shares.
Everyone is purchaslng at cost. Some purchasers pald $30,000 a
plece. They are striving for lot line adjustments and not
subdivislon so as not to increase denslty. Thelr goals are to
brlng the parklng around to the rear street and over time eliminate
all the parklng in the B row homes off of Surfs ide Avenue. The
Colony supports staff's recommendations. Mr. Kendrlck asked staff
to include in the staff recommendatlons the support of their
archltectural review committee on having street repalr monies and
incluslon of thlS language in the munlcipal Code. Also, they would
11ke stricter language enforcing the 35 foot helght 11mlti they
don't want any averaging done. They would like staff to limit the
B row lot size to the smallest lot in the community.
Chalrman Fife asked if there were any homeowners ln the Colony who
are not gOlng to get addltional land? Mr. Kendrick said there are
260 lots and 60 lots adjacent to the rallroad who will be obtalnlng
land. However, all 260 homeowners purchased the land ln varYlng
amounts according to an appralsed value based on the added value
to the Slze of the lot.
Page 19 - Planning commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
~ Commissioner McCurdy asked the depth of the lots facing the ocean.
Mr. Kendrick said they're 40 feet deep. Mr. Kendrick said Surfside
Colony owns land unto itself in addition to their own homes - they
own all the streets and the parking.
.
.
Bob Montgomery * Vice President. Board of Directors * B75 Surfside
Having lived in the Colony for 14 years, Mr. Montgomery spoke in
favor of the proposal. He saw no adverse effects.
Chairman Fife and Mr. Montgomery discussed homeowners versus
renters and attenuating parking problems. The 25 foot portion
adjacent to B1 through B70 would be zoned R1 and the rest would
remain SP parking and should not add to the number of potential
rental units.
John Rigger * B51 Surfside - Spoke in favor of this proposal.
Ella Row * A40 Surfside - Said she felt the 35 foot height limit
should also state "only a three story house" and said there was a
problem with people building four stories. Mr. Curtis, replying
to her question on the proposed 65% lot coverage, said an owner
could build a square house providing it covered only 65% of the
lot. That encourages the owner to utilize some type of open space
wi thin the parcel. Mr. curtis said in the Old Town area the
"staggered effect" happened perhaps due to averaging setbacks. She
expressed concern over illegal duplexes in Surfs ide . She felt this
was due to the QQdg requirement for two staircases with three story
houses. She felt people automatically put in illegal duplexes.
Commissioner Dahlman asked about her comment on people building
underground. She said when the height limit was changed from 30
feet to 35 feet it was said that that would allow for higher
ceilings. In actuality people built down, using pumps. Mr. Curtis
said this underground building meets current Code requirements but
could not say if pumps were used. FEMA doesn't place Surfside in
a flood zone. Mr. Curtis said everything Ms. Row has stated is
correct. He said if the Commission and Surfside residents desired
staff would address a clause which said "the height limit is 35
feet and 3 stories" in conjunction with the zoning text amendment.
Joe Rullo * A48 Surfs ide
Mr. Rullo said every year there are more permanent residents and
fewer renters. Their review board keeps them as single family
homes and not apartments to the greatest extent. The majority of
owners prefer three stories with a 35 foot height limit. There are
only two houses that are 4 stories and one isn't below grade.
Virginia Boggs * B72 Surfside
Ms. Boggs said her house has subterranean living areas and her sump
pumps work. She questioned if the 2900 square feet for houses
included the garages? Mr. curtis said his example did include the
garage and that example was for the smallest lot. Mr. Curt1s
.
.
.
Page 20 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
explained staff's recommendation for maximum lot coverage. Staff
felt, because these lots are substantially larger than the majority
of the Colony's lots, that some amount of open space should be
required on the parcel similar to Old Town requirements. The
Commission could allow the building of Surfside houses to the full
setback.
Chairman Fife asked about other lots in Surfside that won't be
effected by this matter, what is their current lot coverage
limitation? Mr. Curtis said Surfside doesn't have any lot coverage
requirements and is regulated only by setbacks. As the ~ is
wri tten now it encourages box-shaped buildings which are built
right out to the setbacks.
Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach
Mr. Ambrose asked how many stories could be built over the new
garage space being attached to the property? Mr. Fife said they
could build up to two additional stories over the new garages that
would be added within this newly acquired land. Right now they
can't do that. Mr. Ambrose recommended residents of Surfside be
held to a one story limit over the garages if this matter is
approved.
Morv Mallard * B50 Surfs ide
Mr. Mallard said a one story addition over a garage defeats the
whole purpose of owning additional land and he strongly objected
to Mr. Ambrose's suggestion. Almost all the houses on A row are
two stories above their garage. There are six or seven 100 foot
lots there and the houses are built to wi thin the setbacks. Re the
B row houses (60 homes), as long as the house maintains its setback
he felt that's the right way to go.
Chairman Fife asked staff to compare what a homeowner could build
now, limited by a 3 foot setback, versus what could be built
limited to the 65% maximum lot coverage requirement? Mr. curtis
explained that on the smaller sized lots they will be able to cover
a lesser portion of their first floor. However the amount they
w111 be able to add on over their garage would more than compensate
for that difference. The larger lots would be able to maintain
what they have while providing the open space and still add quite
a substantial amount to the house. Mr. curtis said staff would,
in the month prior to the Public Hearing on this item, provide more
1n depth figures for the Commission and the public. Various sizes
of lots would be 1ncluded plus various alternatives.
Mr. Kendrick * President. Surfside Colony
Mr. Kendr1ck said the Colony didn't work with City staff in any way
to work out the fine points and only just received the staff report
a few days ago. The Colony's understanding, when they purchased
and had unanimous approval of the purchase, was that they would be
.
.
.
Page 21 - Planning commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
able to build out the entire lot. No percentages were discussed.
They would like the opportunity to sit down and work those figures
out with City staff.
No one wishing to speak further Chairman Fife closed the Public
Hearing.
Mr. whittenberg summar1zed that the Commission has before them two
General Plan amendments to the Land Use Element and the Housing
Element to increase the number of acres of low density
residentially zoned properties by 1.1 acres (which is the area
subject to the requested zone change). The Zone Change itself
would change the zoning of that 1.1 acres from SP Parking zone to
RLD and that area would be incorporated into the adjoining homes
in Surfside's B1 through B70 homes.
Chairman Fife asked staff if the City's Housing Element, currently
being considered by the court, is knocked out does that undo or
adversely affect anything the Planning Commission does tonight?
Mr. Whittenberg said "At this time the status of the Housing
Element is that it's a valid document that has not been deemed
invalid by the court. And until such time as that determination
were to be made you have the right to make any changes to the
document you feel appropriate".
MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to approve Zone Change #1-90 and
General Plan amendments #2A-90 and #2B-90 through the adoption of
Resolutions No. 1600, 1603 and 1602 respectively.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman
Mr. whittenberg told Mr. Kendrick that staff would be in contact
with him to discuss the proposed actual changes to the ~.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
6. CEQA GUIDELINES
RESOLUTION No. 1595
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. He said this was a
"housekeeping" item, as the City is required by State law to keep
updated its guidelines for the processing and preparation of
environmental impact reports, negati ve declarations and other
environmental documents. The City Attorney and staff have gone
through the CEQA guidelines and made suggested changes to update
.
.
.
Page 22 - Planning commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
those guidelines to comply with current state law provisions that
have been recently changed. The items have been reviewed by the
City's Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) at their
September 18, 1990 meeting and were recommended for approval. They
are before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Once
receiving Planning Commission approval they will be forwarded to
the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for final review and
approval and formal adoption by the City Council. There is one
policy change in which staff is suggesting: the City, on any
project that comes to it, WhlCh doesn't require an environmental
analysis, must file with the County Recorders Office a Notice of
Exemption form. It's required to be prepared but is not required
by the City to be filed with the County Recorder. But if a Notice
of Exemption is filed with the County Recorder it starts a clock
running where people can only challenge that particular project
approval for a certain period of time. If not filed with the
County Recorder it extends the period of time and a challenge could
be filed. In most cases a Notice of Exemption is filed when the
project meets all the City's building requirements and doesn't come
before the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Mccurdy to hold over the review of the
CEQA Guidelines to the Planning commission meeting of October 17,
1990.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Mccurdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Edward Ouayle * 4228 Dogwood * Seal Beach
Mr. Quayle said he opened an automobile detail shop under a tent
at 1000 PCH at the Honda-Toyota repair shop. He has banner
advertising. He applied for a City business license but was denied
on the grounds the business had to be in an enclosed building. He
said he spoke with Barry curtis who told him to come before the
Commission and seek a zoning text amendment.
C2 zoning requires all business uses to be located wholly within
an enclosed building with the exception of seven types of
businesses. A car wash requires a Conditional Use Permlt and must
be located in an enclosed building.
Staff is to meet with Mr. Quayle, review Code provisions and come
back to the Planning Commission with those results. Mr.
Whittenberg said he was not sure the issue could be resolved at the
staff level. He is operating out of a tent and without a business
license and Mr. Whittenberg will have to speak with the Clty
Attorney about this.
.
.
.
Page 23 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach
Mr. Ambrose said he asked at the last Planning Commission meeting
about parking at McGaugh School for church activities. He thought
staff would have a reply this evening. Mr. Whittenberg said the
research was not able to be completed. Staff was looking to see
1f an old approval had been given for the use of the property as
a church. Staff said they would have it for the next meeting.
Mr. Ambrose said his wife had asked in July about putting garbage
cans on both sides of Vons market because of all the trash blowing
down Bolsa. City Manager, Bob Nelson, said he had referred the
matter to Dennis Jue, City Engineer. Mr. Jue said he had referred
it to h1S assistant. The garbage is still blowing around.
Tomorrow Mr. Whittenberg will ask Mr. Jue to reply to Mr. Ambrose.
STAFF CONCERNS
There were no staff concerns.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Orsini asked if liquor related businesses are exempt
from City laws? Mr. Fife said they are primarily regulated by
State law. The City has limited authority through the Conditional
Use Permit process. Commissioner Orsini noted the Irisher Bar
doesn' t have a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg said certain very old
establishments have been ' grandfathered in' and those uses can
continue to operate until such time as they have a change in
ownership or propose building alterations. The City does not
otherwise have a mechanism to require them to go through the
Conditional Use Permit process. Staff has received a number of
complaints on the Irisher and is working with the Police Department
to get a past history and that will be reviewed with the City
Attorney's Office to consider the public nuisance process.
commissioner Dahlman complimented Building Inspector Chuck Feenstra
on his work with a Hill resident. Mr. Feenstra was concerned about
a project that had exposed wiring. He noted the permit would soon
be expiring. He asked the resident to take care of the violation
within ten days at which time he would re-inspect the premises.
Commissioner Dahlman read from a letter written on the subject "If
you will work on correcting these matters, we will work with you
on reinstating your permit ...". Commissioner Dahlman praised Mr.
Feenstra's positive attitude and positive way of getting things
done.
.
.
.
Page 24 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~~o---
Jo n Fillmann
Secretary/planning Department
***
These Minutes are tentative and are subject to the approval of the
Planning Commission.
***
The Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 1990 were approved
by the Plann1ng Commission on October ~ 1990.~
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission
.OTICB 01' PUBLIC BDRI5G . _ , _ f~BMITTED FOR RECORD
I}~Date~
.OTICB IS KBRBBY GrvBN tbat tbe planning Co.-i.sion of tbe City
of Seal Beacb will bold a public bearing on .edne.day, october 3,
1"0 at 1130 p,m. in tbe City Council Cbamber., 211 Bigbth
8treet, Seal Beacb, California, to consider tbe following item:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-89
12343 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
Request:
An indefinite extension of CUP 12-89 allowing the
placement of twelve (12) coin-operated amusement
machines within the Super Saver Cinema Seven at
12343 Seal Beach Boulevard.
Environmental
Thi= ~~~jpr~ is r.a~~gorical1v exempt from CEQA
review (California Administrative Code Sect~on
15301).
~~"'.? ! ~- . :
Code
Sections:
28-1300, 28-1400, 28-2503, 28-2504
Applicant:
Joshua Davis for Super Saver Cinema Seven
Owner:
Century National Properties
.
At the above time and place all interested persons may be heard
if so desired. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Seal Beach at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
DATED this 17th day of September, 1990
.
,tI1~)(Tpilt(.~ .;AJc J.j ~
.
. ..
CAI{.s R.1l~I.IV~ ~~~"",,)::>
. 9
e.J41'e 11~A-~1t ,\ QD~j'lS..rlT7D~
o.eNYvA..'! SH-uL.'t7 :51J rt'4( S~c~~/ry
5~liz.j7 .
t..A:;r Sf/Q1cJ ^ ~~ 1rr1(. p, f''''1
"U'f;/.JL I/Vi7",~C.6-
;!J~
1-Z-4 D tY Jtf 4YA/ 10 c r 10
,+3p J Jet:>
Whittenberg
L..- Director
Department of Development Services
.
.,
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Cortunisslon
~UBMmED FOR RECORD
Sy.l2 3 ~Q , IJam S. B~R~
1I0TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planninq Commission of the ~it~- '~
of Seal Beach will hold a public hearinq on Wednesday, October 3,
1990 at 7:30 p,m. in the City Council Chambers, 211 Bighth
Street, Seal Beach, California, to consider the following item:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HBARIIIG
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-89
12343 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
Request:
An indefinite extension of CUP 12-89 allowing the
placement of twelve (12) coin-operated amusement
machines within the Super Saver Cinema Seven at
12343 Seal Beach Boulevard.
Environmental
~nJ~_~~~~~~~_i~~atoao~jcallv ~xempt from CEQA
review (California Admin1strat1ve Code Sect10n
15301) .
- -~~~i-~ ~----' :
Code
sections:
28-1300, 28-1400, 28-2503, 28-2504
Applicant:
Joshua DaV1S for Super Saver Cinema Seven
Owner:
Century National Properties
At the above t1me and place all interested persons may be heard
if so desired. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Seal Beach at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
DATED this 17th day of September, 1990
1-e~ f{J&d~-7~/~
La Whi~~enberg
~ Director ~
Department of Development Services
f~~~
;j~
12-.4 -0 e Jtf 4? It.! 1<.5 c , "r?9
+3p J Kb
,/II~ J(T pi H.{. tf:- ./iJ 0 J ~ ~
.
. r
CAR..~ R.1le./.IV~ -4~q~NP
.
~ '/'
CI1Fe A~A-~1It. ' QO.61TtS.TIT"7.D"K
/j1 Q,SNY'vA-y sf-bt,uz..'1? ~urf'L,y s<cv,t/ry
\.LV 5 'fttDJj zd7
@ kAfjr SJfQkJ ^ fd</C?tl Irr/f: PiP rAt
CiJ .,. IJ PJ L.t L ;Y l/ 17'" IIt~n::.6-
~c:\WP O\CUP\CUP90-12.NPH ~'
~~O~ ~~:i~~~~.'~~-,