Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1994-09-21 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . MINUTES of SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:32 p.m. with Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown Department of Deve16pment Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Also Present: AGENDA APPROVAL . Staff requested Item #5, Plan Review 94-6, be moved to the Consent Calendar as Item #4. Staff stated Minor Plan Reviews are Consent Calendar items, not Public Hearing items, and this was not advertised as a Public Hearing. Chairman Dahlman requested Item #1, the Minutes of September 7, 1994, and Item #3, Resolution No. 94-40, be removed for discussion. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach resident, requested Item #4, Plan Review 94-6, be removed for discussion. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to approve the Agenda with the Agenda move and three extractions as noted. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0-0 Brown, Campbell, Dahlman, Law, Sharp None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg ConU1l1ssion Mmutes of 9-21-94 . CONSENT CALENDAR . . MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to approve the Consent Calendar: 2. Receive and File: Staff Report/Housing Element Revisions - Status Update MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0-0 Brown, Campbell, Dahlman, Law, Sharp None The following items, extracted from the Consent Calendar, were discussed by the Planning Commission. 1. Approve Minutes of September 7, 1994. Chairman Dahlman suggested deleting the last sentence of the last paragraph as it is redundant. Staff agreed. 3. Approve Resolution Number 94-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE VARIANCE 94-6, A REQUEST TO VARY FROM THE COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH A HAIR SALON WITHIN AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE LOCATED AT 225 MAIN STREET Chairman Dahlman corrected a typographical error at page 3, paragraph 5(a), noting the word "is" should be changed to "in". Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Steele how the vote would have been recorded if this matter had not been extracted from the Consent Calendar, and assuming the Consent Calendar was ratified 5 - 01 Mr. Steele explained if the Consent Calendar was ratified 5 - 0, then the vote to adopt the resolution would have been 5 - 0, unless one of the Commissioners wanted to extract and change the vote. MOTION by Brown, SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 94-40. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0-0 Brown, Law, Dahlman, Sharp, Campbell None *** . . . Page 3 - City of Seal Beach Planning CommisSion Mmutes of 9-21-94 4. Plan Review #94~6 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 209 17th Street Donald L. Cox Ane Slocum Cahill Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Donald Cox for Ane Slocum Cahill, requested approval to convert a duplex at 209 17th Street to a single family residence and to add an interior staircase. Mr. Curtis said the Planning Commission could consider Condition of Approval #3 and determine if rear yard parking should be required or not. Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Brown asked staff how this Plan Review could be on the Consent Calendar if there's a decision to be made on the Conditions of Approval? Mr. Whittenberg explained Plan Reviews need to appear on the Consent Calendar because that's the type of item it is. The issue would have been extracted by staff had the Commission or public not requested its extraction. For the Record, Ms. Fillmann said three letters regarding this application were received at tonight's meeting. They are from Tom and Linda Chow of 1611 Electric Avenue, Frank and Teresa Gonazlez of 212 17th Street, John Gallager and Samantha Lehan of 301 15th Street. Commissioner Campbell asked if the letters discussed parking? Ms. FiUmann stated the three letters were form letters and addressed parking by stating "... Her plan does not provide for on- site parking. We support her plan andfeel that her existing back yard should be left untouched and she should not be required to remove her yard for tandem or other parking requirements". [Attached]. Commissioners Campbell and Brown stated for the Record that they had individually visited the subject property today. Mr. Steele said that in a quasi-judicial hearing it's not a Brown Act requirement but a due process requirement for Commissioners who have visited a property put that evidence into the Record so all the Commissioners have the opportunity to know what each other is basing their decisions on and the public has a right to comment on that visit. Commissioner Brown asked where the telephone pole was located in relation to the property line? Mr. Curtis said it's just outside the property line to the south. The fence appears to be the property line, but without a survey it's difficult to tell. Ane Cahill addressed the Commission, offering a landscaping sketch and photos of the property. . . . Page 4 - CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg CommISSIon Mmutes of 9-21-94 Chairman Dahlman explained this is not a Public Hearing item and noted she would be allowed to speak: if there were adverse testimony given. Bruce Stark * fNo Address Given]. Seal Beach Mr. Stark said he felt Government Code, ~65590(b) would apply to this application and read what he considered the relevant portion: ~65590(b). The conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income. Replacement dwelling units shall be located within the same city or county as the dwelling units proposed to be converted or demolished. The replacement dwelling units shall be located on the site of the converted or demolished structure or elsewhere within the Coastal Zone if feasible. Or, if location on the site or elsewhere within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, they shall be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone. He stated this application is a proposal to eliminate a low income housing unit without a replacement low income unit and the Commission cannot approve this application as presented without violating the law. Mr. Steele stated he would read the entire Government Code section if the Commission wished him to but said ~65590(b) is not applicable in this instance for two reasons, (1) the section specifically provides that it does not apply to projects involving three units or less and (2) there is no evidence before the Planning Commission that this unit is occupied by persons of low or moderate income, which is a specific requirement of this section. Chairman Dahlman asked how low and moderate income housing is counted? Mr. Whittenberg explained the way a low and/or moderate income unit is determined is by the income of the occupant(s), the number of family members and is done on a case-by-case basis. A unit might be considered low income at one time but not at another; the City has no mechanism to deal with this. The State of California has not established guidelines for counting units. The issue at hand is whether the removal of this unit would require the replacement of another low/moderate unit within the community or within three miles. The City Attorney has indicated there is a specific exemption for four units or less and there are also a number of other exemptions in this sub- section. Mr. Steele advised State law addresses low/moderate income in two ways: (1) some statues require counting of units available to persons of low/moderate income and (2) other statutes, like this one, apply to units actually occupied by persons oflow/moderate income. The statute raised by Mr. Stark requires the unit to be actually occupied by a person or low/moderate income. When the Planning Commission is reviewing a residential development proposal and if it's stated . . . Page S - CIty of Seal Beach Planning Conunission Mmutes of 9-21-94 that there's not enough low/moderate income housing, Chairman Dahlman asked if that's referring to the units which are available? Mr. Steele said it's hard to tell the Commission what statute would be involved but there are statutes which require units to be available/affordable by persons of low/moderate income. Chairman Dahlman noted that even if the subject property is exempt, the application does reduce the number of available low/moderate income units. Somebody eventually has to account for the total of low/moderate income housing units. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission was confusing "apples with oranges". In this situation, the apple, the Commission is talking about existing units. Those are not counted toward the Housing Element's requirement that additional low/moderate income units be built within the community. The determination that additional units need to be constructed is based on projections of future population grown within the City; the City doesn't get credit for what it already has. The State is saying that because there's going to be more population, a certain percentage of that population is going to be low/moderate income based on the general economic makeup of the State. As additional housing is built within the City, a certain percentage of the new housing should be of low/moderate income construction. Mr. Stark stated that even if Mr. Steele is correct and ~65590(b) does not apply here, he felt this application violates the City's Housing Element, which calls for preservations of low/moderate income housing. Mr. Stark stated he visited this property and it definitely qualifies as low income housing property; the burden is on the applicant to show her exemptions. Mr. Stark stated this applicant, Contractor Don Cox, removed four low income housing units on 12th Street and did not provide alternate low/moderate income housing units. He said the City should start complying with the law and with their own Housing Element. Ane Cahill * Property Owner at 209 17th Street. Seal Beach Ms. Cahill stated her second unit has not been rented since October 1993, at which time it was rented for $825 per month. She has been the sole user of the entire property since that time. Mr. Steele said he did not have a figure which would determine if that was a low income rental. However, this situation involves a distinction between available for rent and actually occupied. Clearly it is not rented/occupied and an argument could be made for properties City-wide that they may be available for persons of low/moderate income based on what type of rent a landlord could be convinced to charge. When you are talking about replacement units, the question is, is that unit occupied by a person of low/moderate income? In this case, if the unit is unoccupied, it's difficult to classify that as a low/moderate income unit. Regarding the Housing Element requirement, one section calls for the replacement of low/moderate income housing that is removed or demolished in the Coastal Zone. There are three issues which come up for this requirement: 1. It's a policy statement, not a mandate of a one-for-one replacement; . . . Page 6 - CI~ of Seal Beach Plannmg ComnuSSIOD Mmutes of 9-21-94 2. Is this a low/moderate income unit when it's not occupied by a person of low/moderate income? 3. For this application, the Commission is not making a finding regarding the General Plan, although all land use decisions must be consistent with the General Plan. Rather the Commission is looking at a policy statement rather than a one- to-one mandate. Chairman Dahlman said this application is not before the Planning Commission for consideration of low/moderate income housing. Also, Mr. Cox demolished four other units and because the new housing built on that site conformed to the latest codes they were approved automatically. Commissioner Sharp said the Commission was putting undue pressure on this applicant considering the City Attorney's testimony. The application is before the Commission regarding parking issues, not low income housing. Chairman Dahlman agreed, noting that if Ms. Cahill's property were not non-conforming she wouldn't need a Plan Review and wouldn't have to come before the Commission. Mr. Steele said that if the entire replacement housing statute were read it could be seen that it's aimed at displacement of low and moderate income persons. One section provides that if a person of low/moderate income is evicted from a unit within a year of an application being made, then there's a presumption that that person was evicted to avoid this replacement housing requirement. Ms. Cahill said her tenant was not evicted. Noting she is downsizing from a duplex to a single family residence and is thereby bringing the property more into compliance with City codes, she was hoping to be allowed to retain her yard. She contended she is not really adding square footage, although 83 square feet shows on the plans, because she is tearing down two existing staircases. She purchased the property in 1981 and has used it since then as her personal residence; it will continue to be her home. She felt the duplex is a valuable commodity as she paid her mortgage payments with the rental monies. She therefore felt she is giving something up and wanted to get something in return. Two tandem parking would require 9' x 40' and her rear yard narrows to 8.6', with a power pole on one side and gas meters on the other coming right to her fence line. It would be difficult for her to meet the tandem parking requirements and it may be unsafe to ingress and egress and avoid hitting the gas or electric utilities. She felt if the gas meters and electric pole have to be relocated it would be an undue financial burden on her to relocate them. She looked at other nearby pie-shaped lots and stated her lot is the smallest but all the others do have parking. She stated she wants to change her second floor plan by moving the bathroom to where the study was and making the back bedroom larger. She requested approval of her plan as presented without requiring on-site parking. She presented the Commissioners with photocopies of her house and yard and a second floor plan with changes. . . . Page 7 - CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommisSIon Mmutcs of 9-21-94 Chairman Dahlman asked if the prohibition of increased bedrooms would apply? Mr. Curtis said it would not apply because when this structure is reduced to one unit, it is no longer non- conforming due to density. Chairman Dahlman said there is a second floor room with an unspecified use which could be a bedroom. Commission Comments Commissioner Brown said his main consideration is that the applicant is reducing the dwelling from a duplex to a single family home and is reducing the lack of parking from four spaces to two spaces. The City is getting a net benefit. Having looked at the property he felt it would be difficult to get parking in the narrow rear yard. It would not beautify the City by requiring asphalt or concrete and removing the back yard. He said he favored not requiring her to provide tandem parking. Commissioner Campbell commented that Ms. Cahill is now the sole resident and only needs one parking space. But if the property were sold the needs might be different. Additionally, 17th Street is a very narrow, one-way street with parking on both sides which allows only one car to move down the center of the street. There is only one parking space in front of this house. In that sense, she was in favor of requiring rear yard parking. On the other hand, she hated to see anybody lose a back yard. Ms. Cahill said it was not her intent to sell this property. She believed the City requires two parking spaces per single family dwelling but it doesn't mean they are used; this a problem the City runs into. She said her neighbors across the street have two-car garages but one couple has four cars and another couple has five cars and she has two cars. While parking is an issue, she cannot address it by herself. Under the present circumstances she is not willing to provide parking because she feels the property doesn't have the space. Commissioner Campbell said people would cut across any parking space the applicant would provide and the applicant would have to find a way to mark it as private property. Chairman Dahlman suggested the Commission obtain all the information it needs from the applicant and then allow her to sit down. There were no other questions. Commissioner Campbell said Commissioner Brown's point was well taken, this applicant is reducing the parking needs from four parking spaces to two parking spaces. Commissioner Campbell explained her conflicting thoughts regarding parking, feeling the City must take every opportunity to improve the parking situation, noting the municipal Code calls for that when property improvements are made. Conversely, this applicant would have trouble maintaining her private property as people would think any parking was part of the alley. Chairman Dahlman said if it were not for the 83 square foot expansion she would not have had to come before the Commission. Mr. Curtis said the applicant would have had to come before the Commission because interior wall modifications to a non-conforming unit require a review. . . Ie Page 8 - City of Seal Beach Planning ConunissiOll MInutes of 9-21-94 Ms. Cahill explained tandem parking spaces in her rear yard would take 43 % of her property. If she were adding substantially more square footage to her house then she should understand requiring tandem parking might be justifiable. However she does not have the money nor the inclination to build the property out that much and she wants to retain her yard. Commissioner Sharp said air quality and the environment needs trees and foliage. This property has never had on-site parking and the application reduces the requirement for parking from four spaces to two spaces, therefore he didn't think the Commission should require destruction of the rear yard to provide on-site parking. Chairman Dahlman said the requirement for a single family home is two parking spaces. He said he was in accord with Commissioner Sharp's comments. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Minor Plan Review 94-6 without the required parking. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Brown, Law, Campbell, Dahlman None Mr. Steele said staff will prepare a resolution for this item and bring it back at the next meeting. The applicant was advised the resolution will be signed on October 5th and the ten calendar day appeal period would begin at that time. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit #92-2 Address: 101 Main Applicants: Ronald and Patricia Sesler Business: SeaSide Grill Property Owner: James Watson Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Ronald and Patricia Sesler, request Commission approval for an indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #93-2, allowing beer and wine sales at the SeaSide Grill. Staff recommended approval. Mr. Whittenberg advised he received a telephone call from the Sesler's on September 19th. They explained they had employee staffing problems for tonight's meeting and would be unable to attend. If the Commission had questions, they requested this matter be continued to the next meeting. Page 9 - Cily of Seal Beach Planning Conun188100 Mmutes of 9-21-94 . Commission Ouestions on Staff Report Chairman Dahlman asked if the Acceptance of Conditions form had been signed and is on file from the previous review? Mr. Curtis said yes but, they will have to sign another Acceptance of Conditions form at this time. Chairman Dahlman asked if the in-lieu parking fees were paid to date? Mr. Curtis said he would have to check for 1994 but knew last year's fees were paid immediately. Chairman Dahlman referenced Attachment #4, Condition #15, asking staff if they wanted to include an indemnification Condition? Additionally, he asked if the applicants have complied with the Conditions of Approval fully for the last twelve months? Mr. Curtis said that when he inspected SeaSide Grill they were complying with the Conditions and staff has received no complaints or responses to the legal Notice. Chairman Dahlman noted that in a prior hearing, when they were granted additional hours on a split vote, it was indicated they had been in violation of their Conditions. . Commission Brown asked if the SeaSide Grill had been a bona fide restaurant/eating place for the last twelve months and who would determine that fact? Mr. Curtis said the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) would determine the facts as this is one of their conditions. ABC did audit SeaSide Grill and determined they sold approximately 55% food to 45% alcohol. Chairman Dahlman asked if they could charge for pretzels and give away the alcohol? Mr. Whittenberg said no, at a restaurant there would have to be a charge for alcoholic beverages. Additionally, the ABC doesn't count pretzel sales, they count prepared food sales. Mr. Curtis said the ABC specifies the types of food items which need to be sold. Public Hearing Chairman Dahlman opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Fillmann stated no written communications have been received. The applicants were not present. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of or against this application. Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the indefinite extension of Conditional Use Pennit #92-2. . Before the vote, Chairman Dahlman asked staff for a status of Condition #15 on attachment #4. Mr. Steele said the City Attorney present at the Commission meeting considering an hour's extension, asked that the indemnification condition be added in case any legal action was brought against the City challenging that extension of hours. In case litigation ensued, the applicant would be paying for the City's defense. Because an extension of hours is not before the Commission for this application, the normal immunities would apply and an indemnification is not necessary. Chairman Dahlman said he would support the application. . . . Page 10 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission MInutes of 9-21-94 Commissioner Brown, noting there are residents who are concerned about alcohol problems and intensification, assured those concerned that the CUP Conditions of Approval provide for revocation of the CUP if the Conditions are violated. He said he would support this application and had no problems with it. Commissioner Campbell said she would support this application. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown, Campbell None Mr. Whittenberg said staff will bring back a resolution at the next meeting. *** 6. Variance #94-4 [Application Withdrawn] [Continued from 7/20/94] 13533 Seal Beach Boulevard Howard McCurdy/Golden Rain Foundation Golden Rain Foundation Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Staff Report The Commissioners were given a copy of a letter indicating this application has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. No public testimony will be taken and the Planning Commission will take no action on the application. Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Brown asked if staff had received a ruling from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)? Mr. Steele said no. To give formal advice the FPPC requires a specific application to be on the Agenda. He is now pursuing obtaining informal advice from the FPPC on this issue. Chairman Dahlman proposed tabling the withdrawal of this application to allow formal advice from the FPPC. Mr. Steele said the applicant doesn't want the application tabled and he has already told the FPPC the application has been withdrawn. Commissioner Sharp said there was enough disapproval within Leisure World on the inappropriateness of the sign that it was withdrawn for that reason. Mr. Steele said a ruling on this request, while providing guidance, doesn't provide immunization to Commissioners Sharp and Law. The protection provided by formal advice from the FPPC is application-specific. . . Page 11 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg COOUUISSIOII Mmutes of 9-21-94 Commissioner Sharp said that if he and Commissioner Law cannot vote on Leisure World issues that would mean one-third of the City's population has no representation. He didn't see how they could be stopped from voting because the share of stock they hold is like a deed to their property and the other share of stock is like the taxes everyone pays to support streets. Chairman Dahlman said if they weren't allowed to vote it would be undemocratic. Commissioner Campbell said they should have more say as it's their back yard. Commissioner Sharp said Leisure World has approximately 9000 units that would sell for less than $100,000 and that's affordable housing in California or anyplace. Commissioner Law said the average price is about $60,000 with the low sales figure at $30,000. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to accept the withdrawal of Variance 94-4. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Brown, Campbell, Law, Sharp None *** STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Campbell asked when the Commission would see the Bixby DEIR? Mr. Whittenberg said within the next 3 to 4 weeks. He is expecting to receive a Screencheck Draft, which comes to the City for the departments to review to make sure all the information is accurate. It then goes back to the consultant for printing and distribution. Once the DEIR is available, it will start the clock running for a 45 day public comment period. Staff must prepare a Response To Comments. Commissioner Sharp advised that he will be on vacation for the October 5th meeting and asked to be excused. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, <\004"\ ~~r- Joan FiUmann Recording Secretary APPROV AL: The Planning Commission Minutes of September 21, 1994 were approved by the . Planning Commission on October~, 1994. ~ . . . . September 20, 1994 BY HAND City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740-6379 Re: Plan Review\#94-6\209 17th Street, Seal Beach, CA To Whom it May Concern: We own the property at 212 17th Street, Seal Beach, California, the property directly across the street from the above-referenced property. We understand that Ane Cahill plans to convert her existing duplex to a single family residence. Her plan does not provide for on-site parking. We support her plan and feel that her existing back yard should be left untouched and she should not be required to remove her yard for tandem or other parking requirements. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call us at 310-598-6208 ~lY Frank Gonzale ~~~ 212 17th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 . . . September 20, 1994 BY HAND City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740-6379 Re: Plan Review\#94-6\209 17th Street, Seal Beach, CA To Whom it May Concern: We own the property at 1611 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach, the property across the alley and directly across from the rear year of the above-referenced property. We understand that Ane Cahill plans to convert her existing duplex to a single family residence. Her plan does not provide for on-site parking. We support her plan and feel that her existing back yard should be left untouched and she should not be required to remove her yard for tandem or other parking requirements. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call us at 310-598-3746. Sincerely Tom Chow ~ ~~. _ fht/ fc.f ~~< C~y ?~.v /; I Linda Cho~ - ~~;/;r~ 1611 Electric Avenue 1J7 Seal Beach, California 90740 . . . September 20, 1994 BY HAND City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740-6379 Re: Plan Review\#94-6\209 17th Street, Seal Beach, CA To Whom it May Concern: We own the property at 211 17th Street, Seal Beach, the property adjacent to the above-referenced property. We understand that Ane Cahill plans to convert her existing duplex to a single family residence. Her plan does not provide for on-site parking. We support her plan and feel that her existing back yard should be left untouched and she should not be required to remove her yard for tandem or other parking requirements. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call us at 310-493-5867. ~:elptU0- ~.i&al~er~ ~an 301 15th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 . . / .I -' ~ BACK YARD FENCE SHOWING POWER & TELEPHONE POLE AND ADJACENT PROPERTY GAS METERS . CLOSER VIEW OF GAS METERS . , .. - -.-;- r- ~_. ~ ;t.r ~ ....~~.. . " rn ~i. .~J . --- '" ~ II