Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-09-06 -, J.,. 't I . , f~ a . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 730 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #95-_ I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ll. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) (b) (c) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; Rearrange the order of the agenda; and! or ProvIde an opportunity for any member of the Planning CommIssIon, staff, or pubhc to request an Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Plannmg Commission regardmg any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning commissIOn, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the Planmng Commission unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless pnor to enactment, a member of the Planning commission, staff or the pubhc requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Minutes of August 23, 1995 The City of Seal Beach comphes With the Ameflcans With Dlsablhtles Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS meebng, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours pflor to the meetmg . . . , , Pago 2 - Cq of Seal Beach Plannmc ComnusSllIII Agenda of September 6, 1995 2. Receive and FIle City CouncIl Staff Report re: SB 408 - Breach of Moratonum, Alcoholic Beverages, dated August 14, 1995 3. ReceIve and File City Council Staff Report re: SB 1066 - Development fees: School Facilities, dated August 14, 1995 4. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: Air Quality Issues - Status Report, dated August 14, 1995 5. Receive and FIle City Council Staff Report re; Response to Draft EIR - Huntington Beach General Plan Update, dated August 28, 1995 VI. PUBLIC HEARlNGS 6. Variance 95-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: Recommendation: 7. Height Variation #95-3 Address: Applicant: Property Owner(s): Request: [Continued from 8-23-95] 715 Electnc Avenue Douglas and Kathleen Arch Douglas and Kathleen Arch Approval for an after-the-fact variance from the required rear yard setback requirements in conjunctIOn wIth an approved, inspected additIon at 715 Electric Avenue. The addition was constructed within one foot (1 ') of the rear property line, rather than the required three feet (3'). This situation was not detected until construction was complete. Approve Variance 95-4, subject to conditions, and adopt ResolutIon No. 95-_. 240 14th Street Larry and Pamela Luckey Larry and Pamela Luckey Approval to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the height lImIt 10 conjunction WIth an addItIon to an exist10g single family dwellIng. The City of Seal Beach complies With the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meetmg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours prior to the meetmg y .1 . . , Page 3 . City of Seal Beach PIamung Comnu881011 Agenda of September 6, 1995 Recommendation: Approve HeIght Variation 95-3, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No. 95-_. 8. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 To establish CIty-wide standards for the temporary display of advertIsing banners 10 commercial/industrial zones. The proposed regulations would establIsh a permitting process and set maximum time and SIze limits for the display of temporary banners. Recommendation: Approve Zone Text Amendment 95-1, subject to amendments, and adopt Resolution No. 95-_. 9. Zoning Text Amendment 95-2 To add provisions to ~28-2705(1) and (3) of The Code of the CIty of Seal Beach to requIre notification by mall of all occupants residmg withm 300 feet of a property subject to the followmg public hearings: Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Maps and, property owner- initiated Zone Changes. Currently only the property owners are notified by mall of such public hearings. Recommendation: Approve Zone Text Amendment 95-2, subject to amendments, and adopt Resolution No. 95-_. 10. Zoning Text Amendment 95-3 To codIfy a 1986 Planning CommissIOn polley statement relating to the determination of lot widths equal to 37.5 feet. Specifically, 10 the resIdential medium densIty and high densIty zones of Planning DIStrict I (Old Town) a thIrd story IS permItted on the rear half of lots wIth a wIdth of 37.5 feet or greater. The polley statement calls for the actual survey width to be rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot. RecommendatIOn: Approve Zone Text Amendment 95-3, subject to amendments, and adopt Resolution No. 95- . The City of Seal Beach comphes With the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meetIng, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours prior to the meetIng , . . ! Page 4 - Ctty of Sa! Beach PIamung ComnuSSIClII Agenda of September 6, 1995 vu. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS 11. Draft Main Street Specific Plan - Planning CommIssion Concerns of August 28. 1995 meeting IX. ADJOURNMENT The City of Seal Beach complies With the Amencans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS meetmg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours pnor to the meetmg ft , t PIce 5 - City of ScaI Beach PIanmnc CommlSSlOIl Agenda of September 6, 1995 1995 AGENDA FORECAST SEP 20 . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 3 mos. OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEC 06 DEC 20 1996: . IAN FEB MAR APR MAY IUN IUL AUO SEP OCT NOV DEC . Main Street Specific Plan (tentative) . DWP Specific Plan (tentanve) . CUP 94-8/327 Maln/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. CUP 95-111013 PCR/PIetro's 12 mos. hours. CUP 94-11600 MannalRadlsson 12 mos. ABC CUP 92-11909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC CUP 94-8/327 Main/NIp 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review . The City of Seal Beach compIles WIth the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meetmg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours prior to the meetmg. . . f , ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 I. ~LEDGE OF ALLEG~ The CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission met m regular session at 7:30 p.m. m the CIty Council Chambers, with Chairperson Campbell callIng the meetIng to order with the Salute to the Flag. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Campbell CommIssIoners Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown Also . Present: Department of Development ServIces Lee Whittenberg, DIrector Craig Steele, ASSIStant City Attorney Barry CurtIs, Admimstrative ASSIstant loan Fillmann, Executive Secretary ID. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dahlman requested separate consideratIon for agenda Items #2 and #5. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda with items #2 and #5 on the Consent Calendar to be considered separately. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Campbell, Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no persons wishing to speak durmg the oral commumcatIOns penod. V. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 1. Minutes of August 23, 1995 3. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: SB 1066 - Development fees: School Facilities, dated August 14, 1995 . . . PlICe 2 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Comnll881011 Mmullls of September 6, 1995 4. Receive and File City Council Staff Report re: Air Quality Issues - Status Report, dated August 14, 1995 MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Campbell, Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown The Planning Commission consIdered agenda item #2: 2. Receive and FIle City Council Staff Report re: SB 408 - Breach of Moratorium, Alcoholic Beverages, dated August 14, 1995 Commissioner Dahlman said he extracted this item to highlight what he hoped would not be a change at the State government level. Mr. WhIttenberg SaId thIS report is outdated as the Governor signed the legIslatIon into effect. CommissIOner Dahlman expressed his concern, noting the CIty had written to Governor Wilson strongly opposmg SB 408. He SaId people should express their views to the Governor if they are so inclined. The Commission considered agenda item #5: 5. Receive and File CIty Council Staff Report re: Response to Draft EIR - HuntIngton Beach General Plan Update, dated August 28, 1995 CommISSIoner Dahlman noted he saw DIrector WhIttenberg's SIgnature on all the staff reports and complimented him on a job well done. CommIssioner Dahlman mdlcated the City of Huntington Beach plans to do a lot more building that the City of Seal Beach would like to see without appropnate mitigatIon measures. Mr. WhIttenberg SaId the CIty CouncIl authonzed the mayor to sign the letter enclosed in the packet and the letter has been sent to the CIty of Huntington Beach. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to Receive and File agenda items #2 and #5. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown . . . PagC 3 - Cd:)' of Seal Beach PIannmg ConunISBIOII Mmulc8 of SeptcUlber 6, 1995 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Variance 95-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: [Continued from 8-23-95] 715 Electric Avenue Douglas and Kathleen Arch Douglas and Kathleen Arch Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file m the Planmng Department]. Consideration of this Variance request has been continued from the August 23, 1995 Planmng Commission meeting. The applicants seek CommiSSIon approval for an after-the-fact Variance from the required rear yard setback requirements m conjunctlon wIth an approved, InSpected addition at 715 Electric Avenue. The addItlon was constructed within one foot (1') of the rear property line, rather than the required three feet (3'). This situatlon was not detected untll constructlon was complete. On August 23rd, the CommISSIon continued the matter to allow staff time to research the possibIl1ty of a utIlity and/or trash easement on the subject property. No easement could be discovered after staff reVIewed the Grant Deed and spoke with the engmeering company who prepared the applicant's survey and Ms. Howard, the adjacent neIghbor. Staff presumes an easement does not eXISt. Staff recommends approval of the Variance subject to conditions. Mr. Curtls SaId the CIty received a letter m opposItion today, September 6, 1995, from Michelle Brendel, Seal Beach. A copy of a letter from MIChelle Brendel, dated September 5, and addressed to Jack Shelver, City Manager, was dIstnbuted to each Planning Commissioner. [Copy attached to Mmutes]. Commission Comments on Staff Report Legal Issues - Easement Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Steele to what degree the CommISSIon needs to conSIder legal questions, such as the potential for a prescriptive easement? Mr. Steele replied his office looked at the Grant Deed documents whIch do not reflect an easement. The Issue of a prescnptIve easement is not an issue the CIty has any jurisdIctIon to enforce. If a prescnptive easement exists on the subject property It would be an issue to enforce between the two adjoimng property owners. Public Hearing Chairperson Campbell announced the Publ1c Hearmg remained open from the prior meeting. Imtially the applicant, Doug Arch, said he had no comments for the CommISSIon but Chairperson Campbell said she had questlons for hIm. Doug Arch * 715 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Arch introduced hImself. . . . Page 4 - CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg CommiSSion MlI1ulcs of September 6, 199~ Sewer LIne Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Arch why he paid for the repair of the neighbor's sewer line after discovering it had been damaged? Mr. Arch said the sewer line runs underneath his house and felt it wasn't his neighbor's responsibility to repair what he broke. He was not told by anyone that he had to repair the line. Chairperson Campbell stated she visited the subject Site on Sunday, September 3rd and spoke with Mrs. Arch. Chairperson Campbell said she thought Mrs. Arch had said she was told she had to pay $2000 - $3000 to repair the sewer pipe. Mr. Arch said no, he went to the Howard's after the fact and mennoned what had happened, that he had authorized repair of the line out to the alley. Chairperson Campbell said that SInce there is no easement, that those sewer hnes are trespassIng on the apphcant's property. She asked if the applicant would have been within his rights to request the applicant relocate the sewer hnes at that time? Mr. Steele said to comment on that question would require a lot of speculanon on a lot of issues that he doesn't have the facts on. He could not speculate and was not sure if those issues entered the Variance issues. Chairperson Campbell said her concern was that by allowing the sewer lIne to connnue to be under hiS house IS Mr. Arch giVIng Ms. Howard a right-of-way? Commissioner Sharp Said quesnons about the neighbor's sewer hne don't have anythIng to do with the decision on the Variance applicanon. Mr. Steele Said the Issue of prescripnve easement rights does not enter Into this Vanance apphcatlOn. A person can't acqmre prescnpnve nghts against cities. Commissioner Dahlman asked how does the Commission best stay out of these Issues? Would approval or denial of thiS Variance affect whether or not the City gets involved In thiS issue? Mr. Steele Said that consldenng the fact the CommiSSion took the extra step In connnuIng the Public Hearing, asking for a copy of the Grant Deed to do the Invesnganon of a possible recorded easement on the property --- the City IS out of the easement issue. Approval or demal of a Variance should be based on whether the Variance findIngs can be made. Wood Fence Chairperson Campbell asked the length of the onginal wood fence? Mr. Arch said about ten feet. Mr. CurtIs said the original plans show the exisnng wood fence, about 25' back on the property. Chairperson Campbell said her measurements show the existing wood fence was about 40' and the area from the beginning of the fence to the gate was approximately 15'. Mr. Arch said the original fence started at the gate. Letter from Brendel Commissioner Brown asked the apphcant If he had read the letter from Michelle Brendel? Mr. Arch said no. He was provided a copy. Chairperson Campbell Said she had quesnons, "The whole pOInt here is that we have an administrative error. And yet, if the City was notified In August of 1992 that there was a problem, it seems to me that It would be Incumbent on the City to make sure a survey was done". . . . Page 5 - City of Seal Beach P1annmg ConunISSIOII Mmutes of ~eplemher 6, 1995 No one wished to speak in favor of this application. Those speaking against the applicabon followed. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark spoke in oppositlOn to the apphcatton, emphasIzing nine areas of concerns. He said he didn't think the problem was an administrative error, but rather administrative shenanigans. What attracted his attention to this apphcation, is that the subject parcel is the same type of parcel that he owns on Central A venue. Setback Determinations When he built on Central A venue, the garages on the alley were considered the rear yard and required a 9' setback. On thiS parcel, the garages on the alley are considered a side yard. This application does not have the required setback on the alley and the garage sets out into the alley a lot further than any parcels along that block. No Conditional Use PermIt (CUP) Required Mr. Stark said thiS apphcatton did not reqUire a CUP and It never came before the Planning CommIssion. However, hiS property on Central Avenue reqUired a CUP. He wondered why one property requIred a CUP and the other didn't, when there was not much different being done. No OJ)J)osition to NotIce Mr. Stark said that at the August 23rd meeting staff satd there was no oppOSition to the Pubhc Hearing Notice. There was an objectton filed with the City at the very start of thiS construcbon Property Deeds He was surprised the staff had no deed to thiS property because they had a deed to his Central Avenue property. The only difference bemg that Central Avenue had a recorded deed which provided for the front house, as in thIS case, wIth a 4' easement. The City required that 4' easement be reduced to a 3' easement to accommodate the setback before budding permits would be issued. He had to secure a QUit Claim Deed to I' of the easement. He said when the City says they don't have a deed he's very suspicious. Letter from Michelle Brendel Mr. Stark said he was pleased the CommIsSion received Michelle Brendel's letter. She attempted to matI a letter to Chatrperson Campbell but her address was unknown to the City or the City would not reveal it. So she brought It to the City to file it and they stamped It "September 7" -- they are a day ahead of themselves. III get the dIsttnct feeling the City dIdn't want this to come before the Commission tonightll She had to brmg the letter back so they could date stamp it the correct date. Photos Submitted Mr. Stark submitted several photographs to the CommisslOn and described what each photograph showed. While describing the photographs he said II A reasonably Intelligent hIgh school . . . Pagll6 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg ConmuSSIOII Mmullls of SllJlllllllber 6, 1995 youngster could take a look at that neighboring garage and the foundation for the subject property and tell you there's no six feet there. No way could anybody imagine, who inspected that place, there was six feet between the propertIes". He saId that one of the photos shows a window that used to be a shding glass door and the doorway With the staIrs leading up to a landing has also been changed to a wmdow but SaId It is a simple matter to take out a wmdow and put in a door. He asked why someone would have a sliding glass door into a garage? Fire Department Approval Mr. Stark said it is strange the staff report doesn't mentIon anythmg about the Fire Marshall's approval. Generally, the Fire Marshall is very concerned that they have space between property to drag hoses, etc. He asked If the Fire Marshall even knows about thiS SItuatIon? Coastal Commission Ap-proval Mr. Stark SaId there's no Coastal Commission approval on thIS addition. He saId he checked with the Coastal CommissIOn and they have no record of It. How dId that get by the City? He said no permits would be ISSUed for his property on Central A venue until there was proof that the Coastal Commission had approved It. Who Paid for the Survey He said staff brushed off "cavalierly" that after the work had been done Pearsall Co. conducted a survey. He asked who paId for the survey? He asked why the survey wasn't done at the beginOlng of the project as it was done at the begmning on Central A venue? On Central Avenue the City required the property lines be marked WIth the lead markers stamped mto the sidewalk and alley. Project is Greased - No Admmistrative Error Mr. Stark said he was hIghly SUSpiCIOUS that these issues were admInistrative errors. He SaId that if a passerby could clearly see what was gOIng on then why couldn't a building inspector and the City staff see it? "If they're competent they would have and the apphcant wouldn't be in the mess he's in today". Variance Findmgs Mr. Stark addressed the State-mandated findings for a Variance, notmg this apphcation would probably not affect the City's General Plan. Regarding special circumstances relating to the property, include size, shape, topography, location or surroundings --- he felt this findmg could not be made. The third finding, that the granting of such a Vanance would not constitute a grant of special priVilege, Mr. Stark SaId that's exactly what the Planning Commission IS beIng asked to do. The required 9' alley setback is not there, the Side yard setback is reduced to l' and there's no other similar property in the CIty that enjoys such a Vanance. He SaId the Commission had no nght to grant a Variance. He SaId he was surpnsed at the cavalier attitude In whIch the apphcant and the staff have presented this to the Commission. He suggested the Commission watch the Video tape of the August 23rd Commission meeting where it was "sort of filled With smirks and gIggles that this . . Page 7 - City of Seal Beach PllIl1l11l1g COIIUDISSIOO Mmulcs of Seplcmber 6, 1995 is a done deal --- it's greased --- it's going through --- no problem". Mr. Stark said the CIty staff were on notice from the tlme the foundation was poured nght up to the present time. There were City Building Inspectors out at the sIte inspecting. He wondered how they could miss an outsIde entrance and a stairway? How could they mISS that there's not 6' between the neighbors garage and the foundatIOn? He said "This IS not administrative error. This IS administrative shenanigans or it's outright gross lOcompetence". There were no other persons wIsh 109 to speak in oppositIOn. Rebuttal Doug Arch Mr. Arch said they were told there was a 4' setback on the alley and that It had been changed; It was a City code that had changed. The BUlldlOg Inspector had caught, possibly because the property was askew, the southwest corner of the garage had to go back l' to whatever it was. He and his wife do not have plans to use this property as a rental or anythlOg else. His wIfe does a lot of crafts and their onglOal plan was to put French doors or a sl1dlOg glass door 10 the garage. They wanted another access outside, through the sIde door. The CIty shot that down. They put a 2' x 2.6' wlOdow there. It was their own Idea to put a wlOdow where the sliding glass door is supposed to be. There is no lOtention to rent any portion of this home. The Idea that this was planned, that they tned to gain extra square footage, IS rIdiculous. "This is the first time we've ever gotten into something like this. Unfortunately it was a comedy of errors, one situation after another that created the headache we're 10 right now". As for a building a bedroom over the garage, he said the garage was built on its own foundation, built completely independent of the old house. The house was bullt in the 1920's, it's not 10 real good condition and the intention was to build a structure now to a polOt where they could actually tear down the old house someday. The two structures are completely lOdependent of each other. Regarding the Echson pole, when they purchased the house it was a tear down and they should never have tried to fix It up. They trIed to put a garage back there at one tIme but a guy WIre from the Echson pole was 10 the way. They paid $6,500 to have the telephone pole moved to clear an area for the cars to go lOto a garage. At one tune they had the house up for sale but were unable to sell it because of the Edison pole, there was no access. "If I had it to do over again I never would have bought the place". As he saId before, hIS archItect advised hIm everything was under control, everything had passed. Mr. WhIttenberg asked Mr. Arch who paid for the survey that was done after-the-fact? Mr. Arch SaId he paId for It. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Arch ifhe was referrlOg to the addItion and the old house? Mr. Arch said yes, the additlon was free-standlOg. It has ItS own wall and a separate foundation. They didn't attach it to the old house. Commissioner Brown asked If there is a connectIon between the addition and the old house? . Mr. Arch said yes, It'S all one house. The house itself sits 3' feet above ground level and that's . . . Page 8 - CIty of SeaJ Beach Plannmg ComnU'SIOII Mmute. of September 6, 199~ why there are three steps/steurs from the garage leadmg up to the first floor addition; a sunroom. From there the stalrs go to the second floor. Mr. CurtIs saId page two of the plans shows the garage layout and the fact that the only way to enter the upstairs IS from the garage or the existing house. . CommissIOner Dahlman said Mr. Stark correctly pointed out that the PlannIng CommIssion is not allowed to authorize a Vanance If the granting would constitute a special pnvIlege. Also, something about the property, such as the topography, needs to be present to make the subject site uniquely different to Justify the Vanance. He asked the applicant to consider those facts and asked Director WhIttenberg about the issue of a SIde yard or back yard setback and does the CIty feel this is a correct determmatIon in this case? Mr. Whittenberg replied that the letter from Michelle Brendel mdIcates, her first letter to the City in 1992, indicated concern about the setback of the garage to the alley. The setback that the Planning CommIssIon is consIdenng was not brought up by Ms. Brendel at that time. The way in which the subject SIte is configured, the frontage on Electric Avenue IS the front of the property, it's the only street frontage the property has. The alley-way is, by definItion, a side- yard setback. Answering Mr. Stark's questIon, Mr. Whittenberg SaId If there were other past . interpretations by preVIOUS Planmng Department DIrector's he could not say why those determinatIons were made. The muniCIpal Code clearly says that on a SIde-yard street-sIde setback It's a four foot (4') setback. It doesn't address whether the structure IS a garage or not, it just calls for a 4' setback. CommIssioner Brown asked If the mUnICIpal Code defines side-yard and rear-yard setbacks. Mr. Curtis said: Lot front line in the case of corner lot, It's the Ime separatmg the narrowest street frontage from the lot. For an interior lot, it's the Ime separating the lot from the street. Therefore, the SIde along Electric A venue IS the front. Lot rear line is the line which is opposlfe and most dzstance from the lot front lzne. Therefore, the other two would be side property hnes. ThIS garage IS on a SIde-yard property hne. Chairperson Campbell said the fence 10 questIon should have had a 3' setback and asked what setback the side-yard setback should have? Mr. CurtIs said the fence should have had a 3' setback and the Code stipulates for a side-yard abuttmg an alley, a 4' setback is required. It is 4' feet. Chairperson Campbell asked why It protrudes out further than the other houses? Mr. WhIttenberg saId the rest of the alley setbacks are 9' because those are rear lot hnes on an alley which require a 9' setback. CommISSIoner Brown asked If there are other propertIes on Electric Avenue that are taking advantage of thIS anomaly in the Code? Mr. WhIttenberg SaId there are other lots along Electric A venue, as well as other streets m the CIty, that would fall under thIS same definition but whether they have bUilt new structures to these standards could not be answered at this tIme. CommISSIoner Brown noted the Code gIves thIS lot a 5' advantage --- . . . Plgc9 - City of SuI Beach PIamung Comml'SJOlI Mmules of September 6, 1995 whether it's a sIde yard or rear yard versus hIS neighbor. Mr. WhIttenberg explained it's an unusual situatIon because there are very few lots 10 town that don't go all the way through from the street to the alley. The person speaking 10 OpposItIon, Mr. Stark, indicated hIS lot on Central Avenue is in the same situation, where It does not go through from street to street. Evidenta.11y there was a dIfferent interpretatIon at the tIme hIS plans were bUIlt regarding setbacks. Mr. Whittenberg said he couldn't answer questions on that project as he was not employed with the CIty at that tIme. Commissioner Dahlman asked if the lItIgatIon concerning the Central A venue property is over and finished? Mr. Steele SaId he dIdn't know that there's anyth10g remaIning of that case after the Ninth CIrCUIt's refusal to reconsIder its rulIng WhICh was 10 favor of the CIty. But he was not absolutely certain that the case is finished, he supposed there could be a petition for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court. CommIssioner Dahlman saId then he is again asking what he asked prevIously, would anyth10g the Planning CommiSSIon would do to01ght have any legal impact on the Central Avenue case? Mr. Steele said no. Commissioner Dahlman advised the applIcant that there are three statutory findings, from State law, that the CommIssion must be able to support if they were to vote 10 favor of a Vanance. One statutory find10g IS that an approval would not constItute a speclOl pnvllege, and that uniqueness about the property JustIfies it. He asked how Mr. Arch VIewed these findings. Mr. Arch replied that the fact that the lot IS sItuated 10 an odd-ball manner, there's an adjacent lot (Ms. Howard's) that's isolated by their lot, the fact that their lot is irregular in shape, the setbacks are special; the fact that It'S Just not a standard lot. He and hIS WIfe were under the Impression that the shape of the lot was a lIttle more u01form than It IS. He saId he questIoned his architect regarding the setbacks. The architect told hIm he had questIoned the CIty about the 4' setback, tell10g the CIty staff the neIghbor next door had a 9' setback and he wanted to make sure. City staff told him 4' was required. They have no rear entrance into the property as far as an alley, it does come off the side. He said he didn't know legally what any speCIal circumstance would be. He asked about Ms. Brendel's 1992 letter, saying this was never brought to his attentIon. He had no Idea that they were creating a problem for somebody else in town. The last thing they wanted to do was create a problem, they wanted to Improve the property. If they had known somebody was hav10g a problem WIth our bUIld10g thIS house he would have lIke to have known about it then --- It could have elIm10ated a lot of problems. Commissioner Dahlman said It would seem that all of the problems would go away and a Variance would not be necessary If the applicant and the impacted neighbor were to agree to redraw the lot line somehow and asked the applicant what he thought of this suggestion? The applicant said he didn't think the neighbor would gIve up any of hIS property. Commissioner Dahlman agreed, notIng the neIghbor wouldn't give up property for nothing but indicated it may be possible the CommiSSIOn's deCISIon could cost hIm someth1Og The other Commissioners noted there is not 6' between the two houses. The applicant saId It may be possible for his neighbor to cut his wall back to the gate area, WhICh would gIVe them more accessIbIlity, it may be 2' - 3' at that point. . . . Page 10 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg COmnllSSlOn Mmules of Seplmlbcr 6, 1995 Commissioner Dahlman asked the applicant If he knew anythmg about the Fire Marshall assessing the subject property or had he talked to the FIre Marshall? The apphcant said no. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Stark why he didn't come before the Planmng Commission at the last Commission meeting on thIS issue? Mr. Stark said he was out of town on a hearing or he would have been there. Commissioner Brown said he was Just cunous, It seemed to him that if there were an important issue to the Stark's they may be a day late and a dollar short. Mr. Stark said the Commission must abide by the State codes whether he IS present or not. He thought the staff has accurately CIted the State and City codes and the basis for granting a Variance and no way does thIS apphcant meet those requIrements. Whlle he felt sorry for the applicant, he noted he was not wIthout recourse. He could go back against his architect and/or his contractor and file SUIt against them for not properly buddmg hIS structure. He pointed out the shiftlng side yard versus rear yard saymg "It all depends on who you are, I suspect". Mr. Steele Said Mr. Stark had answered the questlon that CommIssIoner Brown asked, this is not reopening the oppositlon portion. CommIssIoner Dahlman saId he agreed, thIS tOpIC is out of order. Mr. Stark Said he thought the ChaIrperson was running the meetmg and said "My comments were directed to the Chairman, when I want to talk to the staff I'll direct my comments to the staff". Chairperson Campbell saId "Please continue Mr. Stark". Mr. Stark said thank you. Chairperson Campbell closed the Pubhc Hemng. CommIssIoner Dahlman asked If the apphcant had any further rebuttal? Mr. Arch said as far as recourse agamst hIS archItect, he would hke to be able to find hIm. He used to work in Huntmgton Beach but he hasn't been able to locate him. As far as recourse against Bryant's Construction, he knows they have broken up; one person may still be in Seal Beach. " Mr. Whittenberg said there were a number of Issues raIsed during the opposmg pubhc testlmony that he would hke to address: 1. Why was there no CUP reqUired for thIS property as opposed to the property at Central Avenue? The property at Central Avenue was a condommIUm project wlllch had receIved a CIty approval to convert a pre-exIsting rental development to condommIUms. The approval Itself was reqUIred to be done by CUP. Once a CUP IS approved, any modIficatIOns to the approved plans are required to be done by a CUP. Mr. Stark called out from the audience. ChaIrperson Campbell saId "Mr. Stark, please, you had your chance, please ...". CommIssIoner Dahlman said the CommIssion realIzed Mr. Stark was m opposition to thIS application. DIrector Whittenberg asked Mr. Stark If he would hke him to cite the mumclpal ~ sections? Mr. Stark continued to speak from the audience. CommISSIoner Dahlman apologized to the ChaIr, indicating he was out of order in addressmg him and suggested the CommIssIon hear from the Director. . . . Pace 11 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg Conun.U.OR Mmutes of September 6. 199~ 2. Why the City dIdn't have a copy of the deed for the subject property? The CIty does not routinely have copIes of deeds for properties. Those documents are at the Orange County Recorder's Office. When indIVIduals file certain applIcations, Variances, CUPs, they are required to proVIde a legal descripuon for the property. In many cases, the applIcants WIll provIde a deed showing the legal description so they don't have to retype It. SO, in some cases the City WIll have a deed and in other cases It WIll not. 3. Fire Department approval. All buIlding plans are approved by the FIre Department prior to the Issuance of a buIlding permit. They WIll also perform a premIses inspecuon once a final mspectlon IS requested. In this case, the plans were approved by the Fire Department pnor to the issuance of buildmg permits so it dId meet all theIr requirements at that tIme. The issues now before the Planning CommIssion are Issues the Fire Department WIll have to deal wIth. If the Commission approves a VarIance, the FIre Department WIll have to go back and look at the structure based on the reduced setbacks. They may have addluonal requirements to be placed on the owner at that ume. 4. How did the protect get approved wIthout a California Coastal Commission approval? The project dId get Coastal Commission approval. Their exemptIOn letter, dated Apnl 3, 1992, IS attached to the buIlding permIt. It's for 715 ElectrIC Avenue for a 569 square foot garage and a 633 square foot master bedroom and bath above a garage. 5. Special Circumstance Issue. Staff feels there are, 10 this case, special circumstances due to the admimstrauve errors which, as staff has clearly indicated, exist. These admmistrative errors warrant the Planmng CommIssion approval of a Vanance at 715 Electric Avenue. In the letter supplied by Michelle Brendel, there was dISCUSSIon that at one time the CIty requIred the demolItion of a structure in Surfside because certam Code were not complIed wIth. He SaId he was not employed by the CIty of Seal Beach at that time and didn't know the hIstory of that partIcular site. But when a situation was brought to the Planning Department's attenuon where construcuon has occurred not 10 accordance wIth approved plans, staff WIll almost always indicate to the applicant that their first option would be to apply for a Variance to seek relief from the administrative overSIght. If the CIty were to deny that Vanance, the property owner has two optIons. One would be to reconstruct the structure so It meets setback reqUIrements, or somehow try to work out an arrangement WIth the property owner next door to adjust the lot line to where he has the reqUIred setbacks. . . . Paac12 - City of Seal Beach P1annmg Comnll881OD Mmulc8 of Scplelllber 6, 199~ 6. The comment that the project was greased. Mr. WhIttenberg saId he would stand on our staff comIng before the CommIssIon WIth a wntten staff report, at a PublIc Hearing, IndIcatIng there have been errors made by staff. That does not IndIcate, in any way, that anything has been "greased". As far as responding to the 1992 letter from MIchelle Brendel, the reason the window was put In, where the French doors were proposed, in the garage was in response to Ms. Brendel's letter. When staff looked at the plans more closely, they IndIcated to the applIcant that the doors should not have been approved in the first place and needed to be removed. The garage foundation had to be relocated at the time of trenchIng because of the 1992 comment letter from Michelle Brendel The City has responded, it feels, In a proper manner to the concerns expressed by MIchelle Brendel In her letter of 1992. 7. Why was the applicant/property owner not made aware of MIchelle Brendel's letter(s). Those letters were addressing stafrs Interpretation of its own mUnICIpal ~ and dId not impact the applIcant's plans. HIS plans met the reqUIrements and so on and it was an internal issue between stafrs administration of the Code and the concern of the letter wnter and not an issue for the applIcant. Mr. Steele provided an additional comment on the questIon of special CIrcumstances and privIlege. The CIty Attorney's Office researched thIS Issue before there was a staff recommendation In the staff report. The umque property-related circumstances In thIS case are (1) the shape of the lot WhICh was created by deed rather than by map, and (2) the unIque shape of the lot which basIcally caused the admInIstrative error. The BuIlding Inspector went out to the subject property and assumed he knew the relatIonshIp between the structure on the property and the property line and dIdn't make the measurement. It has been the CIty Attorney Office's position that the unique shape of the property caused the admInistrative error. There are cases in California which hold that once a CIty has made thIS type of error, in the plan check process, the applicant is entitled to rely on the approval. And the admInIstrative error In that circumstance would work a hardship on the applicant If the applIcant was forced to go back and reconstruct the structure because of the admimstratIve error. In that circumstance, one court specifically held that the Variance was Justified based on the admInIstrative error WhICh would cause a hardshIp to the applIcant. When the staff report was beIng prepared, the CIty Attorney's Office recommended to staff that the adminIstrative error would provide JustIfication for malong the Variance findings. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Steele if there were other court cases that went the other way or IS thIS an non-controversIal Interpretation? Mr. Steele said he knows of no other case that went the other way. Mr. CUrtIS said, regardIng Mr. Stark's comment that he was reqUIred to get a CUP for a reason other than the condominIum converSIon, hIS original project when it came through the CIty was prior to Mr. WhIttenberg's employment wIth the CIty of Seal Beach. The reason Mr. Stark had . . . Paco 13 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommiSSion Mmute. of September 6. 199~ to obtain a CUP was because he was doing a major expansion to a non-conform1Og property. His property was non-conform1Og because it had two dwelling units on a property that density requirements would only allow one dwelhng unit on. If the property at 715 Electnc Avenue, had been built according to plans with the correct setbacks, the property would meet every aspect of the municipal ~ and didn't reqUlre anyth10g beyond a bUlld10g permit. Addlbona1ly, the exisbng wooden fence that was on the property pnor to the block wall being built was parallel to the eXisting house and the house is askew. This IS why the Building Inspector felt the property hne extended along the fence line --- because the fence itself was askew. It was built 3' away from the skewed house and followed the skew line of the house. The new fence was budt by the adjacent property owner and it was placed perpendicular to his house ---It made It qUite apparent that there was a problem. When the new block wall was built it was not bUllt where the old wooden fence had been bUllt Chairperson Campbell asked does the CIty requIre surveys or IS that an opbon? Mr. Whittenberg said that's up to the dIscretIOn of the Budding Inspector. It depends on the project and whether he feels it is necessary to be 10 the property hnes for theIr purposes. Chairperson Campbell said it seemed to her that WIth all the letters and correspondence a survey would have been most appropnate. Chairperson Campbell Said Mr. Whittenberg stated the FIre Department IS go1Og to go back and review the site? Mr. WhIttenberg saId at the time of the final inspection the Fire Department goes back and gIves ItS final inspecbon before the CIty SIgns off on the final. ThIS has not yet been done. No final 1Ospecnon has been granted on the property at thIS point. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Whittenberg what some of the remedies would be that he could foresee the FIre Department requiring? She noted that the block wallIS stepped from the gate to the end of the garage. Mr. WhIttenberg Said he would not guess at what the Fire Department might require. He said they will be 100k1Og at the structure Itself and may reqUIre addlbonal fire protective material on eIther the interior or exterior walls of the structure for fire separation purposes. They mIght reqUlre a sprinklering system. There are a number of different opbons they could look at. The Fire Department's major concern IS the distance from the property hne distance to building dIstance Chairperson Campbell asked why a final 1Ospection has not been gIven to 715 Electric Avenue? She said she was under the impression the apphcant was coming to the City for an after-the-fact Variance. Mr. CUrtIS said that when the Budd10g Inspector went out to 10spect the block wall that the neighbor had bullt they noticed the problem. Mr. Arch' s house had everything done except for the final inspection. Frequently people will inhabIt a house prior to the final inspecnon because generally everyth10g IS there. Sometimes people put final inspections off for tax reasons or other reasons. The house was waIting final 1Ospecnon and the City would not allow further inspecbons unnl It was resolved --- it has been a couple of years now in the process of resolution. Chairperson Campbell asked what has taken It so long to get to thIS . . . Pac~ 14 - C.ty of Seal Bcacb Plannmg COItU1I1SSIOI1 Mmules of S~plel1lbcr 6, 199~ point? Mr. CurtiS saId he didn't know exactly except that City staff was worlang with the applIcant, allowing him the opportumty to make a decls~on on how he wanted to proceed. ItJust dragged out. Commissioner Brown asked If there were a way the property lme could be moved and the block wall removed from the garage back to make the setback better? Mr. Curtis said no, the 3' setback is required of each residence. Even with a lot line adjustment, he did not think there would be 3' on either Side. The measurement between the applIcant's garage and the adjacent property is 41h' - 5' --- you'd end up with two non-conforming properties. Mr. Whittenberg said you can't grant a decIsion on this property based on requiring an adJoming property to do somethmg that they don't have a requirement to do. Chairperson Campbell asked what is the dIstance between those two homes? Mr. Curtis SaId he thought 4%' - 5'. Chairperson Campbell said "DIdn't that gIve them a clue that somethmg wasn't right?" Mr. Curtis said "I wasn't one of the mspectors, I can't answer that". CommissIoner Dahlman said that's the closest pomt and It WIdens consIderable from that pomt. Mr. Curtis told CommissIoner Brown that even If a lot line adjustment was done It wouldn't address the main concern which IS the separatIon of the properties. Techmcally you could create more of a setback but the distance between the two would stIll be the same. Without actually movmg the buIlding it wouldn't accomplIsh much, although movmg the wall back would aId m access along the side property. CommissIoner Brown saId that's the point he was getting at - -- one of the concerns was fire safety WhICh IS caused by the block wall's being I' from the buildmg. Mr. Whittenberg said the Fire Department would look at the entire length of the structure's wall to the structure on the next property, not the property lme wall. They are not so much concerned with the block wall and will work around the wall. You're loolang at the capabIlity of a fire to jump from one habitable structure to another. CommissIoner Brown SaId he felt the Fire Department would also concerned about access. Mr. Whittenberg agreed but said to a lesser extent as it's a short property and a person could get around It from a number of different directions for hose purposes. Mr. Curtis saId even If the reqUIred 3' setback was there, there is nothmg that would have stopped the applIcant from putting up a 6' wall extension from the property line over to the house and effectIvely bloclang it off as well. The entIre width of the property IS 65'. Commissioner Sharp saId "I have to say a couple of words. I'm appalled that Bruce Stark, an attorney, would make the remarks that he does underhanded from the audience. I thmk he's completely out of lme and I really... it upsets me that anyone of hIS stature would do somethmg like that. Now to get back to thIS subJect..." he said there are a number of problems, some of which the Fire Department IS gomg to have to settle. He mdIcated it IS too bad that thiS happened and he was sure the applIcant and the neIghbor wished thIS had not happened. He said " I don't know who's fault It was and really doesn't make any dIfference. But I'm certam it wasn't anything underhanded or anythmg like that --- I know our staff too well. And the staff that was here before the present staff. I thmk that we have all the findings that we need according to the attornei' . . . . Pace 15 - City of ScaJ Beach P1annmg COIIumsslOII Mmulcs of September 6. 1995 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Variance 95-4, subject to Conditions of Approval. Before the Second, Chairperson Campbell asked if any of the other CommIssIoners wIshed to dIscuss this matter further. CommIssioner Dahlman saId a Second was reqUlred In order to permIt discussion and CommIssIoner Law Seconded the motIon. CommissIOner Law SaId "I don't thInk we can walk through hfe without malang a mIstake. And anybody that says they haven't made a mistake IS eIther God or a liar. I feel sorry for the City, it was a temble mistake. But we all make mistakes. If you look back on your life and you can find out places where you made a mistake, how was it corrected?" She SaId the Fire Department will make the final decISIon on this matter. Then there won't be a fire problem. She SaId III thInk it definitely should be passed as It is, after-the-fact". CommIssIoner Brown asked the CIty Attorney about the special cIrcumstance apphcable to the property. He said the real problem IS the location of the structure on the property, not the property itself. Mr. Steele said the Issue IS two-fold. FIrst, It'S the shape of the property that was created by deed, rather than by map and second, the OrIentatIon of the buIldmg on the lot itself. Commissioner Brown asked, to be 100% clear or as clear as pOSSIble, If Mr. Steele was saying that the location of the structure is a special circumstance apphcable to the property? Mr. Steele said yes, the special circumstances are the shape of the property and the orientation of the buildIng on the property. The SpecIal circumstances on the property have caused a sItuatIon where, through admimstratIve error, strIct apphcatIon of the Code would Impose an unreasonable hardshIp on thIS applicant; the apphcant would be forced to tear down the addItIOn. CommiSSIOner Brown asked "You have no doubt that would hold up in court? Or It hasn't been tested in court?" Mr. Steele saId It has been tested In court, there's that one case from the 1980's that he mentioned preVIously. That case specifically holds that the apphcant IS entItled to rely on the cIty's plan check process or InspectIon process. And once the applicant does that, grantIng a Variance to get the applicant out from under the cIty's mIstake or the combinatIon of the mistake between the architect and the City is not the grantIng of a special priVIlege. Commissioner Dahlman commented on the Issue of surveys, saying It seems hke there should have been a survey done In this case. He dIsagreed that the CIty should always have a survey on every project because there would be thousands of unnecessary surveys Just to come up WIth one necessary survey. He agreed with COmlnISSlOner Law, that we're all human and added "No matter how well we do somethIng, It can always be done better". He added If the staff could assure him that they are taking steps to prevent SImIlar thIngs from happemng In the future, then he would support approval of thIS Variance. Chairperson Campbell said that in looking at all the Issues the thIng that probably threw the Inspector was the location of the old fence, SInce the old fence was parallel to the old reSIdence. II However , when you get down to the garage and you see how close the two reSIdences are, that's a clue right then and there. And I'm sorry, this goes beyond admInIstrative error. Because the distance between the two houses at thIS pOInt IS totally InsuffiCIent, does not meet . . . Paac 16 - City of Seal Beach P1annmg CommiSSion Mmutcs of September 6, 199~ City Code. And that is something that should have been pIcked up when they were putting the forms down for the concrete for the foundation. That should have been pIcked up right then and there. Never mind the fence". She did not feel this was something the applicant created but problems that rest with the City. IIAnd Mary, nobody's perfect, we all make mIstakes. The problem is that when we have employees that go out and InSpect, we expect a certain level of competency which I'm sorry dId not eXIst in thIS case". Commissioner Law SaId nobody's perfect. Chairperson Campbell agreed but noted there were enough things In this Instance to clue him in. CommIssioner Law said "Well then, we should take on the inspectIon job". Commissioner Sharp said there was a Motion and a Second on the floor and asked for a vote. Chairperson Campbell saId "Well, we WIll after we fimsh all our comments Mr. Sharp". Chairperson Campbell Said those were her concerns but It is not something she would penalize the applicant for. The applIcant made all good faIth attempts to get any and all the problems resolved; the problem lIes WIth the CIty. Commissioner Brown said "I agree, it's not Just making mIstakes. It does go beyond that. And I think... I don't know what type of adminIstratIve sanctIons could or should be done. That's not for us to decide. But that really does go beyond a simple mistake or a complicated mistake. That goes to gross negligence on the part of the BuIlding Inspector. And I think that surely if Dr. Dahlman or myself made that type of mistake we would be held responsible. I don't think though that we should penalize the applicant for that. I think we have a real problem with thIS property, WIth granting a Vanance. But I don't really see that we have any way out of It short of asking the poor guy to tear down the structure. What Impresses me is that there already was a change in the setback on the garage for a previous mistake. So I WIll also support the Variance although ... I'm really not happy about It II . MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Brown, Law, Campbell Mr. Whittenberg said he forget to mention that the CommISSIon adopt Resolution No. 95-20 which is attached to the staff report, this would approve the Vanance WIth the CondItIons as recommended in the staff report. CommiSSIoner Brown asked if a Condition could be added regardmg the Fire Marshall. Mr. Steele Said yes, although It would be repetItIve of eXistIng law. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Resolution No. 95-20, subject to the Conditions of Approval, with the following Condition added: ~6(4}. The applicant shall apply for and receive final approval from the Orange County Fire authority prior to final sign off on the building . . . Page 17 - City of Seal Beacb Plannmg CotWIIISSIOR Mmutes of September 6. 199~ pennit and shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Orange County Fire authority. Before the vote, CommIssioner Brown saId he wanted It on the Record that the CommIssion considered and thought about the Fire Department Issue Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg If changmg the resolutIon would mean it could not be signed before the next meeting? Mr. WhIttenberg said no. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Brown, Law, Campbell Mr. Whittenberg SaId the actIon this evemng constItutes a final actIon by the Planning Commission. It would start the ten calendar-day appeal period runmng for appeals to the CIty Council. RECESS: Chairperson Campbell called for a short recess at 9:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9: 15 p.m. *** 7. Height Variation #95-3 Address: ApplIcant: Property Owner(s): 240 14th Street Larry and Pamela Luckey Larry and Pamela Luckey Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applIcants request approval to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the height limit in conjunction WIth an addItIon to an existmg single famIly dwellIng. Mr. Curtis SaId the City has not receIved comments, eIther written or oral, on this application. , Commission Comments on Staff Report The Commission had no comments or questIons on the staff report PublIc Hearing Larry Luckey * 240 14th Street. Seal Beach Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Luckey if his architect is the same as the archItect for the Arch's? Mr. Luckey SaId no. Mr. Luckey had no comments. There were no persons in the audience WIshing to speak in favor of or agaInst thIS applicatIon. The ChaIr noted there was no need for a rebuttal and the PublIc Heanng was closed. . . . Page 18 - City of Seal Beach Planning COIlUI\ISSIOIl MUlU\cs of September 6, 199~ Commission Comments MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution 92-21, thus approving Height Variation 95-3. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Brown, Campbell, Law, Sharp Mr. Steele explained the Planmng Commission's action is final and the ten calendar-day appeal period to the City CouncIl begins tomorrow. *** 8. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 To estabhsh CIty-wide standards for the temporary dIsplay of advertising banners in commercIal/industnal zones. The proposed regulatIons would estabhsh a permIttmg process and set maXImum tIme and SIze hmIts for the dIsplay of temporary banners Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file 10 the Planmng Department]. The City's municipal ~ currently prohIbIts any use of banners or pennants with the exception of gasoline service statIOns. The City has been lax 10 enforcing thIS sectIon of the Code because of the State's receSSIon and CIty staff was unable to get the businesses to cooperate WIth the Code enforcement. It was not feaSIble for Planmng Department staff to proVide Code enforcement on fifty to SIXty busmesses that wouldn't cooperate. ThIS action was tabled for some tIme but at thIS tIme the economy has Improved enough to allow the CIty to proceed WIth this. Several merchants were 100Iong at other ways to advertIse and the CIty came to have a high concentration of Illegal banners. Staff IS proposmg to regulate the use of banners so they can be productive busmess advertIsmg tools rather than a visual bhght on the City. Staff now believes the temporary use of banners can be appropriate. The use could be allowed under a permitting process and would be subject to dIsplay and removal regulatIOns. 90% of Orange County cities do have some type of temporary banner ordmances. Commission Comments on Staff Report EXIStIng Banners Commissioner Brown asked what will happen to the eXIsting banners? Mr. Curtis saId eXIstIng, non-permitted banners WhICh are hangmg now would fall under these new prOVISIons and would have to be permitted or removed. CommISSIOner Brown asked how this would be enforced? Mr. Curtis said that when staff was imtIally researchmg thIS the busmess commumty said they are reluctant to conform With the CIty'S reqUlrements because there are no optIons They felt if there was an optIon(s) where they could get a permit that they were WIllIng to live WIth the reqUirements. OtherwIse, under current standards, If someone SImply refused to abIde by the . . . Page 19 - City of Seal Beach PlAnnmg COIIUlIISSIOII MUlutes of September 6, 199~ municipal Code, the City would be forced to take them to court; the City doesn't have mfraction authority. RemedIes for Non-Permitted Banners Chairperson Campbell asked what staff would do if, thIS ordmance havmg been passed, someone does not apply for a permIt and puts a banner up? Mr. Curtis saId that violation IS a mIsdemeanor and would be treated by taking the person to court. He saId the CIty is hoping most businesses that are now reluctant to comply w1l1 comply because they will have a means to getting their banners put up. That will elimmate a large number of the people who are currently violating the Code. Mr. Steele said he thought it would be a good Idea, when this Ordmance goes to the City Council, to impose an amortization period. ThIS IS a penod wlthm which the non-conformmg banners have to come in and get a permit. Because of the temporary nature of the signs themselves, the amortization penod would be very short, say 21 days. He noted thIS IS not in the document tonight and IS an Idea Mr. Steele had while dlscussmg the Issue. Banner ReVIew and Approval Chairperson Campbell indIcated that the staff report says all banners will be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. She asked if that would make the Director a "Banner Czar"? Mr. WhIttenberg saId the Issue IS really that the banner conform to the SIze reqUIrements and that the SIgn's text meets the proposed language. Mr. Steele satd Mr. Whittenberg would not have authority over the SIgn's content as long as it meets the two mformation items and the SIze reqUIrement. CommiSSIoner Dahlman asked if the CIty ordinances would still apply, I.e., alcohohc beverage brand names? Mr. WhIttenberg said yes. Hung for Two Months/Year Commissioner Dahlman said thIS proposal allows for a banner to be hung for two months of each year. What happens If someone has the Idea to hold a Saturday mormng farmers market for fifteen weeks? Mr. Whittenberg said if it's an mdlvldual busmess they would need to comply WIth the proposed critena or seek a waiver through a Variance process. The Code says you can display a banner for maXImum 30 days, a 30 day break, and another 30 day display period. Commissioner Sharp pointed out that a business could get a permIt for ten days and get SIX of those. There must be 30 days between the penods however Mr. Curtis saId that would have to be changed. The 30-day penod between banner permits would have to be changed; it could be shortened. Mr. WhIttenberg SaId staff's concern IS really for a specIal event. If It'S an on-gomg event there are other ways to advertise that which may be more effective than weekly banners. . . . Pagc 20 - City of Seal Beach PllIMmg COIIUl\lnlOn Mmutc. of Scptcmbcr 6, 199) Public Heanng The Chair opened the Public Hearmg. The following person(s) spoke in favor: David Rosenman * 8th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman commented that he was concerned about the on-going problem of enforcement of City regulatIons. Also, he wondered If the CIty Attorney could desIgn a penalty of, for example, $500 per day per VIolatIon is tacked onto the property tax and tacked onto the property's deed. So If someone doesn't pay, then a fine IS placed on the property and the property couldn't be sold without the fine being paid CommissIoner Dahlman saId he favored incentive versus enforced reqUIrements as it's eaSIer and more natural for everyone. Staffs positIon IS that they would brmg the maJonty of the businesses mto conformance and it WIll have a cost and a burden m terms of tIme and application process. Mr. Rosenman said there are people who are violatmg now and wIll not stop vIolatmg because of publIc pressure. There must be some mcentIve to make them comply. Additionally, page 8 of the Mam Street Specific Plan, Table 2 for SeaSIde GnU, the closmg hours should be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on week- ends. This would make theIr hours the same as BJ's Pizza. He asked these typos be corrected. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Rosenman If he meant the penalty for Just banners or all non- conforming issues? Mr. Rosenman saId he would lIke to have thIS agendized at a future time. Those persons speakIng against this ZTA: Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark said Seal Beach is runmng against thIS tIde, notmg we need less government regulation m our lIves instead of more. This ZT A is a perfect example of that. WhIle Seal Beach has some tacky signs, he asked how could CIty staff enforce this banner ordmance? He said there IS a neon beer SIgn m a wmdow near the Shore Shop on Seal Beach Boulevard and nothing has been done about thIS. Seal Beach should not be stampeded by the foolIshness of other cIties. He noted the followmg problems WIth thIS ordmance: (1) no defimtIon of what a banner is; (2) IS the ordmance pertaimng to banners insIde a store?; (3) what about neon SIgns in the window that says "Sale"; (4) where is the reasonable relatIonship between the $500 bond and sending someone out there to cut a banner down? A $500 bond will be difficult for many merchants to raise; (5) why should the DIrector of Development ServIces get mvolved m why a merchant wants to put a SIgn up? He felt the DIrector should concentrate on bnnging tax- producmg businesses into town. He felt the Director " ... should be out trymg to hustle some business for Seal Beach mstead of reviewing banners. We can hire a clerk to do thIS". He asked why is there an exemptIon for a shopping center? There's a lot of mdIvldual businesses . . . Page 21 . City of Seal Beach PllIl1llmg COOUIIIUIOD Mmulc8 of Seplelllber 6, 199~ 10 a center and suppose they put a SIgn up? Why should that store be exempt and a sImllar store downtown not be exempt? He said he was 10 favor of gettIng rId of unsIghtly and obnoxIous signs. He suggested a better way of dOIng thIS would be to CIte them for a public nUIsance. He felt the ord1Oance as presented has short com1Ogs and needs reworlang. Commissioner Dahlman asked If this proposed ordinance was similar to other citIes? Mr. Curtis said yes, It'S very simIlar. This proposal was based on aspects staff hked of other CItIes banner codes. Chairperson Campbell asked about banners insIde a store versus outSIde? Mr. CUrtIS saId thIS proposed ord1Oance addresses outSIde banners only. Chairperson Campbell asked about exempting shopping centers Mr. CurtIs SaId only if the sale was for the entIre shopping center. One store would not be exempt. Regarding the $500 cost of the bond, Mr. CurtIs SaId that thIS IS only a proposed figure. When a final figure is determined It wIll have to have some correlatIon WIth the actual cost of what fixing It would be. ChaIrperson Campbell asked what would be the cost to the CIty to take down a banner? Mr. Steele saId the cost of nUIsance abatement IS IncredIble If a bUSIness wants to fight we'd be required to go to court and get an abatement warrant and the cost could far exceed $500 Chairperson Campbell questioned the $500 amount as It might cause a hardshIp to some bus1Oesses. Mr. WhIttenberg said thIS proposed figure IS In the ordInance as a bond to reduce the actual dollar amount of the outlay by the bUSIness owner rather than a $500 cash depOSIt. On a bond you'd pay 10% of the price of the bond to get the bond. CommiSSIoner Dahlman asked If this IS a llfirst lookll and that gIven some comments tonight thIS Issue can be revisited 10 a few weeks and perhaps get more Input from the business commumty. Mr. Curtis said yes. Commissioner Dahlman suggested item IIKII should be reworked. As it stands it says theform shall mclude informatIOn regardmg the reqUired appllcationfee and bond and shall include a release from the appllcant allowing the Cuy to enter the premises to remove a banner that is not removed. He suggested broader language be used. Commissioner Sharp asked If the Planmng CommIssion would be steppIng out of bounds to meet with the President of the Business ASSOCIation and get theIr comments. Mr. Whittenberg SaId it would be preferable to have the Planning CommIssion gIve staff feedback on the addItIonal changes the CommiSSIon feels would be appropriate. These would be Incorporated Into another draft and send that out to the merchants and make them aware of the Pubhc HearIng schedule. They could then come to the Public Hearings and present addItIonal testImony to the CommiSSIon. Commissioner Sharp saId the bond IS a good idea but the $500 may be too hIgh. He suggested the fee could be coordInated to the tIme the banner would be up. Mr. WhIttenberg said the Issue . . . Pace 22 - City of Seal Beach P1annmg Conum...on Mmutes of September 6. 1995 is the time that would be required to remove the sIgn as that's the purpose of the bond. The provisions as drafted would allow a banner on each sIde of a building which faces either a street or parlong lot. Many of the bUSInesses could have two or three banners on the bUIldIng. The height of those banners may be such that they can't be reached with a step ladder and another vehicle must be used to remove the sign. Those costs could add up qUIckly. Staff will take a further look at this figure. CommIssioner Sharp saId the 10% the merchant would pay to get a bond would be non-refundable. Mr. WhIttenberg said there are a number of ways to approach this, such as passbook aSSIgnments from savIngs accounts. Commissioner Brown asked about Item "M" where It states The removal date shall be affixed to the banner by the Department of Development Servlces. Mr. WhIttenberg said the City would have an adhesive tag that would be put on the banner WhICh would indIcate the date by which the banner must be removed. Mr. CurtIs suggested Indelible Ink could also be used with an employee's initials. He suggested a provision be Included to say If this date were covered or destroyed the banner permit would expire at that time. Ms. Fillmann asked where the banners would be stored that were taken down? Mr. Whittenberg said they would not be stored, they would be destroyed. CommIssioner Dahlman SaId item "M" made hIm wonder If the Department of Development Services had too many employees If they had time to make these banner inspections and suggested Item "MII may be deleted entIrely. Mr. Curtis saId staff would like to have the date on the banner so anybody could see qUIckly If It is legal. Mr. WhIttenberg saId thIS could be viewed as an encouragement to that bUSIness to take it down when It'S supposed to be down because hIS neighbor would probably start to nag hIm about It'S being up past the due date. Staff hopes this WIll become a cooperative effort between the bUSInesses and the CIty rather than the situation the City's in now --- where the mumclpal Code says no banners at all. Chairperson Campbell SaId an Internal control could be deVIsed WIthin the Planmng Department to calendar when the banners went up and must come down ThIS IS somethmg that shouldn't be in the ordInance. Mr. WhIttenberg SaId staff felt a date on the banner would be an additional mcentIve for the publIc and neIghborIng bUSInesses to aSSIst staff WIth the enforcement. CommIssioner Dahlman requested staff photocopy banner ordInances from four dIverse cities that they looked at and provide those ordinances to the Planning CommIssIoners with a brief staff report comparing them. ThIS would gIve the CommIssIon an Idea of what the plaYIng field looks like. He said hIS initial reaction is that the proposed banner ordInance IS too long and should be shorter and more SImplIfied; the CIty should be less involved In the detaIl. Staff WIll provide copIes as part of the next agenda packet. Chairperson Campbell asked If the CIties staff reVIewed were comparable In SIze to Seal Beach? Mr. Curtls SaId he had an intern call all the cities In Orange County and some were comparable to Seal Beach and some were not. ChaIrperson Campbell thought the larger CIties would have more regulations on theIr advertISIng. Mr. Curtis saId no, a lot of the larger CItIes have much . . . Page 23 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg ConunlSSIOll Mmutes of September 6. 1995 less regulatIOn for banner advertIsing and suggested they may not want to get mvolved with enforcing banner controls. Mr. Steele said the last banner ordinance he worked on was for the CIty of San Marino, a smaller CIty than Seal Beach wIth a smaller commercial base, and their ordinance is slIghtly longer than the proposed ordinance and more restrictive but generally follows the same format and procedures. Commissioner Dahlman suggested continuing thIS matter for SIX weeks and getting notices out to the business owners. Mr. Whittenberg said thIS would be okay with staff, notIng there is no rush on this matter. CommIssioner Sharp saId he thought It would be okay to dlstnbute the proposed ord1Oance to the local merchants and tellIng them that the CIty IS considenng thIS and would lIke theIr input. Mr. Steele said the ord1Oance could be put into final form for the CommIssIon's final hear10g on adopt1Og the resolutIon and recommendatIon to the CouncIl and then mall It out; that could be done 10 the SIX week penod MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to continue the Public Hearing on ZTA 95-1 to November 8, 1995, to allow staff to mail out the proposed ordinance to area merchants to request their input and for staff to prepare a final draft ordinance for consideration and recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIES: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Campbell, Law, Brown *** 9. Zoning Text Amendment 95-2 To add provIsions to ~28-2705(1) and (3) of The Code of the City of Seal Beach to reqUIre notIficatIOn by mall of all occupants resld10g with10 300 feet of a property subject to the follow1Og publIc heanngs: Vanance, CondItIonal Use PermIt, Tentative Tract Maps and, property owner- InItIated Zone Changes. Currently only the property owners are notIfied by mail of such public heanngs Staff Report Mr. CurtIs delIvered the staff report. [Staff report on file 10 the Planning Department]. Commission Comments on Staff Report CommiSSIOner Sharp asked If thIS Issue had ever been brought to the City CouncIl's attentIon for direction to the CommIsSIon? Mr. CurtIs saId yes, on May 8, 1995, the CIty CouncIl authonzed the CommIssion to proceed with the ZTA. . . . ....e 24 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg Conmll..lon Mmules of l>eplelllber 6. 199~ CommissIOner Brown questioned the applicants gomg out and research 109 the addresses but asked If eventually the City would have a data base of each address? Mr. Curtis said yes, at some orne the City would have such a data base But (1) gathenng the mformatlOn through attnoon by all the appl1cants provldmg staff with all the umts would take a long time and (2) gathering the mformaoon through a GIS would be 10 place wlthm a couple of years. The addresses don't change that frequently. Chairperson Campbell asked what IS holding up the unplementation of the GIS system? Mr. Curtis said money. The City has a computer and the baSIC program but staff needs to digitize the entire City and get a base map that can be used by the GIS. You can't draw a radius map unless you know exactly where the properoes Sit 10 relatIOn to each other; thiS IS the malO cost. The Southern Califorma ASSOCiatIOn of Governments (SCAG) IS providmg each of the cities 10 their jurisdiction with a computer and a copy of a GIS. Staff doesn't know at this time at what level that informatIOn w1l1 be at. Staff IS waltmg to see what level program SCAG will give each of the cities. They are trymg to integrate all of the cloes together withm their program. Mr. Whittenberg has been attendmg SCAG meeongs to momtor this situatIOn. Mr. Whittenberg said staff will have more mformatlOn on this after the programs arnve which the thought would be after January 1996. He doubted it would be detailed enough to be at a parcel level baSIS and thought staff would be lookmg at diglozmg all the parcels 10 the City and correlating the tax assessor information to that. That process IS expenSive and time consummg Chairperson Campbell asked for an estimate of time and cost. Mr. Curtis said If the Job IS sent to an outside firm to do It would cost about $1.50 per parcel or $21,000 Right now there are not enough staff resources to devote that much time to the Job. ThiS IS Just for the dlgltlzmg and does not include acquirmg the tax assessor mformatlOn and foldmg that mto the data base. ThiS would cost an additional $1,000 to $2,000. Commissioner Brown said that would save staff a lot of orne and said the cost IS not that much. Mr. Curtis said he thought It cost the City of Newport Beach $4,000,000 to integrate their information but theirs IS to an engmeering scale and mcludes all the water lines, sewer lines. That's the optimum and that's what IS most useful to a city. Seal Beach would not get to that level any time soon. o Commissioner Dahlman said the staff report shows 43 % of the Old Town properties would receive a double Notice. But the Marina H1l1 area and elsewhere it would be 92 %. He felt to double the number of Notices IS unreasonable. Referencmg an appl1catlOn by a church 10 Leisure World, where none of the area residents were notified, he asked If under thiS proposal those residents would have been notified? Mr. Curtis said It'S a close call as there may not be residences within 300' of the church. Commissioner Sharp said he didn't think there were. Mr. Whittenberg SaId If there were residences withm 300' they would be notified under thiS process. The old process would have notified only the governing board and the Mutual. Commissioner Law said a copy of the Mutual's meetmgs are dehvered to the reSidents houses, so the residents know exactly what IS gomg on. Commissioner Dahlman mdlcated It sounds hke thiS ZTA IS not needed for College Park East/West, Marma H1l1 and other parts of the City where everybody that's an occupant IS an owner. But for the remaining parts of town It would be most appropnate. Mr. Whittenberg Said . . . Pille 25 - City of Sea1 Beach Plannmg ConunlUlon Mmule8 of September 6, 1995 the Orange County Assessor roll shows only where the tax bill IS mailed to; it doesn't mean the property owner lives there. There IS no guarantee that because a tax bIll is sent to a residential address that the property owner resides 10 that resIdence. CommIssioner Dahlman said that the 92% estimate of owner-occupants on the HillIS probably an over estimate. Mr. CurtIs said those figures should be accurate. Commissioner Dahlman asked If abandoning what IS done now and instead notifying occupants would not be compatible WIth current law? Mr. Steele said the City is bound by State law reqUIrements which is all property owners wlthzn 300' and nothing can be done at vanance with that. What we are talking about IS 10 addItion to that requirement which certainly can be done. Chairperson Campbell asked if when Notices are maIled to occupants they are addressed by name or by occupant? Mr. Whittenberg said they are addressed to occupant as staff has no way of knowmg the names of those persons in rental umts. PublIc Hearmg Chairperson Campbell opened the PublIc Hearing, announced there were no persons 10 the audience to speak and closed the PublIc Hearing. Commission Comments MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to adopt Resolution No. 95-22, thus approving ZTA 95-2, and forward it to the City Council for consideration. Before the vote, CommiSSIOner Brown said thiS Issue pnmanly affects the Old Town area and the costs are mImmal. This may not be a big problem 10 some areas of the CIty but to say the Noticmg of occupants also would only be done 10 certam City areas WIth only add a level of complexity to the Code that doesn't need to be there. He felt if it cost an applicant $100 extra that would be a mimmal sum. It's more fair for all CIty reSIdents to be notified and have theIr opportunity to speak rather than an absentee property owner. He encouraged everyone to vote for this and Said he would support It as bemg long over due. Commissioner Sharp said he had a dIfferent pomt of view. He felt It would be very good for the Old Town area but completely ludIcrous to ask a person to pay double for Noticmg houses when you know 90% are property owners and they Will be double Notices. ChaIrperson Campbell saId how many homes would be mvolved 10 College Park East or West? The lots are 50' wide and you have to notify everyone WIthin 300' --- that's SIX houses. CommiSSIOner Sharp says the staff report estimates It can run from $100 to $240 for double Notices. Chairperson Campbell said that would be in Old Town. Commissioner Sharp saId he has felt all along that only the property owners need be notIfied because renters are here to day and gone tomorrow. Mr. Steele saId there is a Motion on the floor and If you're gomg to have dISCUSSIon a Second IS necessary. Chairperson Campbell Seconded the Motion, saymg she has been at too many meetings where people dIdn't get Notices and came down after-the-fact; she said that wasn't right. . . . Page 26 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg COIIUIIISSIOD MmulGs of September 6, 199~ Mr. Curtis said that on the Hill it would be about six houses in each direction in a cIrcle and comes to about 30 houses. It would be substantIally less additIOnal cost to the applicants in those areas because (1) there are not a lot of apartments; (2) the applIcants could walk the areas and get the addresses and (3) the Assessor's data matches the number of houses so they already know how many there are. Also, less staff tIme would be involved and the cost to the applicant would be $30 to $40 additional Mr. Steele recommended that legally thiS should be an all or nothmg proposal. He felt the City would have a due process problem if the CIty established a nght to Notice tenants in Old Town but not to tenants in Leisure World, College Park or the Hill. CommiSSIOner Law said she opposed this ZT A and felt the cost to the applIcants runs too hIgh and she couldn't see the advantage. If you get a homeowner and a renter in a Public Meeting and they're argumg agamst one another "you're opemng a can of worms". There Will be much confusion. Chairperson Campbell Said she felt the homeowner and the renter are both entItled to their opinion and are both entitled to be NotIced. There are situations where there are absentee owners and the renters don't know what's gomg on in their own area and they are impacted by the decisions. CommIssioner Dahlman said this IS not a big issue and SaId he was convmced It would be a low cost. MOTION CARRIES: A YES: NOES: 3-2-0 Dahlman, Brown, Campbell Law, Sharp *'Ic* Mr. Whittenberg Said staff Will come back at the next Commission meetmg to formalize the CommISSIon's decISion to the City CouncIl. . . . Page TI - CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg ConUDI"lon Mmules of September 6, 1995 10. Zoning Text Amendment 95-3 To codIfy a 1986 Planmng CommissIOn polley statement relating to the determinatIOn of lot widths equal to 37.5 feet. Specifically, in the residentIal medIUm density and hIgh denSIty zones of Planmng District I (Old Town) a thIrd story is permitted on the rear half of lots WIth a WIdth of 37.5 feet or greater. The polIcy statement calls for the actual survey width to be rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot. Staff Report Mr. Curtls delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planmng Department]. Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Brown declared a conflIct of mterest as he lIves within 300' of the subject houses. He abstained from further partICIpatIon in this matter. Commissioner Dahlman asked If the neIghbors of the 16 houses had been NotIced that the Planmng CommISSIon IS considermg thIS matter tomght? Mr. Curtis saId no, because at the time thiS was Noticed staff dIdn't know how many lots were affected. It was, however, NotIced 10 the local newspaper. Mr. WhIttenberg saId techmcally the amendment would apply to all residential lots within the CIty, practIcally it would affect a certam number. There's a prOVISIon in the Government Code that when ZT As affect more than 500 or 1000 parcels 10 the City staff doesn't have to notify 10dIvidual property owners, Just a NotIce 10 the newspaper. Public Hear10g Chairperson Campbell opened the Public Hearing, 10dIcated there were no persons in the audience to speak for aga10st thIS Issue and closed the PublIc Hear1Og. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to adopt Resolution No. 95-23, recommending approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-3 to the City Council. Before the vote, CommISSIoner Dahlman 10dIcated that although the Commission is techmcally entitled to vote without notIfY1Og the neighbors of the people who may now feel fully entitled to build a second story, when they mIght not have been sure of It before, that's not the way things are done 10 Seal Beach. ThIS IS a small, fnendly town and we should gIve everybody an opportunity to have a say on Issues they feel may affect them He said he would oppose thIS on those grounds. Mr. Steele asked CommISSIoner Dahlman If It would address hIS concerns to add a direction 10 the resolution that when thIS goes to the City CouncIl that those property owners be notified? Commissioner Dahlman Said yes, If the approval IS modified to 10clude NotIcing along Seal Way where the sixteen houses are. CommISSioner Sharp agreed to modIfy hIS Motion. . . . . Page 28 - CIty of Seal Beach P1annmg Coomu.slOIl Mmules of September 6, 199~ MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Campbell, Dahlman Brown Commissioner Dahlman said tlThls exemphfies ... the absurdity of lawtl. He satd that Planning Commissioner Brown is here tomght to represent Dlstnct I and he is not allowed to vote. "That makes It seem like a Mad Hatters tea party to me". The people most Impacted by this are not represented on this vote. Commissioner Brown said the point was well taken, he would have liked to take part in the discussIOn. Commissioner Dahlman said the Fair Pohtlcal Practlces Committee (FPPC) IS not given an intelhgent rule here and it needs work; It conflicts with common sense. *** vu. 6..TAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. VIll. COMMISSION CONCERNS 11. Draft Main Street Specific Plan - Planning CommissIOn Concerns of August 28. 1995 meetmg Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission, at their last meetmg, brought up the subject of alcoholic sales licenses as a part of the Matn Street Specific Plan. The proposal wlthm the Draft Matn Street Specific Plan is to contlnue the current pohcy 10 deahng with those types of land use Issues. That is through the Conditional Use Permit process on a case-by-case baSIS. The Planning Commission 10dicated they wished to consider language to be put 10 the Main Street Spectfic Plan which would cap the number of alcohol hcenses 10 the Main Street area and consider common operat1Og hours. Staff would appreciate Commission duectlon on thiS matter. CommisSioner Law asked about grandfathered SItes, such as the Insher, Hennessey's and Clancy's which had operatmg hours which could not be altered. Mr. Whittenberg said Hennessey's operating hours were granted by CUP. The Insher and Clancy's are uses which pre-dated the City's reqUIrement for a CUP. Years ago the City adopted a requirement for legal, pre-existing uses to obtain a CUP; one of these estabhshments applied and received a CUP and the other estabhshment decided It'S not appropriate for them to apply for a CUP. In granting those CUPs, staff made It clear to the Commission that the hours of operatlon which had been in operatlon for a number of years under State laws were sttll hours that staff felt legally the City couldn't restnct based on a court deCISion from the CIty of Costa Mesa 10 a fairly similar Situation. . . . . p Pagc 29 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg ComnllSSlon Mmulcs of !>cplcDlbcr 6, 199~ Commissioner Law said she would rather see a person have a cocktail in a food establishment, rather than be dnven to a bar. In a restaurant they would be dnnkmg while havIng food. If the restaurants are closed early the people w1l1 go to the bars. Chairperson Campbell said that DIrector Whittenberg saId the Commission can't change the hours that are set by CUP. Mr Steele said that was correct except for when that CUP comes before the Commission for modificatIon. Commissioner Brown asked If CommIsSIOner Law wanted to expand the food establishment hours to 2:00 a.m.? Commissioner Law SaId no but she dIdn't want to see them cut down either. Commissioner Dahlman asked about the Insher and It'S not haVIng a CUP. He SaId It has been several years that they were aware they needed a CUP and It'S qUIte clear now they are not going to apply. He asked to have this ISSUed addressed. He suggested the Insher receives City services, which if dIscontInued, would be an IncentIve for them to apply for a CUP. The best way to do thiS might be to extend them a lumted offer for a CUP that contaIns the same hours as Clancy's and the offer would expire on a date certaIn. If the offer were to expIre the new hours on the available CUP would be shorter than their competItor. He said everyone else selling alcohol is subject to a CUP and asked why thiS bUSIness was being allowed to have special treatment. In faIrness to all the other businesses he felt the Commission must address this issue. Mr. Whittenberg SaId there are a number of legal issues regardIng Clancy's that should be addressed in a different forum. Chairperson Campbell saId the CIty IS over the lImit on on-sale and off-sale alcohol sellIng establishments and proposed the CommIssion put a cap on what IS eXIstIng today. CommIsSioner Dahlman SaId he would not want to see the eXIstmg number mcreased. CommisSIoner Brown quesooned how the City could prevent a restaurant from becommg a bar? Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Commission set the caps for off-premIse lIcenses which are liquor store and markets and for on-premIse lIcenses mcludmg bars, restaurants. The MaIn Street Specific Plan questionnaire responses show more responses In favor of more restaurants on Main Street than less restaurants. A bar was a separate choice. CommIssioner Dahlman SaId "These are naIve residents who don't realIze we don't allow bars and thInk that we do and they are making a choice between one and the other. So I thInk the survey If flawed". ChaIrperson Campbell SaId she has heard comments from merchants that they are concerned that MaIn Street could turn Into a restaurant row. Mr. Whittenberg said there were differences of opinIon in the survey questionnaire With a strong response from people lIVIng between 5th and 12th Streets who wanted more restaurants on MaIn Street. Whether or not they serve alcohol IS a separate issue. Commissioner Brown said he could thInk of two examples since he has been a commiSSIOn where establIshments come in as a restaurant and yet have turned functIonally into bars. He questioned how the caps would work. He saId he would lIke to see more uniform hours so the Commission doesn't have to go through a deCISIon process, on a case-by-case baSIS, each orne . .. . . . Paac 30 - CIty of Seal BClICh Plannmg ConmllsslOn Mmu\cs of Scp\clllbcr 6, 199~ a CUP IS before the CommissIOn. He would lIke to see provlSlon which says restaurants can be open until a certaIn time and bars can be open untIl a certaIn time. Mr. Whittenberg asked If the CommIsSIon would lIke to see a separation between restaurants that have a general license for mixed dnnks as opposed to those that have beer and wine? Commissioner Brown saId yes, that would be appropnate. He said the problem IS on the other end, determInIng a restaurant with a general lIquor lIcense versus a bar. Mr. Whittenberg saId he understood the concern but did not think staff could address thiS Issue to the satisfaction of the Planning CommissIOn. ThIS IS really controlled by the Department of AlcoholIc Beverage Control (ABC) and the venfication of thIS matter IS theIr process and he dIdn't thInk the City wanted to get in the middle of ABC's processes. Commissioner Sharp SaId If we start anew that would be one thIng but when you have long established places With long operatIng hours It would be unfaIr to a new establishment to impose restnctive hours. He felt each applIcatIOn should be conSIdered on a case-by-case baSIS and didn't thInk all the bUSInesses could be lumped together for MaIn Street. CommiSSIoner Brown asked If the eXIstIng CUPs are due for reVIew? Mr. WhIttenberg SaId very few are scheduled for review. CommiSSIOner Sharp SaId the CUPs run With the land and the Commission can't go back and change those hours. CommISSIoner Brown saId thiS would apply to future establishments. CommiSSIOner Sharp saId to be faIr you would have to allow new establIshments to be open as long as simIlar competitors, to grant them the longest hours already existing. Commissioner Law summed It up by notIng you'd be saying to a new bUSIness "You can come here but you can't have the same pnvIleges as the rest havell. Commissioner Brown saId as it stands now a new applIcant has no Idea what the CommISSIon WIll do With ItS hours. Chairperson Campbell saId the CommIssion is In a catch-22 SItuation where ItS tryIng to set hours when its putting a cap on the number of off-site sales; It'S moot. CommiSSIOner Dahlman said no, and indIcated what Commissioner Brown is saYIng IS that nobody here envisions a major shortemng of hours For example, the maJonty of beer and WIne estabhshments close at 10:00 p.m. week-days. That would be the most lIkely place to put the hours. He then suggested this issue be deferred to the Main Street Specific Plan Public Hearings. CommiSSIoner Sharp agreed With the PublIc HearIng but thought the hours could be regulated but to be fair the CIty must set them at the hIghest limIt of the same kInd of bUSIness on Main Street --- whether It'S a grocery store or a restaurant that does or does not sell beer and wine. Chairperson Campbell SaId the City does that already CommiSSIoner Dahlman agreed but said there were one or two past excesses In grantIng hours that should not have been granted. He didn't think the CommiSSIOn should change the rules for everybody because one mIstake was made and suddenly enact 21 mIstakes. The CommISSIon needs to acknowledge there were excesses for one reason or another and adopt some method to brIng them back to what is reasonable. Commissioner Dahlman asked If SInce Senate BIll 408, Breach of Moratonum - Alcohohc Beverages, was signed does that affect the CommiSSIOn's consideration of putting a cap on the . . . ~ . ". Paae 31 - Clly of Seal Beacb Plannmg ComnllSSIOll Mmutes of September 6, 199~ number of alcohol-related businesses? Mr. Whittenberg said It does not because the City has the CUP process already. This process allows the Commission to consider applications on a case-by-case basIs. The over-concentration cntena appbes more to those cities who do not have a CUP process. ABC is then granted the authonty to deny a bcense automatically without considering It --- just because it's In an over-concentrated area Cities with the CUP process have taken that nght back to where they can consIder appbcations, even if the area is over- concentrated based on other critena the City deems appropnate. Chairperson Campbell said the Commission is trying to come up with a policy on the number of alcohol-selling estabbshments and closing hours for them for the Main Street SpecIfic Plan and asked if it would be appbcable to other areas of the City? Mr. Whittenberg said no. David Rosenman * 8th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman said the hIstory of thIS issue is the City Councll, in Its consideration of appeals on several different properties, has enunciated a policy. They said the hours for BJ's Pizza were the hours that they regarded for a beer and Wine bcense only a umform playing field for everyone coming In. The CouncIl said they were not gOing to do thiS case-by-case anymore. He thought it was In considering the SeaSide Gnll that the CouncIl very clearly Said this IS what we want. A comment was made at the CouncIl level that It would be mce If thiS were incorporated Into something so we didn't get Wide variations. Commissioner Dahlman said the CouncIl's policy Will be enunciated when the hearIngs are held at the CouncIl level. Chairperson Campbell Said the Commission IS trying to come up with something to give the CouncIl. Mr. Whittenberg said the Pubbc Heanngs will begin at the Commission level. Mr. Rosenman Said he has had telephone calls from persons who support the cap on hours Issue and the boIler plate conditions. Chairperson Campbell, without CommIssion obJection, carried thiS Item over to the September 20, 1995 meeting. Commissioner Campbell said "There IS one other comment that I need to make tonight and I don't mean to get anybody annoyed when I say this. But, when anybody comes before this CommissIOn, regardless of what we think of them they are entitled to their say. Thank you. Meeting adJourned". . . . .. . ',. ". Page 32 . City of Seal Beach PlllIuung CoIIUlllSSIOJI MlJlutcs of !>epk'l11ber 6, 199'i IX. ADJOl1RmffiNT The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. Respectfully SubmItted, ~O~41.-=':~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary ~ APPROVAL: The Minutes of September 6, 1995 were approved on September ~-: 1995. ~