HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-08-09
...-
-.
,
.
.
.
,.
,
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES of AUGUST 9, 1995
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAN.cE
The City of Seal Beach Planmng CommissIOn met in regular session at 7:35 p.m. 10 the City
Council Chambers, with Chairperson Campbell calhng the meetmg to order with the Salute to
the Flag.
n.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Campbell
Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Brown
Also
Present:
Department of Development ServIces
Lee WhIttenberg, DIrector
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Barry Curtis, AdmimstratIve Assistant
Joan Flllmann, Executive Secretary
ID. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the agenda as presented.
Before the vote, Mr. Steele said staff suggested the CommIssion rearrange the Agenda to place
Staff Concerns and CommiSSIon Concerns prior to the Joint Meeting so the Commission may
adjourn at the end of the Joint MeetIng.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to amend his motion to approve the agenda as
amended by the Assistant City Attorney.
IV. o..RAL COMl\flJNlCATIONS
Chairman Campbell declared Oral Communications open. No members of the public wished
to address the Planning Commission.
.
.
.
-l
'j,;
r Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommiSSion Mmulcs of August 9, 1995
v.
SE
CALENDAR
1. Mmutes of July 19, 1995
MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Minutes of July 19, 1995 as
presented.
Before the vote, Commissioner Dahlman indicated he had meant to extract Item #2 for separate
consideration. Mr. Steele said it would be sufficient to extract this item before the vote. Item
#2 was extracted.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Law, Brown, Dahlman, Campbell
***
2.
Minor Plan Review 95-3
Address:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
328112 8th Street
Craig Richie
Harry Kalmowski
Discussion on Minor Plan Review 95-3 ensued. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff If thiS
application, to enclose a 285 square foot second floor deck at a nonconformmg duplex, If
approved, would result in havmg both a den and a sewing room on the upper floor And wouldn't
both of those meet the criteria for a bedroom? Mr. Curtis explained muniCipal Code ~28-2407,
which deals with expansions of nonconforming uses, says the number of bedrooms may not be
mcreased. The proposed sewmg room is fully mtegrated with the master bedroom and staff feels
it IS a part of I an enlargement of the master bedroom. The den, accordmg to the zomng code,
is considered a bedroom. But, the sewmg room is considered an expansion of an existmg
bedroom, and is not a net increase in the number of bedrooms. CommiSSIOner Brown said he
was comfortable with approving thiS application because the sewmg room IS truly an expansion
of the master bedroom, to reach It you must walk through the master bedroom, there IS no
hallway. Commissioner Dahlman SaId thiS application falls under the Code prOVision which
allows a 10% expansion, and asked can thiS apphcant come back next year and apply for another
10% expansion? Mr. Curtis said no, not another 10%, but they could get up to the remaIning
percentage allowed. Commissioner Dahlman said he was satisfied.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 95-20, approving
Minor Plan Review 95-3.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Law, Brown, Dahlman, Campbell
***
"
.
.
.
~
-;; Pace 3 . City of ScIIlllcacb PIIuuung COOUWSSIOO Mmulcl of August 9. 1995
VI.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Approve Resolution No. 95-14
[Continued from 7-19-95]
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Planning Commission Resolution
No. 95-14:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO DEVELOP THE
OW RANCH GOLF COURSE WITH A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. 198-223 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND AN EXPANDED GOLF COURSE (GPA AMENDMENT 95-1A AND IB)
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
3-2-0
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Sharp, Law
***
4.
Approve Resolution No. 95-19
RecogniZing CommiSSIoner Dahlman's two-year
ChaIrmanship.
Chairperson Campbell read Resolution No. 95-19, recogmzing and thanking Commissioner
Dahlman for his two-year ChairmanshIp. She then presented him with a personalIzed cancature
of himself by artist Riley Forsythe.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to approve Resolution No. 95-19.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Law, Brown, Campbell, Dahlman
vu. STAFF CONCEQNS
There were no staff concerns.
VID. COMMISSION CONCERNS
There were no Commission concerns.
'I.
;; PIce 4 . C1ly of Seal Beach I'Iamunc ComnUSSIOII MmU1e8 of August 9, 1995
. IX. JOINT CITY COUNCIL~LANNING COM:MISSION PllBLI~
WORKSHOP
4.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP re: "BACKGROUND STUDIES FOR THE MAIN
STREET SPECIFIC PLAN" - City Staff, Zucker Systems
Mayor Hastings called the meetmg to order at 7:45 p.m. The City Clerk called the roll. The
Joint City Council/Planmng CommISSIon Workshop began. Zucker Systems provided a
presentation. Public testimony was taken. The Council and Commission members provided
comments regarding the issues of concern for staff/consultant preparation of a Background Study
for the Main Street Specific Plan. The Background Document for the MalO Street Specific Plan
was Received and Filed. The City Clerk took the Minutes of that meeting. They WIll be
attached to these Minutes when they are available for future reference.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Campbell adjourned the Planning Commission meetmg to August 23, 1995.
Mayor Brown adjourned the City CouncIl meeting at 10:00 p.m. to August 14, 1995.
. Respectfully Submitted,
~o~a.n,",
Joan FIllmann
Recordmg Secretary
Attachment:
City Council Mmutes of August 9, 1995 [FORTHCOM1NO]
Approval:
The Planmng CommIssion Mmutes of August 9, 1995 were approved on
August 23, 1995. *'
.
~
.
Seal Beach, California
Auqust 9, 1995
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in reqular
adjourned session at 7:45 p.m. with Mayor Hastings calling the
meeting to order for a joint workshop session with the
Planning Commission for the purpose of reviewing and receiving
comments regarding the second Draft Main Street Specific Plan.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Hastings
councilJllembers Brown, Doane, Laszlo
Chairman Campbell
Commissioners Brown, Dahlman, Law, Sharp
Absent:
Councilmember Forsythe
Brown moved, second by Hastings, to excuse the absence of
Councilmember Forsythe from this meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo
None
Forsythe Motion carried
.
JOINT WORKSHOP - DRAFT MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN
The Director of Development Services ment10ned that there have
been several press releases as well as a mailing announcing
the holding of this joint workshop. He recalled a similar
meeting several months ago for the review of the Background
Studies Report, that being a preliminary document to the
preparation of the Main Street Specific Plan, and based upon
input from that workshop and information received from the
..il survey that was sent to all residential properties
between 5th street, 12th Street, Pacific Coast Highway and
Ocean Avenue, as well as information obtained through
interviews, and other sources of input, the Draft Main Street
Specific Plan has now been prepared for review. He invited
suggestions from the Council, commission and public as to
improvements that might be made to the Draft, areas that are
thought to not have been addressed, etc. so the document can
be finalized for consideration under public hearings and be as
reflective as possible as to what the Main Street Specific
Plan is envisioned to be.
.
Mr. Paul Zucker, Zucker Systems, stated that the Background
Studies Report previously considered is basically the same
with only a few changes, most notable would be the deletion of
what became a controversial description of certain undesirable
buildings in the downtown area, that amendments to the General
Plan have been prepared that will be considered during the
public bearings in that the Specific Plan is subservient to
the General Plan, also, the provisions of the zoning code that
relate to private development have been incorporated into the
Specific Plan, which is an attempt to simplify implementation
of the Plan. He noted the boundaries of the Plan consist of
the C-1 zone, the public uses tbat abut thereto, and the two
C-2 parcels on Pacific Coast Highway, which makes
inCOrPOration into the zoning code possible. Mr. Zucker said
the basic goal of the Plan continues to be the recognition of
Main Street as the heart and soul of Seal Beach, however noted
that there bave been some additions, one being the desire that
visitor serving uses not overwhelm resident serving uses even
though Main Street serves both, there is also a recognition to
the effect that on days of the most desirable weather in a
community such as Seal Beach it is impossible to meet all of
the parking requirements.
Page Two - C1ty Council M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
In reference to key changes in the land use area, he noted
that medical and professional facilities are currently allowed
by right on the first and second floor, the new Plan proposes
such use by right only on the second floor, allowed only by
use permit on the first floor, as other uses would be sought
for the main pedestrian level, coffee houses, which are small
establishments, would be permitted by right where they are
currently handled through a restaurant application, there are
a few uses that were allowed under the old C-l zone that are
now prohibited by the specific Plan such as ambulance
services, drive-in windows, electric cart sales, minor
services, etc., those uses deleted in that they were not felt
to be appropriate for Main Street.
Changes relating to dimensional requirements, the attempt
being to be reflective of the small human, pedestrian scale of
Main street, the current required lot width of seventy feet
has been reduced to twenty-five, the lot area has been reduced
from seven thousand feet to two thousand seven hundred fifty,
the current thirty foot height limit is being retained however
proposed that anything over twenty feet be set back ten feet,
the existing ten percent landscape requirement has often been
waived as being impractical on Main street, the suggestion is
to drop that requirement and add a provision to require
landscaping between any parking and the sidewalk area, the
current tree requirement has been retained as well, a
provision has been added also to prohibit lot mergers over the
size of six thousand square feet in that the charm of Main
street is the small uses that front the street.
Mr. Zucker stated that design provisions are quite close to
what was reflected in the Background Study with only a few
changes that were based upon the public testimony, examples
being that facades are required to be fifty percent
transparent and restricted to fifty feet, the use of
transparent glass with only limited tinting allowed, in
reference to concerns expressed at last meeting with regard to
an attempt to get buildings to the property line, as rewritten
for some flexibility, a building is allowed to be located to
four feet back from the front property line, new buildings
will be required to go from lot line to lot line, trademark
buildings are prohibited, and the textured sidewalk provisions
of the current Specific Plan is carried forward, all of which
is proposed to encourage the pedestrian atmosphere.
As to signs, current provisions allow pole or free standing
signs in the C-l zone, those are felt to be inappropriate for
Main street thus are prohibited in the Draft Specific Plan,
bowever a new provision allows for projecting signs of no more
than four square feet and to project no more than three feet,
which is felt to be conducive to creating a pedestrian
atmosphere.
With regard to parking Mr. Zucker said a few changes have been
made for uses that are felt to be highly desirable in that the
parking standards have been lowered, as examples, hardware and
furniture stores have been proposed at one space per thousand
square f_t, pharmacy and drug stores have been raised from
one space for every three hundred square feet to one per one
thousand, and retail establishments have been raised from one
for three hundred square f.et to one for five hundred, all of
which is felt to be much more consistent with this community,
restaurants have not been changed and remain at one space per
one hundred square feet, however coffee houses, being a
different category, is one space per five hundred square feet.
.
.
Page Three - C1ty Council M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
Mr. Zucker mentioned that an AS 1600 Report has also been
prepared, the fees that have been collected have basically
been through development agreements, yet the goal is to
develop a fee structure for parking without relying on a
variance or some other process to accomplish, the proposal is
that if the parking standards can not be met a fee would be
paid o~ approximately $3600 per space, slightly more than what
is currently charged. Additionally under AS 1600 there is a
requirement to provide a revenue and an expenditure scheme
which has been submitted for consideration as a three phase
program, some of which may be controversial as to decking of
the 8th street lot, parking meters on Main street, etc., and
basically the belief is that there is a parking management
issue rather than strictly a parking problem. To a question
as to whether the Draft contained provision for parking
credits or shared parking during the evening hours to benefit
the restaurants, Mr. Zucker responded that there is no such
provision in the Draft, most likely intentional as their
observation is that the heaviest parking demand is from
restaurants, and as set forth in the Background Study the
times of day when there is the greatest parking demand is
almost entirely during restaurant hours, therefore the
inclination is to not give a credit in the Main Street area.
Mayor Hastings invited comments from the public. Dr.
Rosenman, 8th Street, said his questions relate to the basic
overall scope, relying in part on conversations with the prior
City Manager, one of the issues in terms of the concept of a
Specific Plan was some type of matrix for things like alcohol
serving and selling establishments, a more definitive
addressing of the liquor sale issue in view of the already
existing over-concentration, however he found only a comment
regarding liquor sales. He noted that the current CUP process
continues to exist in the Draft Plan, however it was his
understanding that as originally conceived this document would
greatly eliminate the need for that process given its
variability and in turn would establish a uniform process,
therefore he did not see the tightness as anticipated with
this document. Dr. Rosenman said he was likewise unclear as
to the non-conforming building language, one area in
particular where it is not specified as to what degree Code
compliance would be required upon conversion of the use of a
non-conforming building, as an example he claimed that had
this document been in effect at the time BJls was under
consideration there would have been no grounds to impact the
development of that building. He asked also who is
responsible for the payment of parking fees, the land owner or
the merchant, requested an assurance that what is being done
with regard to coffee shops is in conformity with the desires
of the Planning Commission and will be consistent. Dr.
Rosenman said that due to the timing of this meeting, August
rather than late September for instance, there will likely be
considerable input at the Commission and Council hearings.
Having just obtained a copy of the Draft Plan, Mr. Brian Kyle,
Seal Beach, said his comments would be limited at this time,
however noted that while the 1984 report cited a deterioration
of Main street, this consultant says that the Street looks
great, and a number of consulting firms are now looking at the
Seal Beach Main Street as an example for their towns, noted
also that other cities have made grants available for
upgrading their downtown areas, this Main street has asked for
nothing and the lNeiness owners have and will turn the Seal
Beach Main Street around on their own. Mr. Kyle said the
intent ahould not be to place undue restrictions on the Main
Street INsiness owners or the landlords, also requested that
every business owner be informed of this Plan as it is their
interest at stake. Ms. Gail Olsen, Central Avenue, spoke in
.
.
Page Four - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
opposition to any shared parking arrangement, concurred that
parking during dining hours is the most difficult, also stated
she would like to see a provision where no more liquor sales
establishments would be allowed. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach,
recalled a reference in the document to a Business Improvement
District or Association, which she said has been considered
before, and made reference to a news article that comp11mented
the Main Street businesses for not taking the City in as a
business partner. Ms. Sue Corbin, Seal Beach, referred to
Policy 12 that recommends that the lights used in trees at
Christmas be retained year-round, suggesting that the Fire
Department should approve all lighting if it is to be left up.
She mentioned that a BIA was considered some years ago, that
was divisive, was voted down, and whether that faction is
needed is questionable. Ms. Corbin complained that the
businesses are taking over the public right of way on Main
street with benches, items for sale, etc., and to that there
should be some consistent policy.
Councilman Doane said upon review of his comments from the
prior workshop regarding this issue he found nothing that
would now change those comments. Councilman Brown made
reference to the recommendation for parking meters under Phase
Three of the AB 1066 Report, to which he reported receiving
comments from residents and business persons alike who have
mixed feelings as to meters, however it seems as if they would
resolve a number of problems, the parking of beachgoers as an
example, and requested further input regarding that issue.
Commissioner Dahlman expressed his opinion that Phase One
appears to be a phantom solution by reducing the parking
requirements and then claim the City is in greater compliance
with its requirements, to which he stated that if Main Street
business parking requirements are reduced the parking will
overflow into the residential neighborhoods even more than it
does now, and inquired as to what current parking requirements
are and the proposed changes. Chairman Campbell inquired if
signage of the 8th Street lot has been changed to allow public
parking after 5:00 p.m. and on saturdays, Sundays and
holidays. The Director of Development Services responded that
to make that change requires Coastal Commission approval as
the lot is in the Coastal Zone, and the Commission has
indicated they would not consider a change of parking
requirements on one lot until they have the Plan for the
entire area, therefore the desire is to bring everything to
the Coastal Commission as part of the pUblic hearing process
before the Planning Commission, the Plan needing to be in at
least a consensus stage at the Planning Commission level
before submittal to Coastal. As to a time frame, the Director
offered that by the time the environmental analysis is
completed public hearings at the commission level will likely
commence about October. He noted that the 8th street lot is
posted for no parking, persons could chance parking in that
lot, there is enforcement during certain occasions such as
special events however is understood to not be strictly
enforced at other times. Commissioner Brown stated he had
requested the distribution of a newspaper article that speaks
to a renovation project in Pasadena, in that case it ended up
as an outdoor mall and not thought by all to be a good idea,
and in this case the intent needs to be to protect Main Street
from becoming something like that. Commissioner Brown
expressed his opinion that the parking fees are quite low,
there is no wonder that the businesses accept them as they are
because they are actually a give-away by the City, noting that
in almost any other city if the rent is $1 per square foot,
which goes to the landlord, there is generally an add1tional
common area charge which pays for such things as the lobby,
elevator, electricity, parking, tree maintenance, night
.
.
Page F1ve - C1ty Counc11 M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
lighting, etc., yet in Seal Beach neither the business owner,
the tenant, or the property owner has that type of charge, it
is the residents that provide the parking, tree maintenance,
lighting, sidewalk repairs, etc., yet the landlords do not in
turn give any break to the businesses, therefore the business
property owners are getting a windfall profit from the
citizens. He stated his belief that $100 per parking space is
not enough in that a space is about three hundred twenty-five
square feet and if the rent is $2 per square foot that does
add up, which is a bonus to the property owner, and it should
be the property owner that is required to either provide
parking or pay their share for parking rather than the
citizens, possibly $25 per space per month to which he made a
comparison to garages that rent for $100 per month. As to
parking meters he said they would also be unfair in that the
citizens now pay for providing parking spaces through their
property taxes and would in essence be taxed twice if they
also had to pay a meter when coming to Kain street to shop.
He asked that the cost of parking spaces be looked at
carefully as to what would be a fair number. Commissioner
Brown cited problems in the past in determining when an
initial use becomes another use, suggesting that the
definition of a coffeehouse be tightened up and more
specifically defined so that such use now does not ultimately
result in a restaurant type use. He agreed with other
speakers that there needs to be guidelines in the Specific
Plan with regard to the liquor issue, a uniform plan that
would apply to each establishment on Main street as to the
allowable hours of operation, etc. As to lowering the parking
standards for businesses Commissioner Brown said it appears
that the document as presented is trying to encourage certain
kinds of businesses, to which agreed, however expressed his
opinion that the parking standards should not be lowered in
order to entice a second of an existing type of business, that
there are other ways to encourage or discourage a business.
Councilman Laszlo noted that the City went through a similar
process some ten years ago, and he did not necessarily agree
that the businesses would not agree with this. Mayor Hastings
commenced her statements with page one by noting the statement
that "The Main street area is particularly important because
it is the heart and soul of Seal Beach" however on page three
that statement becomes redundant and she would prefer it to
read "That the Plan recognizes Kain street as the cohesive
agent for the City that is geographically fragmented"; under
Uses Subject to Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit on page
nine, the Kayor stated that 13, coin operated amusement
machines as a secondary use, IS, entertainment cafes,
including any proposal for amplified music, should be deleted
as an inappropriate use for Kain Street; under the same
heading stated the Business and Professions Code references
were confusing in that their content is not specific as they
relate to an exemption for any temporary on-sale and off-sale
liquor licenses. Commissioner Brown suggested that
Horticultural Nursery, under the heading of Permitted Uses,
should be moved to the CUP Issuance Section given the question
as to whether more than one nursery would be desirable on Main
Street. The Mayor questioned why the recycling facilities
listed as 112 were included; making reference to discussion of
annual parking passes for the beach lots on page 19 she
suggested that the Specific Plan should not be specific as to
an amount, rather should be an undetermined amount; agreed
that the residential parking permit should be no more than $10
annually as it was initially meant to only cover the cost of
issuance; with reference to page 20, third paragraph, she
urged that through the Specific Plan or by separate resolution
the Main Street businesses need to be more cognizant of the
four hundred plus parking spaces that exist behind their
.
.
Page S1X - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
businesses; as to buildings that are nonconforming only by
reason of an inadequate number of parking spaces, page 23,
sections C.2 and C.3, questioned how new parking spaces are to
be supplied for the difference in building area between an
existing building and a new building, or for the existing
building between a prior use and a new use; under POlicy 6,
Parking Management Plan, she spoke favorably of changing the
Merchants Parking Permit Program to only allow parking in the
beach lots, thus freeing the 8th street lot for public
parking; as to the fourth proposal of Policy 6 listed on page
24 which states to "work with the merchants to conduct a
program so that employees do not park in street curb spaces",
the Mayor said she would prefer the language be changed to
read "to conduct a program to disallow employee parking in
street curb spaces"; that the sixth proposal be worded
"analyze City employee parking needs at the 8th street lot and
open any non-needed spaces to the pUblic or as merchant
employee parking", deleting the word "either"; proposal seven
should be worded "change the beach lots from a flat fee to an
hourly fee...", deleting the word "variable"; as to proposal
eight to "install parking meters in the pUblic parking lots
located in the 100 and 300 blocks of Main street" she said she
would not be adverse to that as long as meters are kept off of
Main street; with regard to Policy 6, subsection "en, the
Mayor said she felt proposal one was inconsistent and rate
alterations would be confusing to the public, that a fee
dependent upon demand is not appropriate, rather an hourly fee
should be established and held to; to proposal two she asked
that the words "if this is a problem" be deleted and retain
the wording "adopt a computerized system that records license
plate numbers for enforcement"; and to proposal six, stated
her opposition to meters on Main street. To Policy 6, page
twenty-six, Missing Trees, questioned why private interests
can not plant the trees, as private residents do, rather than
the City, the City should only be responsible for designating
the type of tree; Policy 10, Undergrounding Utilities, the
Mayor said the 200 and 300 blocks should be addressed as well
as the 100 block of Main Street; to Policy 15, page 31,
Screening of Parking Lots, said that will be qiven
consideration down the line however is good to have in the
Specific Plan; Section 8.a.Goal 3, Parks, Recreation and
Community Beautification; Land Use Element, with regard to
development of a master plan for "street tree planting and
other community beautification programs with emphasis on major
arterials entering the City", suggested that Seal Beach
Boulevard be specified as it is presently not conducive as a
thoroughfare, an entry into the City, or a Shopping area; on
page 37, the paragraph commencing with "The Retention of the
Administrative Offices" she indicated her understanding that
the Electric Avenue Park was designated as "Greenbelt Park",
and if not, the name should at least be consistent; said that
Section i.3.1.e, Seal Beach Pier, etc. on page 38 repeats the
statement under Section 3.1e on page 37; with regard to Page
6, Table 2 of the AS 1600 Report, stated she felt the
estimated cost of a parking structure on the 8th Street lot
was somewhat low. Commissioner Brown questioned what the
$165,000 for beach lot amenities was for, also stated he felt
there is some confusion as to what is a background study, what
can be done, what is the recommendation, the zone changes,
etc., possibly those could be separated for easier
understanding. Mayor Hastings commended Mr. Zucker and the
staff for their efforts in compiling the Plan thus far and
indicated her interest in commencing the pUblic hearing
process.
Dr. Rosenman, 8th Street, referred to POlicy 17 on page 34
entitled Bi-Annual Xain Street Review, stating his preference
.
.
Page Seven - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
that that Policy be more specific as to how a bi-annual review
will be done, by public hearing for instance, and how changes
will be made to carry out the intent of the Plan, to avoid
vagueness as to the procedure.
Having .xpr.ssed appr.ciation to the Council, Commission, and
public for their comments, the Director of Development
S.rvices .xplained that th. main import of the Draft Specific
Plan is to try to establish what the long-term goals are for
Main Street and how land uses in the future will be determin.d
on that Street. To. sugg.stion from the public to place a
cap on the amount of rest.urant space that would be allowed,
the number of liquor licenses, .nd . determination of a
standard for hours of oper.tion, particularly restaurant
usage, he noted th.t the Council and Commission have dealt
with those issues for . number of y..rs, .nd in looking at the
processes that other cities go through it was not felt to be
an appropriate choice for this City, .xplaining that some
cities have put . per square foot cap on r.staurant uses,
limited the number of establishments, .tc., and to his
knowledge of where that has been done it has been a fairly
involved process and in some cases substantial court .xpenses
have been realized as a r.sult of those decisions, as well as
extensive background and marketing studies that are necessary
for a city to provide the nexus for placing a cap on certain
uses in .n area, therefore it was felt that the City did not
have the .conomic capabilities to do many of those difficult
studies. Also, the process that the City currently uses gives
the option to say either yes or no, allows for the review of a
new establishment on the Street and a determination if that
use is compatible with the area, .ven though that sometimes
becomes a contentious process, it is uncert.in if that problem
can be resolved given the interface of residential uses, .
twenty foot alley, and commercial uses, .nd even if there is .
cap on the number of certain kinds of uses or if specific
hours .r. .stablish.d, those issues will still need to be
addressed st some point in the future as someone will contend
that someone .lse was allowed . use by right, the person had
no knowl.dge of it or did not like it, thus does not like the
process, th.refore again it was felt th.t the public hearing
process gives the business people and the surrounding
resid.nts the best option to fully .xplore a proposed use and
make . determination as to whether or not it is .ppropri.te.
He stated the attempt was to .stablish . strong definition of
coff.. shops, no more than tw.lve s.ats and no more than one
thousand two hundred f..t of total building .rea, anything
.xceeding that is not s coffee shop and would f.ll under
different requirements, this use primarily attracts people
alr.ady on Main Street for some other purpose or an
.stablishment ..y .ttr.ct . cli.ntele prior to their embarking
on their business day, .tc., the coffee shops thought to be a
.ore pedestrian oriented use than a restaurant. The intent
was to limit the scale of coffee shops by the maxi.um of
twelve sests in th.t . larger establishment would tend to have
. greater impact on the Street, however pointed out that
enforcement is something that will continually need to be
dealt with. To the question .s to who pays the parking fee,
the property owner or business owner, the Director noted that
the City h.s no concern as to who pays the fee, only that the
fee is paid, the process utilized in most recent instances has
been through. d.v.lop.ent .gr....nt .nt.r.d into with .ither
the property owner or the l.ssee with consent of the property
own.r to .nter into such .gr.e.ent, in most c.ses the property
owner is the signatory on the .greement yet the issue of who
pays the fee is up to agreement betw.en the property .nd
business owner. As to . question of clarity of the $100
v.rsus $3600 per space per year, the Director .xplained that
.
.
Page E1ght - C1ty Counc11 M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
those persons that have been paying the $100 per space per
year will remain in that program or they will have the option
of converting to the one time fee of $3600. With regard to
the Business Improvement District or Business Improvement
Association, the document merely offers the ability to explore
that option again, noting that many of the business operators
and property owners on the street feel it is time to form some
type of organization to more actively promote the street, make
improvements to its appearance, the BID and BIA mention is to
8imply encourage such an effort. As to the mixed opinions
regarding parking meters, the Director explained that the
revenues generated therefrom, which could be 8ubstantial,
could be funneled back into Main street to maintain and
improve the area, provide a means for tree plantingl
landscaping, permanent tree lighting, etc., and those programs
are included as revenue 80urces and expenditures in the AB
1600 Analysis. He clarified that under AB 1600 fees can be
generated that are only sufficient to cover the costs of
improvements that are planned to be undertaken, and to a
question posed with regard to the applicability of AB 1600 to
parking, the Director clarified further that the document
states that the AB 1600 Analysis does not apply to the
existing development agreements or those agreements that
require the payment of $100 per 8pace per year, however by
going through the AB 1600 Analysis the same $3600 can be
collected without having to go through a development
agreement, basically it is a condition of the issuance of a
permit to operate the business. He again emphasized that the
fees can not be greater than what is needed to accomplish the
improvements to be undertaken, and on the other hand, to
increase those fees requires further review of the programs
that are intended to be undertaken, acceptable programs could
include installation of meters in the parking lots, upgrading
the fee structure of the beach parking lots, and to that, if
people are going to be encouraged to utilize the beach lots,
particularly in the evening hours, there needs to be lighting
improvements, some landscaping improvements, improvement of
handicapped access, etc. to make people feel safe and
comfortable in using those lots. As to reference to the
improvements made in Pasadena with their outdoor mall, the
Director said there is strong agreement with some of the
things they did, some of the1r ideas have been incorporated,
and in some ways Main street actually functions as an outdoor
mall, a number of small businesses, most of the parking is
provided by the public on the street or in the lots, the
Specific Plan basically trying to combine those parking
resources that are now used by customers coming to Main
Street, encourage that the parking be used in a more efficient
manner, particularly the beach parking lots, so that the
demand on the residential side streets will be lessened from
what it is now, which is thought can be accomplished by the
programs identified. The Director confirmed that validated
merchant parking is part of the parking proposals of the
Specific Plan. As to the proposal to reduce the parking
requirements for local community servicing businesses, the
Director said the staff and the consultant spent considerable
time on that issue, and possibly the suggestion to put some of
those uses into the conditional use permit category is
something that should be explored further, however of concern
is that as property values increase there is demand for rent
increases and some of the local serving businesses can not
afford to stay in business if they also have to maintain large
parking areas, whether they have the area or are paying for
it, the purpose in proposing to reduce the parking
requirements is an attempt to keep those local businesses in
town, as an example there were a number of complaints when the
auto parts business left and was replaced by an art gallery,
.
.
Page N1ne - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
and there is like concern as to what Main street might become
if the hardware store, barber shops, the post office, etc.
were to disappear, the Specific Plan being one way to
encourage those types of uses to stay in the area, especially
since there are not many other inducements if compared to
other cities that may offer rebate programs, business
improvement loans, redevelopment agency financing, where Seal
Beach does not have those capabilities, however the parking
and reduction of the cost of parking is one thing that was
thought could be offered. The Director confirmed that this is
an attempt to encourage resident serving businesses aore so
than visitor serving, that one reason for leaving the parking
requirements for restaurants as they exist, which are fairly
substantial, is that it was thought those requirements along
with the fee structure proposed will preclude applications
from being submitted to replace any retail or office use which
in turn will require an increase of the parking several times
over, an example being twenty-five to thirty spaces at the
$3600 becomes a rather substantial amount in addition to
Conditional Use Permit requirements that may be imposed. The
Director offered that the comments .ade will be taken into
consideration in preparing the second draft of the Plan for
formal public hearings, and possibly indicate where there are
differences of opinion and propose alternatives for
consideration.
Councilman Doane recalled that staff had alluded to a
computerized recording of license plates to deal with the
street curb parking problems, and asked if a study is going on
or could that system be adopted prior to adoption of the Plan
itself, noting that it has been observed that there is a
definite increase of the number of persons coming to town,
parking on Main Street, and erasing the chalk marks from their
tires to avoid citation. The Director said his understanding
is that the acquisition of the hand held computers is not an
inexpensive item to acquire and it is uncertain whether there
are funds budgeted for that purpose, however that could be an
item included under Phase One of the program.
Mr. Zucker cited the comments as being very helpful. He
explained that a larger coffee house could be allowed however
it would then fall under the use permit category yet the
coffee house parking requirement would apply. In considering
the larger use through a use permit there is full control and
if they violate the use permit and become a restaurant it
would first be an illegal use, be in violation of the use
permit, and would then require more parking. Commissioner
Brown noted such a change of use situation has occurred in the
past, it is difficult to deal with, thus the suggestion to
have a strong definition in place. Mr. Zucker responded that
possibly the definition could be enhanced somewhat, however
pointed out that every alternative that .ay occur can not be
defined, again supporting the use permit process as the best
control. Commissioner Dahlman said in turn that if there is a
.ore lenient parking standard, there .ay be no .ore
applications for restaurants and everyone will be opening
coffee houses. Mr. Zucker clarified that the section relating
to the General Plan is basically commenting on that Plan as it
exists, the intent was not to revise that document, however by
statute there i. a requirement to make a statement as to
consistency with the General Plan, and at some point it .ay be
desirable to revise certain inconsistencies in that document.
He noted also some confusion with the Background Studies and
the Specific Plan, the language is actually background, the
policies that apply are the policies themselves, the
preliminary .aterial is meant to set a basis for the policies,
also there is a requirement to meet some state statutory
.
.
Page Ten - C1ty Council M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
requirements in the Specific Plan, to which interestingly
enough a study by the State showed that very few specific
plans throughout the State met those requirements, and th1S
document, if adopted, may be one of only a few meeting the
statute requirements. He offered that that may cause some
contusion however anything that deals with private
developments in the Zoning Code will be helpful as far as
implementation is concerned. Mr. Zucker said what is trying
to be done is very difticult in that from the very beginning
of this process it was pointed out that there is actually
quite a good mix on Main Street now, the challenge being how
that mix is going to be kept, pointing out that many
communities have failed in their attempts, also that he could
not guarantee that this effort has every ingredient to deter
that from happening, however some things have been done very
deliberately, taking an eclectic approach, a total different
approach from communities such as Pasadena, Berkeley, and some
Orange County cities that have gone much more to an
architectural type of control, and emphasized the need to get
into the mode of viewing downtown from a management
perspective. He noted that when the prior Main Street
Specific Plan was developed the situation was totally
different, the downtown had vacancies, people were concerned,
and today the downtown can been deemed to be fairly stable and
the concern would be if it will become something that is not
wanted, will the tourists overwhelm the community, etc.,
therefore the two year review, and the public comment that
that review needs to be more specific is good. With regard to
parking he once again emphasized the management issue, and in
spite of the expertise of the parking consultant, he said
there is no one who knows precisely how people will react when
a regulation is changed, which in turn initiates a reaction,
therefore the importance of the management aspects. As to the
beach lots he said it may have sounded as if the rates would
be changed frequently, however that is not the suggestion,
rather, that a rate structure be selected, put in place, then
observe for some period between six months up to two years the
response of the persons parking, and maybe then implement a
change, pointing out the beach lots as a tremendous resource,
the problem being how to get people to park there. It was
suggested that the language of that proposal be clarified
somewhat. Mr. Zucker offered the speculation that if a better
control of parking is what is desired then there must be
better management of the parking regulations, again, the
opinion is that there is adequate parking if it is controlled
and managed more efficiently.
Dr. Rosenman, 8th Street, asked if Mr. Zucker or the parking
consultant would comment on the parking meter issue, and asked
that the issue of nonconformity be thoroughly addressed. Mr.
Zucker offered that parking meters are as much of a
psychological issue as they are a parking/traffic issue, a lot
of small communities use them, however have for a number of
years and they are used to them, meters may also be as much a
political issue as it i. a technical issue, however there is
DO question in terms of their control of parking, getting more
turnover, le.s people violating the parking regulations,
parking aeters a good way to begin to do that, as to the
computer idea he .aid he believed it is still experimental and
used thus far by only Palo Alto, the computer may be an idea
for Seal Beach to try and could possibly be an alternative in
lieu of meters. Mr. Zucker acknowledged the importance of
being very specific a. to the nonconformity issue as it does
change the nonconformity approach whereby the current
ordinance states that after a certain number of days an entire
building is treated in a sense as if there is no use, that
thought to be ninety days, and for any new use that comes in
.
.
paqe Eleven - City Counc1l Minutes - Auqust 9, 1995
.
there are fairly tight restrictions, includinq all parkinq
requirements, which can serve as a disincentive to fillinq a
building, and if there were presently a substantial amount of
vacancies he felt that the nonconforming clause would be
readily acceptable given the understanding that the City would
prefer that any vacancy be filled with the kinds of preferred
uses as quickly as possible. Restaurants, believed to be the
key issue, and even though they would only be required to
provide the parking differential between the prior use, which
would likely be retail, and the new use, there is a ujor
penalty for a restaurant to locate here, possibly requiring up
to twenty-five to thirty aore parking spaces, which is an
issue that the City uy want to give further consideration.
Mr. Paul Wilkenson, Linscott, Law, , Greenspan, stated his
familiarity with the Seal Beach parking situation in that he
did the 1984/85 study. With respect to parking meters he
stated they are obviously a double edged sword, they were
invented in the 1930's not to uke money but to assure
turnover, to curtail a vehicle from taking a single space for
an entire day, generally those spaces that were most proximate
to businesses, making parking more convenient for customers
while employees parked further away. He said as that relates
to the Seal Beach situation it is a very delicate balance
because parking is a resource, particularly in the downtown
area, at this point basically a publicly provided resource as
there are no large lots that are privately maintained, and the
businesses that do provide parking for their customers tend to
be a magnet for those persons destined for the businesses who
do not provide parking for their customers. He made a
comparison to the City of Irvine where five spaces per
thousand is a common requirement for retail uses where it is a
space or two for Seal Beach, largely because in this community
people tend to walk in. He cited ten spaces per thousand or
one per hundred as seeming like a large requirement for
restaurants yet the demand much of the time for a successful
restaurant is more than that, and it is hoped that office
spaces during evening hours are vacant to accommodate extra
demand. Mr. wilkenson aqain noted that meters are a
management resource, and pointed out that the parking study
showed that the spaces along the curb are first choice and
generally full, yet the beach lot on the 4th of July was
twenty percent empty, that being eighty spaces, the in-lieu
program being a means of providing spaces for those businesses
that can not provide them on-site, and the goal of the program
is to provide a possible fifty spaces over the next eight
years yet eighty of those are already in the beach lot, again
citing parking a. a management i.sue which is basically a City
resource, an option also would be to meter the curbside spaces
and uke the beach lot free. He mentioned that Laguna Beach
has a parking pass program whereby a pass can be bought for
use in the meter in order to bypass that inconvenience. Mr.
Wilkensen said in his professional opinion he would not
disregard .eter. because on a relative basis the City has
enough spaces, they just need to be available to the persons
who are parking for a lesser duration. Mayor Hastings asked
how merchants can be encouraged to inform their customers that
parking is available behind their business location. To a
reference to four hundred thirteen parking spaces, Mr.
Wilkenson said he would prefer to research that number as he
thought it was a combination of spaces in the off-street lots
as well as the incidental spaces behind the business
locations. He s~ggested that first of all employees should
park behind the business if they are not willing to park
elsewhere, they should not be using street parking, pointing
out also that in most instances unless there is a rear access
door it is an inconvenience for customers to park at the rear
.
.
Page Twelve - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
of a business and then walk to a front entry, also that most
businesses do not want a rear entrance for security reasons.
The Mayor indicated her desire that parking at the rear of
business locations ehould be addressed in the Specific Plan,
to which Mr. wilkenson offered to look at further. Mr. Zucker
mentioned that the rear parking was looked at at some length
during the early phases and it was deliberately decided to not
put an emphasis on a rear entrance facade clean up, felt to be
inappropriate given the interface with the residential, also
it could be argued that having those areas not well known to
tourists could actually reinforce the local interest in
downtown if the spaces are known and available to them.
Commissioner Dahlman concurred that parking meters are not a
fund raising issue in that the most efficient way to raise
funds would be directly fram the business people rather than
introducing the overhead of collecting and patrolling the
meters, the purpose of this proposal is to affect the way
people park, yet meters are no improvement over the manner in
which parking is controlled now thus the behavior of those who
park will not change. 1Ir. Brian ICyle, Seal Beach, said he did
not feel that meters on Main Street is a practical idea,
people will simply feed the meters, and he could not support
meters on the Street. Mr. ICyle offered a reminder that at the
time of the 1984 Taskforce Main Street was in a blighted
condition, stated he would not like to see government get
involved or place additional pressures on the businesses, they
are not making a great deal of money yet the Street is healthy
at the present time, offered that it is difficult to keep a
good tenant, that rents in inland areas are greater than those
locally, the businesses are not asking for help from the City,
and he would not like to see vacancies atart to appear on the
Street. Commissioner Brown stated that rents in Seal Beach
are not lower than other areas, also the Main Street property
owners are not providing the parking as is required in other
areas, the public is paying for the parking, and there is no
corresponding decrease in the rents to match the common area
that the public is providing. The Commissioner claimed that
some businesses that have been able to provide adequate
parking are successful however on the other hand there are
some that provide no parking, that unfair to those who try to
follow the rules. Mr. ICyle said to a great degree the town
has grown with the buildings that were already here, and for
instance if the theater or the hardware store were to be sold
it is quite likely that a new owner could not afford to meet
the parking requirements, which could amount to a number of
spaces, therefore those two businesses could be lost to the
community, and offered that from a vision standpoint whatever
is contained in this Plan will affect Main Street long term.
He noted that the report from the 80's said there was no
parking problem, these consultants are saying the same, yet
there is a managellent problem, not a parking problem, and
offered that given the application processes, such as the
conditional use permit, the City is not going to grow any
more, and concluded with a caution as to what is placed in the
Specific Plan. Commissioner Brown said he was not certain as
to the nexus between the beach lots and Main Street, if those
lots were opened for free parkin; they would most likely be
filled with beachgoers and he did not believe that Main Street
would suddenly become vacant, the free parking could possibly
be of scae help to the one hundred block but likely only
81ni..l for the two hundred block, his opinion being that the
beach lots are under utilized because the fees are too high
and they should be an hourly rate. As to a possible
adjustment of fees and/or parking requirements, he reported a
suggestion from a Main Street businessperson that when a
business can not provide the number of parking spaces required
that they be allowed to provide valet parking utilizing the
.
.
Page Th1rteen - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
.
city lots, possibly make a profit by doing so which could be
applied to the in-lieu cost of the spaces.
.AD.10URNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION
On the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, it was the order
of the Chair, with consent of the Commission, to adjourn the
joint workshop session with the City Council at 9:45 p.m.
The Interim City Kanager requested Council consideration
and/or action of an urgency matter that bas come up since
preparation and posting of the agenda, the item known as the
City Composite Plan or plan .C" relating to the recovery from
the County bankruptcy, this item to be considered at the .
League of cities meeting tomorrow evening. Hastings moved,
second by Doane, to find that there is need to take immediate
action on the League of California Cities, orange County
Division, proposal regarding the bankruptcy recovery proposals
and pending legislation, this issue having arisen since
preparation of the agenda.
Hoting that a four fifths vote is required to consider this
item, Councilman Brown stated bis intent to vote against
consideration in that be bas just come from a meeting at the
Sanitation Districts and it is felt that the County debt as
set forth in the plan is greatly overstated, the Sanitation
Districts requesting that the plan not be supported, thus not
recognizing the $1.5 billion county debt as claimed, to which
be pointed out also that the County bas not reduced its costs,
labor force, etc. as they bad said. Councilman Laszlo noted
that it appears the County is attempting to take monies from
the Vector Control District as well. In that a vote to not
consider this item would be a no action, Councilman Brown
changed bis position, citing the opportunity to address any
concerns at the League meeting.
Kotion on vote to consider:
.
AYES:
HOES:
ABSENT :
Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo
Hone
Forsythe Kotion carried
.
The Interim City Manager explained that an ad hoc committee
was formed in recent weeks to respond to concepts that are
being considered by the legislative delegation and the County
regarding the bankruptcy, the feeling being that some of the
elements of the plans were not in the best interest of the
cities in the County, that the taking of property tax as an
example. Councilman Brown stated that this plan is
considerably different from the FOG, Family of Governments,
plan. The Kanager said this plan resulted after meeting with
the FOG group, the County, Sanitation Districts and Transit
District to determine numbers as best and accurate as they
could, the committee suggesting that there not be debate over
the numbers but rather they invite city responses to the
concept, whether this concept is more acceptable than other
plans that may be considered by the legislative delegation or
by the County. Councilman Brown interjected that if something
is not agreed to by the 21st of AUgust it is quite likely the
Governor will send a trustee to the County with a plan to take
monies from the Sanitation Districts, the cities, and other
agencies. The Kanager noted the intent of this plan is to be
proactive for something acceptable to all Orange County
cities, explaining that the first plan would have sold the
rights to El Toro to the Transit District for development
along with the sale of John Wayne Airport, those two tied
together in order to use the monies from those sales for the
County bankruptcy, that proposal upset the South County
.
.
.
.
"
Page Fourteen - C1ty Counc1l M1nutes - August 9, 1995
cities, considerable monies were to also have been taken from
Harbors, Beaches and Parks, the Transit Authority, etc. He
said the Leaque would like a general discussion towards an
acceptable alternative, a plan that would make a strong demand
that if a trustee is appointed by the state that the cities,
through the Leaque or the composite plan, will have some input
as to the limitations that the trustee may have. There was a
consensus of the Council to authorize Councilman Brown, with
the assistance of the Interim City Manager, to present the
City's position with regard to the Plan during discussion at
the Leaque meeting the following evening.
COUNCIL CONCERNS
Members of the Council spoke favorably of the workshop session
for the Main Street Specific Plan, resulting in a better
understanding of various issues to be considered.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
adjourn the meeting until Monday, Auqust 14th, 1995 at 6:00
p.m. to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. It was
the consensus of the Council to adjourn the meeting at 10:05
p.m.
THESE ARE TENTATIVE MINUTES ONLY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH.
Counc1l M1nutes Approved: