HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1996-02-21
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA of FEBRUARY 21, 1996
7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers
211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA
Next Resolution: #96-4
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
n. ROLL CALL
m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
By Motion of the Planning Commission, thIS is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda;
(b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning CommIssion,
staff, or public to request an Item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate action.
IV.
I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning CommIssion
regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning
commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the
Planning CommissIon unless otherwise authorized by law.
V. CONSENT CALElWAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planmng commission,
staff or the public requests that a specIfic item be removed from Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1996.
2. ReceIve and File: January 22, 1996 Staff Report re Fact Sheet - Sue 9
Sandblast Grit Disposal Area, Seal Beach Naval Weapons StatIOn.
The City ofSea1 Beach compiles With the American'! With DI'labJlltles Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS
meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg.
.
.
.
....0 2 - CIty of Seal Bcacb PlannIll8 Commwlon Agenda for Febrwu)' 7. 1996
VI.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1
[Continued from 11-8-95 and 12-6-95]
Applicant: City of Seal Beach
Request: To establish City-wide standards for the temporary
display of advertising banners 10 commerciall
industnal zones. The proposed regulations would
establIsh a permittmg process and set maximum
tIme and size limits for the display of temporary
banners.
Recommendation: Recommend to City CouncIl approval of Zoning
Text Amendment 95-1, dubject to additional
proVisions as determined appropnate, and adopt
Resolution No. 96-_.
4.
Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
[ContInued from 1-17-96]
Applicant: City of Seal Beach
Request: To conSider an amendment to the rear yard setback
requirements of the ReSidential Low DenSity zone,
District V, to permit decks to be constructed wlthm
the rear yard setback. If approved, the proposed
amendment would allow decks up to 12 feet 10
overall height to be bUilt to wlthm 6' of the
property line. The proposed amendment is mtended
to address rear yard slope along the rear yards of
Crestview A venue, Catalma A venue and Surf Place.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the Commission.
The City of Seal Beach comphes With the Americans With DI'Iabllltles Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS
meebng, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg
.
.
.
....e 3 - Cdf of Seal Beach Plaanmg ComnUBBIOD Agenda for PcbrualY 7. 1996
5.
Zoning Text Amendment 96-2
Applicant:
City of Seal Beach
To amend the Code of the CIty of Seal Beach to
prohIbit new third stories In the medium and high
density zones of Old Town and place a blanket 25
foot height limit on these properties. Currently a
third story is permItted on the rear half of any lot
which is at least 371h feet wIde.
Request:
This ZT A will also conSIder permitting certain roof
treatments to exceed the 25 foot height lImit ~y up
to 2 - 3 feet, subject to a discretionary review by
the PlannIng CommiSSIOn.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the CommiSSIOn.
6.
Negative Declaration 96-1
General Plan Amendment 96-1A & 96-1B
"Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1
Zone Text Amendment 96-1
Zone Change 96-1
"Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan" Report, and
"AB 1600 Report"
Applicant: City of Seal Beach
Request: The CIty of Seal Beach IS recommendmg reVISIons
to the eXlstmg "Mam Street Specific Plan", and
conforming reviSIOns to the General Plan Land Use
and Housing Elements, a Zone Text Amendment,
and a Zone Change to designate those areas of the
CIty to be designated "Mam Street Specific Plan
Zone".
Recommendation: That the PlannIng CommIssion recommend that the
CouncIl adopt NegatIve Declaration 96-1, and
approve any amendments to the General Plan, Main
Street SpecIfic Plan, ZOnIng Ordmance and Zonmg
The City of Seal Beach compiles With the Amertcans With Dlc;ablhtle'i Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS
meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg
Pl&e 4 - CIty of Seal Beacb PlaDnmg CommI88I00 Agenda for FebnulIY 7. 1996
.
.
Map determined appropnate, through the adoptIon
of:
1) Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the
Planning Commission Recommendmg
Adoption of Negative Declaration No. 96-1,
Relating to Revision 96-1 of the Main Street
Specific Plan
2)
ResolutIon Number 96-_, A ResolutIon of
the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach Recommending to the City Council
Approval of General Plan Amendment 96-
lA, Amending the Land Use Element to
Maintain ConsIstency Between the Land Use
Element and the Mam Street Specific Plan
ReVIsion 96-1 and to Revise the "Summary
Table of Existing and Proposed Land Uses
m Acres" of the Land Use Element to
DepIct the Increase of Approximately 14.8
Acres of "Main Street Specific Plan Zone"
land and Appropriate Decreases of Other
Land Use Categones WIthm the City
3) Resolution Number 96-_, A ResolutIon of
the Planning CommIssIon of the City of Seal
Beach Recommendmg to the City Councll
Approval of General Plan Amendment 96-
1B, Amendmg Table 16 of the Housing
Element to DepIct the Increase of
ApproxImately 14.8 Acres of "Main Street
Specific Plan Zone" land and Appropnate
Decreases of Other Land Use Categones
Withm the CIty
4) ResolutIon Number 96-_, A Resolution of
the Planning CommIssion of the City of Seal
Beach Recommending that the CIty Council
Approve ReVIsion 96-1 of the Mam Street
SpeCIfic Plan
.
The CIty of Seal Beach comphes WIth the Amerlcan<; WIth DI<;ablhtle<; Act of 1990 If you need assIstance to attend thIS
meetIDg, please telephone the CIty Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours ID advance of the meetIDg
.
.
.
Pace 5 - CIty of Seal Belch Plannmg ComnussIOO Agenda for Fcbl1lllry 7. 1996
5)
Resolution Number 96-_, A Resolution of
the Planning CommIssIon of the CIty of Seal
Beach Recommending to the CIty Councll
Approval of Zone Text Amendment 96-1,
CreatIng the "Main Street Specific Plan
Zone" (Sections 28-1250 through 28-1257)
and Amending SectIons 28-1804.3 and 28-
2408.C to MaintaIn Internal Consistency of
Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal
Beach
6) Resolution Number 96-_, A Resolution of
the Planning CommIssion of the City of Seal
Beach RecommendIng to the City Councll
Approval of Zone Change 96-1, Changing
the Zomng to DepIct the Increase of
ApproxImately 14.8 Acres of "Main Street
SpeCIfic Plan Zone" Land and Appropriate
Decreases of Other Zomng Categones
WithIn the CIty
In additIOn, recommend that the City Council
receive and file the "Background Studies - Main
Street Specific Plan" Report, reVIsed and dated
January 1996, and the "AB 1600 Report" dated
January 17, 1996.
vu.
STAFF CONCE~
VDI.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
· Los Angeles Times newspaper artIcle, dated September 12, 1993,
A Tale of 2 Tourist Towns.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Seal Beach complies With the Amerlcan'l With DI'lablhtles Act of 1990 It you need assistance to attend thiS
meetlDg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg.
PIce 6 - CIty of Seal Beach PIamung CommIIIIOll Almda for Pcbnwy 7. 1996
.
1996 AGENDA FORECAST
MAR 06
.
.
Review Burger King
Consider Setbacks for Plant-Supportmg Structures (2-7-96)
MAR 20
.
Consideration of a ZTA re SIde Yard Setbacks
AbuttIng a SIde Alley m District 1, RHD zone. (2-7-96)
APR 03
.
CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos.
APR 17
.
CUP 95-1/1013 PCH/PIetro's @ 12 mos.lhours.
MAY 08
MAY 22
.
CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/EI BurrIto 12 mos. ABC
[Changed ownership 1/96]
JUN 05
JUN 19
. JUL 03
JUL 17
AUG 07
AUG 21
SEP 04
SEP 18
OCT 09
OCT 23
NOV 06
NOV 20
DEe 04
DEC 18
· CUP 94-1/600 Manna/RadIsson 12 mos. ABC
· CUP 94-8/327 Main/NIp 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review
.
The City of Seal Beach complies With the Americans With DisabilIties Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS
meetlDg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours 111 advance of the meetmg.
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES of FEBRUARY 21, 1996
The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session in City Council Chambers
at 7:37 p.m. The Chair called the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Campbell
Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Brown
Also
Present:
Department of DevelQpment Services:
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant
Joan Flllmann, Executive Secretary
AGE.NDA APPROVAL
The Commission discussed the order of the Agenda for half an hour as follows:
ZT A 95-1 * Banners
Director Whittenberg requested item #3, ZonIng Text Amendment (ZT A) 95-1 regardIng
establishing City-wide standards for advertising banners, be continued to the March 20, 1996
Commission meeting. He satd the PlannIng Commission had previously contInued this matter
to March 20th. The Comnussion does have the authority to take publIc testImony but not the
authority to take a final action until the March 20th meeting.
ZT A 96-1 * Decks In Setbacks
Commissioner Brown suggested item #4, ZT A 96-1 regarding allOWIng decks In the rear yard
setbacks in District V, be contInued to March 6th to allow him more time to look at the
properties in question. He also noted the City received a letter from Dave Bartlett, of Dave
Bartlett Associates, dated February 21, 1996. ThIS letter commented on ZTA 96-1, suggestIng
setback modifications and mandatory landscaping for screening to benefit the Hellman Ranch
property. Commissioner Brown queried in what respect Mr. Bartlett would be representIng the
Hellman Ranch property owners.
Banners - Main Street Specific Plan - Third Stories
Commissioner Brown suggested the ZT A on banners precede the ZT A for the MaIn Street
Specific Plan and then be followed by the ZT A on thIrd stones.
Page 2 - Cd;y of Seal Bcacb PIamung CommwIOll Mmutcs of Febnwy 21, 1996
. Third Stories
Chairperson Campbell requested item #5, ZTA 96-2 regarding prolubition of new thud stories
in Old Town, be continued to April 3, 1996. She indicated Councilwoman Hastm~s had
received nine letters on this subject and felt further study nme is needed; she didn't realize the
matter was so controversial.
Terry Meiers
Mrs. Meiers, Crestview Avenue property owner, requested a copy of Dave Bartlett's letter. Mr.
Curtis will provide a copy.
.
Fannie Bollen * Seal Beach
Mrs. Bollen expressed frustration at the further continuance of ZT A 96-2. She wanted to know
specifically ifZTA 96-2 applied to her property? Mr. Curtis smd yes. Commissioner Dahlman
explained the location of the Bollen's comer house prohibited it for building a thud story on the
front half. Whlle the Bollen's did not propose to bulld a third story, they dId propose an
architectural enhancement. Mr. CurtIs explained further that ZTA 96-2 deals with the removal
of third stories and also considers certain roof treatments to exceed the height limIt by a couple
of feet through a HeIght Vananon. Commissioner Brown, notmg Mrs. Bollen has been waiting
a long time, noted this is a major change to the zoning code and is not something which should
be rushed. The Bollen's are waiting for a ZTA to allow them to do something which they
currently are not allowed to do. He asked the Bollen's to be panent WIth the Commission's
process.
Mr. Alexander * Seal Beach
Mr. Alexander, noting there are two issues in ZTA 96-2, suggested dividmg them. The
Commission declined the suggestion due to the volume of correspondence received by Mrs.
Hastings.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the agenda with the following
changes:
1. Continue ZTA 96-1 to March 6, 1996, receive testimony only tonight;
2. Continue ZT A 95-1 to March 20, 1996, receive testimony only tonight;
3. Continue ZT A 96-2 to April 3, 1996, receive testimony only tonight from
those persons who cannot be present on April 3rd.
4. The Main Street Specific Plan will be heard as the last item.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Brown, Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Campbell
***
.
Plae 3 - Cd,y of Seal Beach PIaJuuDa ComouIl8lOll Mmutea of FeblU8l)' 21, 1996
. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mitzie Morton - Seal Beach
Mrs. Morton hoped the Main Street Specific Plan Public Hearing will be continued because the
recent four day holiday prevented the publIc from receiving the staff report; CIty Hall was
closed on Friday and Monday.
There being no further speakers, Chairperson Campbell closed Oral Communications.
ENDAR
The Chair indicated the Minutes should be changed at page 7 to change "staff" to "anyone" at
the discussion of the Brown Act.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Consent Calendar with the
correction to the Minutes as noted by the Chair:
1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1996 incorporating
the chair's correction;
.
2.
Receive and File: January 22, 1996 Stafr Report re Fact Sheet - Site 9
Sandblast Grit Disposal Area, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Brown, Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Campbell
***
3. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1
The applicant, the City of Seal Beach, sought to establish City-wIde standards for the temporary
dIsplay of advertising banners in commercial/industrial zones. This matter was continued from
the Planning Commission meetings of November 8, 1995 and December 6, 1995; this is its thIrd
Public Heanng. The Commission determmed to continue this PublIc Heanng to March 20th and
receIve testImony only this evening.
Staff Report
Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. He noted Planning Department staff met with
representatives from the Rossmoor Center, the Seal Beach Business Association and the Chamber
of Commerce to discuss banner advertIsmg. The merchants made suggested reVIsions to the
proposed ordinance and staff incorporated those suggestions.
.
.
.
.
Plge 4 - CIly of Seal Beach I'IaooJoa Conum881011 MInutes of Febrwuy 21, 1996
For the Record, Director Whittenberg told the Commission the City received three letters
regarding this matter:
1. Stan and Dora Burton from United Martial Arts
1017 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach
2. Jasmine Hseih from Baskin Robbins
1037 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach
3. Retha Evans
237 17th Street, Seal Beach
The fIrst two were in favor of the ZTA and the third letter was in OPPOsItion.
Commission Comments on Staff Re.port
Initial De.posit
Commissioner Brown asked the amount of the prevIously required deposit. Mr. Curtis said
staffs original recommendation was approximately $500. The merchants recommended a $50-
$100 fee to install a banner. This fee would be refunded when the banner was removed. Staff
didn't provide a specific figure but, left it with the fee's being subject to approval by the CIty
Council's Fee Resolution. Logistically, staff had not had time to work this out.
Commissioner Law said she felt the deposit was a better idea than the bond because it takes front
money to get a bond and they could lose their front money. If an applicant were not to abide
by the regulations the City would keep the deposit.
City of Laguna Beach
Chairperson Campbell asked if Laguna Beach has a banner ord1Oance? Mr. CurtIs satd the City
of Laguna Beach prohibIts banners but has an 1Oformal policy where the banners are allowed;
nothing is codified.
Public Hearing
Karen Kettering * The Angel Connection * Seal Beach
Ms. Kettering said she is a City resident and Main Street business owner. She presented the
CommIssion with approxImately fifty-three (53) memos from area merchants; provided in case
ftle. She also presented photographs of banners around the City; provided 10 case ftle. These
assert support for the City's not enforcing the banner ordinance at this time. She satd these
merchants feel the economy is still recessionary and Seal Beach is compet1Og with the Belmont
Shore stores, the Market Place shopping center and the Westminster Mall stores. The
Westminster Mall has a $600,000 annual advertising budget.
.
.
.
hac 5 - CJI;y of Sa1 Beach J>IannuJa CoomusIIClll MlDulcII of Pebnwy 21. 1996
Ms. Kettering said she drove around the City of Seal Beach and found banners allover.
McGaugh School had a banner from which sales supported the school children. She felt people
read banners and we all profit from them.
The merchants requested the Planning Commission not enforce the banner ordinance for the next
two years. Hopefully the recession will be over at that time. Some of the merchants feel there
is not enough retail marketing experience on the Planning Commission and the City Counctl.
The merchants would like to help the City help them via a committee to further revIew and make
recommendations.
Ms. Kettering asked if she turned her banner into a sign would it be okay to keep up all year?
Mr. Curtis said yes, if the dimensions are conforming.
Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Antos said the staff report is conflicting. Under the Discussion section it states banners are
not permitted. However, it goes on to say that staff has an on-going Code enforcement problem.
The next paragraph says the Development Services Department has, as a matter of pollcy,
allowed new businesses the opportunity to use temporary banners for grand openIngs. It
appeared to him that a situation exists where the Code is ignored. The Department of
Development Services does not have the ability to deal with the Code enforcement problem.
They have been, on their own, ignoring it. Now the Commission is trying to codify somethIng
to allow banners. One of the provisions says any banner or sign whIch does not comply with
this has an amortization period of thirty days. This means to hIm that anybody who doesn't
want to get a permit can hang a banner, get a notice, and after thIrty days take It down and then
put it up again. Since the Department of Development Services has, as a matter of policy,
issued some banner permits for grand openings and other types of things as opposed to trying
to codify this issue, it might be better to consider allowing temporary signage subject to approval
by the Department of Development Services as opposed to gOIng through this ZT A. In that
way, the Department can reach a consensus with the merchants on what is appropriate and what
is needed. The report before the Commission has too many holes in it. It has just as much, If
not more, Code enforcement problems than the current prohibition. He suggested restudying
this issue.
Additionally, the Main Street Specific Plan does not include temporary banners and signs. He
suggested the Commission wait until the SpecIfic Plan has been approved.
Lisa Schultz * 609 Seabreeze Dr.. Seal Beach
Ms. Schultz stated she is not a business owner but wanted to make some general comments on
behalf of the Seal Beach bUSIness owners. Ms. Schultz said she grew up in a small MichIgan
town where her parents owned a small business. This town learned the hard way that It'S not
a quaint little town without the vitality of the business community. She felt the banner questIon
is benign and we should be focusing on safety and other posItive issues.
....c 6 - CIty of Seal Be8ch PWuutJa Cclmmw1ll1l Mm11fc8 of Pebruaty 21, 1996
. Gary Putnam * Seal Beach .
Mr. Putnam said he is a City resident and owns property on MalO Street. Mr. Putnam agreed
with Ms. Schultz's comments that the City should allow the businesses more flexibility. He said
the downtown area of Seal Beach has become much prettier; when he was a child it was a dirty
httle town. His family owned a business here for 65 years and he felt the CIty should not block
the merchants in a three block area.
Commissioner Law explained the need for rules. Mr. Putnam agreed there would be chaos
without limitations.
Commissioner Dahlman noted the Commission has heard three speakers tonight CritiCIze the
Commission. He said this ZTA purports to lighten the current City ordlOance prohibiting
banners. According to the staff report, the staff met with the City's merchants and incorporated
their suggestions into the ordinance. He asked Mr. Putnam what his position was on thIS?
Mr. Putnam said he could not speak for the businessmen. He found the banners on Main Street
to be non-offensIve. Part of the character of a small town would be to let businesses Just
conduct business. He didn't see banners as a problem.
.
Commissioner Dahlman satd given the fact there is a very stringent prohibloon against banners
currently and what the Commission is proposing to do is improve on that in favor of the
businessmen, what changes would Mr. Putnam like to see?
Mr. Putnam said when you have banners on the street occurring anyway, what is the problem
then? No one is enforcing it. The ordinance is contradictory and it's not necessary.
The Chair explalOed the need for standardized banner regulations and suggested a work-shop
may be needed and helpful.
DaVId Rosenman * 8th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman said he is both pro and con on this issue. He related he took viSIting friends
down the coast from San Francisco to Laguna Beach. They stopped in Carmel, Monterey,
Cambria and Laguna Beach. Those towns are all thriving despite stnct sign ordinances. The
City of Laguna Beach requires its gasoline service stations to have carved wooden signs that are
front illuminated; they do not have the illuminated from behind plastic sIgns. The argument can
be made that towns which do very well, are very competitive and have done something about
uniform ground rules for visual appearance.
He asked if interior signage, such as the florescent colored signage in Amencan Savings Bank,
would be included in this ordinance? Mr. Whittenberg said no, this deals with Just ex tenor
banners. Mr. Rosenman felt interior signage which can be seen from the outside should have
been included.
.
.
.
.
Pll&c 7 - C111 of Seal 8ClIch PIannmg ComoullJOll Mmllfca of February 21, 1996
Mano Voce ... Seal Beach
Mr. Voce said his definite opimons on signage stem from the fact he is trained as a fine artist
and is a freelance art director. He does not believe you have to have banners everywhere to
have business success. He does not want a "schlocky, tacky looking town". The towns
mentioned by David Rosenman are very successful towns on the Coast because they are
beautiful. It's not just banners and signage, it's what kind, how big, how much. Insultmg neo-
orange and lime green signs that are ten feet high and wide at American Savings are terrible and
they're not the only ones. "If you want to have a flea market town and you want it to look like
that flOe. But don't say it's a quality town and has a nice Old Town atmosphere ...". The
Main Street Specific Plan does mention signage and banners and something will have to be
rectified.
Additionally, Mr. Voce said "It just seems some of the merchants may be a httle fickle here.
What is this --- they get together and they make all these decisions and suggestions and staff
takes them and writes them in this legislation and then they come up and say all the merchants
don't want it. What's the story? Are we flip-flopping? That's the way it looks and sounds".
Stan Anderson'" Coach's Restaurant. Seal Beach
Mr. Anderson introduced himself as a City resident, the owner of Coach's restaurant and
President of the Seal Beach Business Association. He said many businesses live off the
banners. The Business Association represents 150 City businesses and most of them are located
on Main Street. He felt if certain banners are offensive they should be taken down.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Anderson how he would do that? Mr. Anderson said Director
Whittenberg and Mr. Curtis could walk down the street and appraise the banners. They could
judge If the banner(s) was too big, etc. Commissioner Brown said that Without standards, what
IS conSidered too big? He continued to note that the Planning Commission is now trymg to
allow banners where none are allowed now. He said the ordinance would be have to be specific,
that a phrase, for example, "No tacky banners", would not suffice. Mr. Anderson said he felt
the Planning CommiSSIOn was asking the busmessmen to let them know what IS an offenSive
banner. Chairperson Campbell added the Commission is trymg to arrive at standards everyone
can live with. Mr. Anderson said the businessmen need advertising 1.0 town. They have tned
to get tour busses into town, tried to get a video presentation together to send out of town, and
tried to get the Farmer's Market into town. It would have been nice to have 500 to 1000 new
people on Main Street to attend an outdoor market and shop elsewhere on Ma.m Street. The
merchants need help. The merchants are asking for a delay in enforcement of banner
advertising; a little help right now. The surroundmg areas is having air base problems With
McDonald Douglas and Rockwell cutting back. Cites like LaHabra are allowing big banners
to advertise car sales; there is a lot of sales tax coming from the sale of a car.
Commissioner Brown said this is the third Public Hearing on the issue of banner advertising and
display. Each time the Planning Commission has said to the businessmen come back and tell
us what you want and as he reviews the comments he hears we want appropriate banners, we
.
.
.
PIce 8 - Cd;y of Seal Beach PIaJuuDc ClIIIJIJU8lIlOII Mtnutca of Fcbrwuy 21, 1996
want professional banners. The comments have not been clear or definitive. In reply, Mr.
Anderson said most of the City's business owners are unique and not everybody agrees on
everything; they are just agreeing to disagree.
Commissioner Dahlman S3.1d it really does appear that the Planmng Commission is bemg accused
of taking the banners away from the businessmen when really the Commission IS trymg to allow
them to use banners in a reasonable way.
Chairperson Campbell said someone had told her last week that the business merchants felt the
Planning Commission was not willing to work WIth them. "That couldn't be further from the
truth. We need your input. We welcome your input. We have to have it. Nothing against Lee
[Whittenberg] but we don't want our only source of information to be a City staff report. We
have to hear from you. And all this is is an attempt to work WIth you and find out what it IS
you want so that we can give you somethmg you can work with and bve WIth" .
David Rosenman * 8th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman suggested it might be helpful to form a small group comprised of businessmen
and a person appointed by each Councilperson to compile a specific report.
Commissioner Sharp clanfied some of the problems that are going on. For example, he noted
he represents a couple of shoppmg centers and he made a special effort to talk to the people who
run these shopping centers. He asked them to please be sure and attend thIS meeting with
something in writing as to what they would hke to see. This meeting was postponed three times
to allow for this input. Yesterday he got a phone call saying those people couldn't attend as they
had a conflict of interest. "That's frustrating". While the Commission IS trymg to work with
the merchants, if the merchants won't come in and give their input "We're never going to get
any place" .
Kim Sutton * General Manager of BI's Pizza. Main Street. Seal Beach
Ms. Sutton said she appreciated the CommIssIon's comments that they are trymg to work WIth
the merchants.
No one else wished to speak.
MOTION by Campbell; SECOND by Law that the Public Hearing on ZTA 95-1 will be
continued to March 20, 1996 and no further legal Notices will be mailed.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Campbell, Law, Dahlman, Sharp, Brown
***
.
.
.
1>1809 . ~ of Seal Beach I'Iannm& ComausIIClll Mmulcl of Fcbnwy 21. 1996
4.
Zoning Text Amendment 96-1
This matter was continued from the Planning Commission's January 17, 1996 meeting. The
City requested the Commission consider an amendment ~ the rear yard setback requ~re~ents
of the Residential Low DensIty zone in DIstrict V to permIts decks to be constructed wlthm the
rear yard setback.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to continue Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 to the
Planning Commi~ion meeting of March 6, 1996.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Brown, Law, Campbell, Sharp, Dahlman
***
5. Zoning Text Amendment 96-2
The applicant, the City of Seal Beach, seeks amendment of the municipal Code to prohibIt new
third stones in the medium and high density zones of Old Town and place a blanket 25 foot
height limit on these properties. The ZT A will also conSIder permitting certain roof treatments
to exceed the 25' height limit by up to 2 - 3 feet, subject to a discretionary review by the
Planning Commission. The staff report was deferred.
The Chair indicated the Commission would take testimony only on ZTA 96-2.
Jim Caviola * 305 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach
Mr. Caviola said "... somebody is making deciSIOns that are off-the-wall. How can somebody
just have a meetmg tonight and lop ten feet off a property. That equates to $4,000,000 in
property values in this town. That's ludIcrous". He felt the City should have a Design ReVIew
Board/Commission. His property on Ocean Avenue has three-story apartment buildings on
either SIde. If the property across the street built to three-stories that would leave him paying
high property taxes, not Proposition 13 taxes, and having three story structures surroundmg him.
He said the City of Seal Beach has "... millions of profeSSIOnals who will work for free" and
suggested they be consulted. He said putting 2' more on the roof of a house for design purposes
was pointless because he is not into decorating the outside. If he can put 3' on top of hIS 25'
house he could have another room --- but that's not permitted. No one is thmking this out. It's
inconsistent and unfmr. This proposal would not allow flexibllity for someone hke mmself.
"It's profound to think that tonight you guys could have ruled that $4,000,000 worth of property
values could have gone in the garbage can because someone decided to put that on the Agenda.
That's really kind of scary ... you need to put a little more thought into this in my opinion".
If the look of the town is going to be changed it needs to be fleXIble and more thought needs to
go into this.
.
.
.
PlIo 10 - Cdy of ScaI Bt.tch 1'Ilmnmc Caaum88101l MmuIc8 of Fcbnwy 21, 1996
The Director explained that for any proposal whIch would attempt to change the zoning
ordinance, State law requires a Public Hearing before the Planning CommiSSIOn and the CIty
Council. The Council ultimately needs to approve an ordinance. City staff was requested to
prepare this amendment for consideration by the Planning Commission. It does not necessanly
mean it will be adopted. The purpose of a Public Hearing IS to receive pubhc input as to
whether the proposal is good, bad or indifferent. Several letters have been received, and have
been given to the CommIssioners tonight, which are in strong opposItion to this proposal.
[Attached].
Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Caviola if he is currently allowed to build to three stories
on his site? Mr. Caviola said no, his lot is 25'. His position is, with regard to height limits in
Old Town, it should be liberalized in cases like his and made flexible to allow for more thud
stories than currently eXIst. He would like there to be an architectural look. Notmg that when
you drive around town there is no thought into what the area WIll look like. This proposal IS
not architecturally adequate. However, he dIdn't favor the architectural review to include a
case-by-case review on heights with long review periods.
Stan Peret * 1603 Ocean Avenue * Continental Apartments
Mr. Peret said he purchased the Continental Apartments twenty years ago with the express
purpose of building a house on those lots. Sooner or later the apartment buildmg will be too
old to stay. When the City says he cannot build a third story onto the existmg two lots the CIty
has just cost him a lot of money. An ocean view, third floor house is worth a lot more money
than a two-story or a three-story house WIthout an ocean view. Changing the rules after all these
years would cost him a lot of money. The existing rules are if you have a 25' wide lot you can
build two stories and if you have a 371h' lot you can build to three stories. After reading the
public Notice he felt If he didn't come and testify tonight he would have no recourse.
Yvette Putnam Jacobson and Gary Putnam
Mrs. Jacobson and Mr. Putnam said this would really affect them finanCIally. It's expensIve
land in Seal Beach and it's expensive to build new properties here. To not have the ablhty to
go to three stories, to obtain enough square footage, is very hmitmg. Their property has been
in their family since 1920. Originally they had three lots and now they have a lot and a half.
This lot and a half IS on Tenth Street and has a three-story apartment budding next to it. Theu
property is currently for sale and WIth thIS proposed ZT A it has Jeopardized the sale of theu lot.
As stated by Mr. Peret, this would greatly affect property values. They would like to see the
existing Code left in tact. Because the third stories are built on the rear half of the lots they
don't seem to impact views; it's against the alley.
Fannie Bollen * 1101 Seal Way. Seal Beach
Mrs. Bollen said she and her husband purchased this property two years ago. They paid qUIte
a bit more money for this lot because It had the opportunity to budd a third story. Even though
.
.
.
PIce 11 - Cdy of Seal Beach PlIauuli8 CclmmmsIOl1 Mmutca of Fcbrwuy 21, 1996
they did not build right away, they planned on building m the future. They probably paid
$150,000 too much for what they have now. She is talking about this now because when they
reduced the 35' to 25' they were not aware of it; for some reason they didn't get a Notice.
They were unable to make theIr views known. They had their plans in plan check for the
remodel when thIS was passed. Their plans were calling for 27', which was for aesthetic
reasons, on a very small area --- the pitch of the roof.
Commissioner Dahlman asked staff to clarify the policy applying to comer lots on the ocean
front.
Mr. Curtis explained that in 1986 the Planning Commission adopted a pollcy statement for lots
like the Bollen's now have. The Bollen's lot is a little over 1/8" too narrow to quallfy for the
371h' lot to qualify. The policy statement said those lots, for arguments sake, would be rounded
up to 371f2', to allow them to qualIfy for building a third stones. This policy statement seemed
to dIsappear for a few years. Staff found the policy statement about a year and a half ago. Staff
felt If it was going to be m place it should be put in the Code as that would keep the pollcy from
being lost again. Staff brought it before the Planning Commission. The CommiSSIOn
recommended it be sent to the City Council for consIderation. The City Council discussed it
and determined the Planning Commission didn't have the authority to adopt a pollcy statement
without concurrence from the City Council; there IS no record of any concurrence. The policy
statement was null and void at that time and the Council decided not to go forward with a Code
amendment which would allow the rounding up.
Mrs. Bollen asked if you owned a home on the West side of the pier could you build a thIrd
story? Mr. Curtis said those property owners may build two stoQes from the street level. And
smce the land drops from the bluff, they can have another story below those two stories --- in
effect, three stories from the beach level. Mr. Whittenberg said some of those lots are WIder
than 25'. Mrs. Bollen said there seems to be a prejudice to East side of the pIer, the apartment
side. Mr. Whittenberg said the Gold Coast, commonly the area on Ocean Avenue, North of the
pier on the ocean side, is in a different zoning classification than the other properties; RLD.
The other areas of town are RMD and RHD. Mr. Curtis said as the Gold Coast properties are
viewed from other sites they actually appear only two stories from the street level. Mrs. Bollen
said that Seal Way IS really ugly with 90% of the properties being in bad shape. She felt it's
time for the CIty to realize that and encourage people to buy those properties to make them look
better.
Commissioner Dahlman restated what Mrs. Bollen had said. Notably that with regard to ZTA
96-2, she did not want to see third stories prohibited but dId want to see the 2' - 3' addItions for
comer homes on Ocean Ave. approved.
.
.
.
PIce 12 - City of Seal Beach PJamuaa COIIIIIUIIIOII Mmutel of February 21. 1996
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to continue the Public Hearing on Zoning Text
Amendment 96-2 to April 3, 1996.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
5-0-0
Dahlman, Sharp, Campbell, Law, Brown
***
RECESS:
The Chair called a short recess at 9: 12 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:27
p.m.
6. Main Street Specific Plan Revision 96-1
Zoning Text Amendment 96-3
Negative Declaration 96-1
General Plan Amendment 96-1A & 96-1B
Zone Change 96-1
Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report and ,Assembly Bill 1600
Report.
Staff Re.port
Director Whittenberg introduced the consultants, Paul Zucker of Zucker Systems and a
representative from Linscott, Law & Greenspan. Mr. Zucker was retained by the City to
prepare this Specific Plan. Linscott, Law & Greenspan is the traffic consultant who dealt WIth
parkIng and traffic issues in the Main Street area.
Mr. WhIttenberg dehvered an overview of the staff report, explaining the State law reqUIrements
10 adopting a Specific Plan. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference].
Commission Ouestions on Staff Report
Commissioner Dahlman said he would like to hear testimony on the Main Street Specific Plan
on more than one night. The Chair indicated it will not be physically possible to get all the
testimony on only one night.
Paul Zucker * Zucker Systems
Mr. Zucker said the document has been structured in a simple way with much being legal
framework to make the Specific Plan work. All the Specific Plan items that deal with private
property are translated into the zoning ordinance and thIS will make It an easy Specific Plan to
Implement.
.
.
.
Pltcc 13 - CIty of Seal Beach PIamung CammwIClll MmuteI of PcImwy 21, 1996
Assuming the Commission has been through much of the document, Mr. Zucker presented a
brief summary using the over-head projector. The project started two years ago and began with
a senes of interviews. The interviews were summarized in a document. The City added a very
detailed mailed survey whIch was summarized in the background report; thIS was published.
This is not being adopted but is being received and filed. At the first pubhc workshop
testimony was gIVen and that's where the background studies were discussed. He then prepared
the draft Specific Plan and based on that they prepared the environmental assessment. The
Coastal Plan has not been done although this material has been forwarded to the CalifornIa
Coastal Commission; that will be an action at some point. The second public workshop was
held and that generated some of the amendments to the Plan itself. From his perspective the
material is ready to be acted on and adopted.
Mr. Zucker summarized a few of the major changes:
1. Currently medical and professional office buildings are allowed anywhere WIthin
the Specific Plan area. Under the proposal on Main Street they would be allowed
on the second floor by right and would requIre a CUP if proposed on the ground
floor.
2. New liquor stores are prohibited.
3.
Coffee houses are permitted by right.
4.
Recycling requires a use permit as requIred by State law.
5. Ambulance service, electric cart sales and dnve-in windows would be prohIbited.
6. Lot width is currently 70' and it is proposed to be reduced to 25'. The charm of
the downtown is a small scale so why require this 70' whIch is too WIde for the
scale we should have.
7. Lot area is currently 7000' and It IS proposed to be reduced, and a height of 30'
is allowed, but would require a 10' setback over 20'.
8. Landscaping requirements don't work for an area like Main Street so those are
being modIfied.
9. Lot mergers would be prohibited. This is to avoid very large buildmgs which
would break the scale of Main Street.
10. Facade features would include transparent facades and glass to help the character.
Also, trying to keep the facades umform. Breakmg up facades when they exceed
50'. Prohibiting trademark buildings, for example McDonald's, Pizza Hut.
.
.
.
Pqe 14 - CdJ of Seal Be8cb I'Imnma Camau8110ll MIDIIleI of FebruaJ)' 21, 1996
11.
While a franchise would not be prohibited, a franchise-type building would be
prohibited.
Requiring that half of the new sidewalks have to be textured.
Free-standing signs would be prohibited. Small projecting signs would be
allowed under this Plan while they are prohibited now.
12.
The Plan makes changes to parlang standards:
1. Old regulations required 1 parking space per 100 square feet for a coffee houses
and that would be changed to 1 parking space per 500 square feet of space.
2. Hardware, furniture, pharmacy/drug and retail store requirements were reduced.
These are desirable uses in downtown and we should not go overboard m our
parking standards.
3. For restaurants the standard remains the same --- 1 parking space per 100 square
feet.
4.
In-lieu parking fees and parking need. A cost analysis was done and the figure
of $3,600 per space was denved. ThiS will Simplify the Commission's Pubhc
Hearing process by having the in-lieu fee pre-set by the CIty Council under AB
1600. This would remove any question of legality of the process. Anybody who
wanted to come into Old Town and mvest would know at the outset what the
costs will be per space unless they can proVIde the required parking.
There is a three-phase program within the Specific Plan dealing WIth parking. The parking study
says you don't have as much a parking problem shortage as you do a parlang management
problem with the parking you have. The three-phase program attempts to put some things into
place and see how the CIty reacts to them. Those can be adjusted to accommodate the habIts
of parkers.
Fmally, there are a senes of Plan policies dealing directly with CIty actions. For example
pohcies 7, 8 and 9 deal with trees. Mr. Zucker saId they feel the City of Seal Beach has an
eclectic flavor which should be preserved and they are taking a hght hand WIth the design
provisions. They are recommending landscape screening of the parlang lots. They also feel the
City should look at the potential for a Business Improvement District (BID). Lastly, .they
suggest a bi-annual review and/or monitoring of Main Street as dealing with Main Street is not
a one-time event.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Zucker to explain his rationale on the m-lieu parkmg fees. Mr.
Zucker explained that under AB 1600 the City needs to set forth a program wherein It balances
need WIth revenue. Because Zucker System feels the City has more of a management problem
.
.
.
PlIce IS . CIf1 of Seal Beach PIaJuunc ComauUKlIl Mmule8 of Pebl1W)' 21, 1996
than an actual parking space problem, they have mcluded the management costs equating them
against the potential revenue. The $3,600 per lacking parking space produces enough revenue,
in theory, to balance out with prospective expenditures. $3,600 will not pay for a new parking
space, even building it on existing City-owned land. They projected approximately $45,000 per
parkmg space if you had to buy land.
Mr. Steele said the bottom line of the AB 1600 analysis is the $3,600 doesn't buy a new space
but it does improve the parking situation the equivalent of one space through the phased
management programs.
The Chair asked about parking meters in the Plan's Phase III and said they may not be accepted
as a matter of course. Mr. Zucker said the meters are a part of Phase II and the purpose of
these hearings is to dISCUSS the e~tire Plan. He explained the manner in whIch the phases work,
saying Phase I may work so well you don't need anything else. In this case the revenues and
the projected costs with the revenues being less. That gap IS projected how much in-heu you
might be getting in Seal Beach and divided the prospective in-lieu to this gap to come up with
the $3,600. The $3,600 is also an acceptable figure in the market place. If you Jumped to, for
example, $10,000 per space you would probably never have any new uses because they just
couldn't afford the parking.
CommiSSIOner Law asked who gets the money as the Plan says if the fund isn't spent after a
certain number of years...? Mr. Steele said it's returned pro-rata to the people who contnbuted
the money as required by State law. I
Chairperson Campbell asked if the City has any funds which are due to be refunded? Mr. Steele
said no. He added that the City has not collected in-lieu fees under State law whIch are required
to be returned.
Public Hearing
David Rosenman · 8th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Rosenman said the things he liked about the SpecIfic Plan are trying to maintain the scale
of the community, trying to retain the eclectic nature of Seal Beach through some of the slgnage
et cetera. He hoped the Code enforcement mechanisms would be addressed as the slgnage needs
to be addressed. He mentioned sandwich board signs specifically.
He added he continues to be concerned about the following:
· Page 10, Attachment 8: Regarding the issue of alcohol-serving busmesses, he felt
the Specific Plan should have more strict controls instead of the ConditIonal Use
Permit (CUP) process. He said he spoke with the former City Manager, Jerry
Bankston, and Mr. Bankston's recommendation was that there be some caps and
....0 16 - CIty of Seal BcIIcb PIaonIlll CclaumaIIOO Muwlc8 of Fcbl1lll1)' 21, 1996
.
.
.
that the administration would be more explicit to avoid "... these horrendous CUP
hearings". This would require consIstency from Council to Council.
.
Main Street Specific Plan: Page 10, Attachment 8, regarding land use. Findings:
The proposed use is consistent With the intent and purpose and vision ... et
cetera. He said that with the current Planning Commission and City Council he
has no problems. But looking four or eight or twelve years down the road it
looks like these are so wide "you could drive a tank or mack truck through
them". He suggested these areas be tightened up. For example, considerably
broader than the standards which are used for grant10g a Vanance. He noted he
would need to think further to make constructive suggestions 10 thIS area; he just
received the document today.
.
Main Street SpecIfic Plan: Page 20, Attachment 8, regarding traffic. Regard10g
AB 1600, the document says based on the parking analysIs, Mr. Zucker said It
as much, that we don't have a space problem, we have a management problem.
He was worried about leaving this language in the document because the phased
mItigation program which appears on page 21 talks about parking meters. His
head count, based on the last time this subject surfaced at City Council, was that
two or three were unalterably opposed to that particular remedIation. We would
be adopting language which would come back to bite us. One of the ex-mayors
said the City doesn't have a parking problem, it has a perception problem. This
language would be saY10g we can do this because we're go1Og to use parking
meters. But the political realities at the moment is a non-solution.
· Main Street Specific Plan: Page 8, Attachment 12, Table 4, AB 1600 analysis:
He felt the Plan has changed direction in mId-stream about how we were going
to implement this. He left it to the Commissioners. When originally dISCUSsed
the old $100 per year per space fee was an ad hoc item that "... we had
something in place and that this would sort of serve as a memorandum of who
was deficient so that when we got around to doing the AB 1600 analysIs we could
go back and just as we did with the Development Agreements for BJ's and the
Masonic Lodge, that everyone would start paying their fair share". ThIs says the
new fee would be set at $3,614.14 per space... "The already approved $100 per
space fees remain unchanged".
Commissioner Dahlman said it might prove that a one-ome $3,600 payment
would equate to $100 per year per space.
Mr. Rosenman stated his concern was the Plan would set up an 1Ocenove for
people who have CUPs. We are creating the have's and the have not's 10stead
of a level plaY10g field. Both numbers are potentially low. It would be one thing
if we gave credit for in-lieu fees already paid. For example, If someone had paid
$2,000 over the years in in-lieu fees per space, then they would get credit for It.
.
.
.
Peao 17 - CIty of Se81 Balch 1'IamuDa ComuuIIIOll Mmutos of Fcbnwy 21, 1996
The Plan is not saying that, it's saying something different and it seems hke we
changed directions. Giving people credit for what they already pald is
commendable and he would endorse that but this seems bke a give away,
I
.
He noted that no members of the press corps was present tonight and was not
sure why that happened. He suggested staff call them so there is public
notification about these hearings. He said his Notice came bulk rate mail. The
Chair suggested the bad weather might have played a part in the low attendance.
Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Antos made the following po1Ots:
· Somebody needs to look at service station development standards in the zoning
ord1Oance and figure out how it fits in with the Maln Street Specific Plan
standards. In the consultant's presentation there is a proposal which says pole
signs are currently permitted. They are not permitted in the Specific Plan. The
map takes in the two service stations at the comer of Main Street and Pacific
Coast Highway. He asked who was going to go up and tell them they are going
to have to take their pole signs down? The service station directly across Pacific
Coast Highway has a pole signs. Service stations have their own development
standards.
.
Main Street Specific Plan: Page 21, #3, regarding coffee shops versus page 22,
#13, regarding restaurants. On-site food consumption should be treated the same.
For example, someone without the required parking could come in as a coffee
shop and let it evolve 1Oto a restaurant.
· Main Street Specific Plan: Page 31, Downtown Management Policy 16 regarding
BID. This issue was dealt with a number of years ago and It spbt the business
community. It also split the business community with the residential commuDlty.
He suggested Policy 16 should be removed from the document completely. If a
Specific Plan is adopted then the issue of a BID needs to stand or fall on its own
merits and not be sandwiched on a half page of page 31 of a document. The
implications of a BID are such that It's a management system, just bke a shopping
mall, where hours of operation can be set and be binding on businesses. That
may not be in the best interest of all businesses.
· AB 1600. He Sald he works with AB 1600 as he manages major thoroughfare
and bridge fee programs plus development agreements which find the nexus
continually. AB 1600 reqUires, in simple terms, that If you are going to do this,
you have to adopt a plan to use the money for someth1Og. You can't Simply say
in the Specific Plan that we really don't have a parking problem, we have a
management problem. And now we're go1Og to make people pay the in-lieu
Pace 18 - CIty of Seal Beach PIaDnuJc CammwIOO Mmutca of Pcbl1llU)' 21, 1996
.
parking under AB 1600. If the City has a management problem then the fees
aren't paying for parking spaces. If the City has a lack of spaces then you need
to pay for the spaces. You cannot say the market has accepted $3,500 so maybe
we can cover a bit more and charge $3,600 when the real cost is $35,000 to
$45,000 per space. If the people are paying In the City has to have somethIng.
You have to adopt this piece of land, whether it's the parlong lot next to the Fire
Station, and say this site shall be used/or additional parking, it shall be done this
way and we have a real cost. If you're not going to provide the required parking
on your property then you're going to pay for a real parking space. You either
have to do it or don't do it. If you're not going to do it then don't call it in-heu
parking and don't adopt it and don't collect fees.
.
Commissioner Brown clarified Mr. Antos' statement by asking if the in-heu
parking fees actually have to be for a space --- which is different from what Mr.
Zucker just stated. Mr. Antos said that was right. Commissioner Brown asked
if Mr. Antos had any reference documents such as a lawyer's report or an
analysis of the AB 1600 leglslanon? Mr. Antos said the City Attorney has
prepared a report on this issue. Mr. Antos said he has raised this Issue before
the Planning Commission and the City Council before. The City Attorney has
said he is correct and after that is when the City started requiring development
agreements and getting parking impact fees. Parking impact fees are different
from in-heu parlong fees.
Commissioner Dahlman satd the history of this issues goes back to the 1980's
when the City tried to have an in-lieu parking program under AB 1600 and it
didn't comply. He asked if it was thiS type of problem? Mr. Antos said yes, It
didn't comply. Nobody had adopted anything. The City was collecnng monies
and it was sitting in an account. To his knowledge, the first thing those monies
have been used for is this Main Street Specific Plan study. The purpose of in-lieu
parking was to provide parking and none was ever provided. The City needs to
have a parking plan --- you must know the real costs, you must know what you're
going to do and when you're going to do it. You must then go about doing those
things.
.
Commissioner Dahlman, referencing a letter from the California Coastal
Commission which expressed concern that this Main Street Specific Plan may be
local oriented rather than visitor oriented, and which implied they wtll not
approve a plan which meets the local residents approval in favor of the tourists
and visitors and he asked Mr. Antos his impression on this letter. Mr. Antos satd
it's a combination of both visitor and resident oriented. The food uses favor the
visitors, while the existing uses such as the grocery and hardware stores favor the
local residents. People don't come from, for example, San Diego to go to the
grocery or hardware stores but they may come to viSit a local restaurant. The
issue which needs to be looked at is taking the existing beach parking and using
Pllgc 19 - Cdy of Seal Beach I'IIanJq CommwIOll MmuIc8 of Fcbnwy 21, 1996
.
it for other uses other than two uses it is used for now --- the oil boat landing
workers and the fishermen on the pier and the beach-goors. Without providing
additional parking at the beach, such as paving more sand, to take some of the
available parking which would be avatlable to vIsitors mIght not set well with the
Coastal Commission because it violates their policies.
.
Robert McMahon * 1161J1 6th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. McMahon said he has been a resident for four months and IS a landscape architect for ten
years in Newport Beach. In reviewing the Matn Street Specific Plan, he noted Policy 7,
Attachment 8, page 25, regarding tree types, he suggested the City should hue a landscape
architect and not an arborist. A landscape architect designs tree placement, street signage,
pedestrian-oriented places, street furnishing and special paving areas. The City has a definite
eclectic theme but it needs a httle bit of a landscapmg theme. When people turn from Pacific
Coast HIghway onto Main Street and drive to Ocean A venue you have nodes and corndors. The
nodes are places where you have interfaces such as intersections. The comdor would be Matn
Street itself. When you have nodes, a connection from one place to another place, you accent
those nodes. Seal Beach has that eXIsting with special paving at the intersections. But the street
trees are a problem because the type of the trees have been planted wrong. The trees are not
withstandmg the hardscape surroundmg them and are uprooting the SIdewalks. The CIty of
Tustin provided root barriers on their ficus trees. The Specific Plan is vague when dealing WIth
landscaping. It only defines that there are eXIsting street trees and that there are areas in need
of a street tree. There are also problems whIch need addressmg, such as the ficus trees are
uprooting the sidewalks and this may become a major legal issue if somebody tnps. Or trees
which are girdling around the paved areas and cars are hitting their bumpers on the trees. The
Plan should defme trees to be removed or replaced and state what those options should be. It
should be more specific that saymg put a street tree zn here. When It comes to trees you can't
be eclectic. You can't find a tree at a bargain price and plant it. You need a theme and the
Specific Plan should adopt a theme.
Commission Dahlman referencing Policy 9 - Tree Replacement, noted the Plan says when
existing trees need to be replaced due to damage or Sidewalk problems trees should be replaced
consistent with the previously, decided upon tree types which would be accordzng to the
recommendations of an arborist or a landscape architect. He asked If this was not specific
enough? Mr. McMahon said the term arborist should be replaced with landscape architect
because typically an arborist would tell the City whether a tree had pesticide or pathology
problems and they are pretty vague.
.
Commissioner Brown noted some people say certain tree types will not grow well in this are and
certain types that will due to the beach side location. That may have been the mtent of hiring
an arborist. He asked if Mr. McMahon was indicating a landscape architect IS more appropriate
to determining that? Mr. McMahon Satd yes. He added the CIty has to have a plan to
determine what types of trees will do well in what locations. A landscape archItect is a hcensed
individual as a building architect is also licensed.
.
.
.
PlIcc 20 - CIty of Seal Brach I'IIDnm8 ComousaKlll MuwteI of Pcbnwy 21, 1996
Mario Voce * Seal Beach
Mr. Voce said he noticed the same problems Mr. McMahon referred to about the trees. In a
meeting today that he had with I City Manager Till it was noted the City IS developing a tree
policy ordinance that covers a master tree plan which could be specific to each section of town.
The Commission should defer the Specific Plan's statements on trees to the City's tree polIcy
ordinance. The EQCB has been working on this issue for a few years. However, when talking
with Mr. Till this morning, Mr. Till indicated that since he is new to the City he would like
more time to study the tree issue further.
Commissioner Dahlman suggested the following wording, "In the event that a City-wide polIcy
is ever actually adopted that should supersede ...". He noted many proposed polIcies never get
adopted in Seal Beach.
Mr. Voce said he wouldn't allow a tree policy to sit on someone's desk, he would follow it
forward. He noted that when he spoke before the City CouncIl in January 1996 about trees the
entire audience applauded what he had to say; the town wants this ordinance. He added ficus
trees should not be planted anywhere as they are too consumptive.
Reva Olsen * Seal Beach
Ms. Olsen spoke on creation of a BID, dovetailing on what Mr. Antos saId. She remmded the
audience that Charles Antos has been a planner for 24 years. She said the community attempted
to start a BID and it did divide the restaurants and other businesses. She referred to an Orange
County Register article which covered the City of Fullerton and the City of Seal Beach which
were trying to get BIDs many years ago. ' She read two paragraphs whIch dealt with collecting
forced assessments.
Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach
Mr. Shanks commended Zucker Systems for their good work and in really trying to see what
the City residents want and delivering on it to the best of their abilIty. He felt the Main Street
Specific Plan goes further than most documents have.
When Mr. Rosenman referred to page 11, a qUIck read IS that no use permit shall be granted
within the Main Street Specific Plan boundaries unless the Planning Commission makes all of
the following findings, and finding (b) says "The proposed use does not conflict WIth the
Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain the balanced mIx of uses that serves the needs of
both local and non-local populations". He felt thIS was a catchall because as the makeup of the
CIty Council and Planning Commission changes so can the conflict with the SpecIfic Plan. This
is too vague and needs to be tightened to make the SpecIfic Plan more ngid as far as trymg to
make changes to it.
.
.
.
I'Igc 21 - Cdy of Seal Bcacb PIannmg ComnuBB.OO MInutes of Fcbnwy 21, 1996
He did not care for the weakness in entertainment facility openings. WhIle only one exists,
Papillon's restaurant, there has been discussion to have an entertainment ordinance. Mr.
Whittenberg said no, this ordinance is also under review by the new City Manager. Mr. Shanks
said this should be more fully addressed.
Mr. Shanks said he would like to see mention made of cleaning up the alleys for parking to
make the alleys more presentable and people would want to park there.
Additionally, enforcement should be more strict to get rid of the boats and other vehicles which
end up in parking spaces for long periods of time. These do take up parking spaces.
Opening the building fronts with glass is one idea but could conflict with the banner problems.
If the banners are not strictly controlled, what's the use of having a big glass if a banner IS
blocking it? It destroys the consultant's idea of trying to incorporate the building fronts.
John Baker * Nip 'n Stuff Liquor. Main Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Baker said the vote for a BID was 51 % in favor versus 49% not m favor. The City
Council did not feel that was enough strength.
When Mr. Zucker said hquor stores would be prohibited under the Main Street Specific Plan,
he asked exactly what that meant? Mr. Zucker said there will be no new liquor stores.
Mr. Baker jokingly said good, he didn't need the compention!
Mr. Baker said this is one of the more opportune times the City has had to purchase property
in town --- property values have dropped in price. He noted the Curtis property behmd John's
Food King would be an excellent place for parking. He hoped funds from parking fees or
parking meters would be truly designated to purchasing real parking places and that the Curtis
property would be made available to the City as it's a convenient location. He added that
nobody seems to know how much money is in the parking fund account. Commissioner
Dahlman said the figure is in the Specific Plan and is SIX figures.
Mr. Baker said he would like to see some changes and improvements on Main Street. He
agreed the sidewalks do have to be replaced frequently because of the tree roots. He felt the
textured sidewalks may not be safe as high heels could lead to twisting ankles in the design and
Seniors using walkers could have problems naviganng the design. He noted the City wants to
draw the Leisure World residents to the Main Street area and not drive them away due to
sidewalks they cannot navigate.
Commissioner Dahlman asked how the PLU decreases by six acres? Mr. Whittenberg replied
it decreases because the City aall, 8th Street parking lot, Eisenhower Park and the beach
parking lot properties are zoned PLU at this nme. Those properties are proposed to be
incorporated into the Mam Street Specific Plan zone. Mr. Zucker said public land doesn't
....0 22 - Cd;y of Seal Beach PIannma Commwlllll Mmutca of Fcbnt8l)' 21, 1996
.
decrease, the designation changes from one designation to another. The use will remain a pubhc
use of property.
Commissioner Brown asked if the PLU changes to MSSP zone could the properties be sold?
Mr. Whittenberg said techmcally the properties could be sold now. Commissioner Brown said
the zoning would have to change and it would be more difficult to change the zoning than to sell rl
the property. Mr. Whittenberg said legally no. The City's right to sell property is not restricted
by a zoning classification on the property. The City has the option to sell its own assets if It
feels it's necessary for whatever purpose.
Commissioner Dahlman said a change of use, for example Eisenhower Park, from PLU to
another use would have to pass through the Commission and Council. Mr. Whittenberg saId no,
the City would have to go through General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes et cetera. The
intent of those areas is to indicate they are an integral part of the Main Street area and they all
need to be considered as a whole area and not separate areas by having different zoning
classifications.
Mr. Zucker said it may be useful for him to comment on some on the public testimony. The
Commission discussed what would be most useful. The consensus of the Commission was to
have Mr. Zucker comment.
.
Mr. Zucker commented on the following concerns:
Alcohol. This is a very tricky issue to deal with and Zucker Systems feels they have
gone as far as they would recommend going. The real question is what can you do
beyond what the Specific Plan already does? You could set ngid hours. Setting specific
numbers of establishments could be very tricky. There are very few communities in the
State which have limited the number of establishments and when done, they have only
had partial success. The City of Berkley has gone as far as anyone has. Zucker Systems
is inclined for the City of Seal Beach to use the CUP process with the suggested findmgs.
They would encourage findmg ways to strengthen those findings.
Parking Meters. Zucker Systems noted this issue was split in all their surveys. They
used the words consider parking meters dehberately. If the City were to go through
Phases I and II and still found itself in trouble then, it might consider using parking
meters. Zucker Systems does not say do thiS.
On the $100 versus $3600, Zucker Systems found this to be a tricky calculation. You
have to consider interest rates, the rates of return, how long is the $100 per year gomg
to go; there is no absolute way to perform this analysIs. Their conclUSIOn was that If
you're paying $3,600 once or $100 per year you're probably getting a level playing field.
.
Service Station Pole Signs. The existing signs are non-conforming and would remam
under the City's ordinance. With regard to the question of three service stations, two
....023 - Cd;y of Sll8I Beacb PIaaauog ComnuuIOll MlDutoa of Febnwy 21, 1996
.
being on the South side of Pacific Coast Highway and one on the North side and of
requiring the two on the South sIde to remove their poles, one way to handle this
problem would be to make an exception for service stations. Another way would be to
treat them as non-conforming. Mr. Whittenberg said there are ways staff can address
this question and he will, present them at the next meeting.
Coffee Houses v. Restaurants. This is a new feature. Those could be combined. Keep
in mind coffee houses are restricted to 1200 square feet, so they are relatively small.
Zucker Systems debated the size and decided 1200 square feet was a good break point.
However, you could go back to the restaurant category however restrictive.
Commissioner Dahlman said Mr. Antos was pointing out that any conceivable way of
getting around this will be tried. ,IMr. Zucker said this is why it's important to keep the
square footage low. Chairperson Campbell said patrons of a coffee house would come
and go quickly whereas a restaurant patron would stay probably an hour.
Business Improvement District. Zucker Systems has found in many communities that
this can be a controversial topic. It tends to be a local issue. If the City wants to it
could pull this policy out of the Spepific Plan. Zucker Systems beheves the merchants
in the downtown areas should work ltogether and the BID is a good way to do thIS.
.
Coastal Commission. Mr. Zucker said he had not seen their letter yet but It does not
surprise him. In working with another beach community their staff did not recommend
their parking regulations but when Zucker Systems took them to the full Coastal
Commission they approved them unanimously. It's not unusual go get a negative
reactlon from staff. He suggested Seal Beach decide what it's want and Zucker Systems
will work with them to sell it to the Coastal Commission. He felt it was SIlly in once
sense --- you have large parking areas sitting vacant today which is not helping people
go to the beach or the downtown either; something should change. We should debate
whether we have the right formula. The current sItuation needs to be changed.
Arborist vs. Landscape Architect. Zucker Systems is not hung up on thIS is the City
wants to make that change. They would agree that the downtown street trees need to
have a theme. They are not recommending an eclectic street tree theme. He said It's
clear that over the long term the CIty'S existing street trees need to be replaced. He
added that goes way beyond what Zucker Systems felt they could accommodate withm
their study so they set it up so the City could take the follow-up steps.
.
Alley Issue. Zucker Systems looked at the alley ISSUes 10 some detail. They were
inclined not to go too far in the traditional way of cleaning up alleys, rear entries et
cetera as they are closely interfaced with the City's residentlal butldings. They are, also
used extensively for loading and employees. If you emphasized the residentlal butldmgs,
you could say the fact that visitors don't know those alley spaces exist actually helps the
residents in a way. Zucker System's plan was dehberate on that point. The plan dIdn't
say much on that pomt and that was done dehberately.
....e 24 - C1I;y of Sell Bcaeb I'IIIuuaa COIIIIDWIOII MmUfc8 of Pcbnwy 21, 1996
.
AB 1600. The AB 1600 comments Zucker System differs WIth. AB 1600 does not
require you to go space by space. You can do a variety of different facllities to
accommodate to AB 1600 and Zucker Systems feels what they have presented is more
sensible approach for Seal Beach. Mr. Zucker saId his position was that the CIty could
go different routes than AB 1600. They went the AB 1600 to gIve the City a more
simple, straight forward approach than It has had. The CIty could continue WIth
development agreements or fees through a Variance process. He felt the fees already
collected are not subject to an AB 1600 analysis and could not be challenged on an AB
1600 finding because they were Variance fees and come through a different process.
Commissioner Dahlman commented that one local resident comes down an states the City
has "sold" the Variance. Mr. Steele said the reason the City has gone through the
development agreement process is the City didn't have a Specific Plan in place and a
parking program in place; they always knew it was coming. We dIdn't go through the
hoops of complying with AB 1600 and collecting AB 1600 fees because we couldn't say
here's what we are going to spend the money on. Now, as part of the Specific Plan
process, we're saying here's what we're going to spend the money on. On the AB 1600
analysis issue, he felt the Plan's analysis is more creative than some people are used to
In an AB 1600 context. Typically you impose a fee and you build a bullding; It's a
simple step. AB 1600 says it's not just buildings that can be paid for with these fees,
it's amenities and services. The parking program here is a combination of all those
things. Between the Director's office and the City Attorney's Office we have spent a lot
of time looking at the AB 1600 issue and determined it's a bIt of all the elements
permitted under AB 1600; we thought the analysis is strong and creative. This should
not be a problem in the deliberations. Commissioner Brown saId the City Attorney was
contradicting Mr. Antos is saying that services or management programs are okay for AB
1600. Mr. Steele said he researched the Government Code while Mr. Antos was
speaking. He wanted to be sure he was right. In Attachment 12, Mr. Zucker has given
the three things that the money can be spent on, i.e., public Improvements, pubhc
services and communities amenIties.
.
Mr. Steele spoke on the findings issues by pointing out that the proposed addItional
findings are sort of broad. He reminded the Commission that the findings are very
similar to the findings they make with regard to neighborhood compatibility and General
Plan consistency on a CUP. If the Commission considers making the findIngs more
specific or somehow strengthenIng the findings they should consider the purpose of
findings hke that. The Commission would need to consIder the purpose of findings hke
that and the purpose of findings hke that is to allow Commissioners and Councll
Members to make a policy decision and a discretionary decision on what's appropriate
for the community as the community evolves. There may be an urge to narrow the
fIndings and make them more specific and the effect would be to take a snapshot of MaIn
Street and say this is what it is and this is what it shall remain. It would bInd the
discretion of future Commissioners. If additional standards should be Imposed and the
.
PlIo 25 - Cd;y of Seal Beach I'Ianomg CommwIOll Mmutca of Fcbrwuy 21, 1996
.
feeling is you need to be more strict on these land uses, then those should be added as
conditions which would be imposed on permits or in other areas of the Code.
Director Whittenberg commented the staff will summarize the comments and provide a
written response to those comments in a written supplemental staff report for the next
Commission meeting.
Mr. Whittenberg recommended the Commission continue this matter to the March 6th meeting
so the momentum is not lost on this subject.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to continue the Public Hearing on the Main Street
Specific Plan Reviewion 96-1 and Accompanying Requests to March 6, 1996.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YFS:
5-0-0
Sharp, Brown, Campbell, Law, Dahlman
***
vu. STAFF CONCERNS
. There were no staff concerns.
vm. COMMISSION CONCERNS
Invitation Arrived Late
Commissioner Dahlman thanked someone for sending hIm an invitation to the College Park East
Neighborhood Association Notice of Meeting, Bixby Development Program, on January 30,
1996. It was received with this packet. Chairperson Campbell said she figured the inVItation
had arrived after February 8th as the secretary didn't forward it to the Commissioners.
Tale of Two Cities
Chairperson Campbell asked if the CommIssioners received the newspaper article on a Tale of
Two Cities? She noted it was an excellent article and suggested all the Commissioners read It.
It has to do with the dIreCtion the cities of Huntmgton Beach and Laguna Beach are takmg.
.
Plac 26 - CdJ of Seal BaIcb PIaanJoa CommullOll Mmutcl of Pebl'Wll)' 21, 1996
.
Bixby Mixed Use Plan
The following text is verbatim at the request of the Chair.
CAMPBELL I do have one other comment. Where's my agenda? OK. Lee, I have
some questions for you.
WHI'ITENBERG Okay.
.
CAMPBELL Bixby has presented their commercial plan. Now I've heard several ---
I'm under the impression that an EIR is not required for development of
the existing C-2 parcel. Is that correct? Or, is an EIR required?
WHITTENBERG Well, at this point they've not submitted any building plans at all. What
has been submitted is a prelim10ary grading plan for the property. A
grading plan approval, in and of itself, would not require an EIR.
Depending on the type of actual land use that might ultimately be
proposed for the property, it mayor it may not be determ10ed to require
an EIR. At the time an actual building plan is submitted we have to
prepare what's called an Initial Study. And determ1Oe, based on the
review of that Imtial Study, if there are impacts that are significant enough
to the environment that would require either the preparation of a Negative
Declaration or an EIR. And at this point that's --- It's not possible to
answer the question.
CAMPBELL Okay. But it is conceivable that an EIR could be required on the C-2
site?
WHI'ITENBERG It's conceIvable that an EIR of some sort could be required. It might be
a Focused EIR on certa10 issues but probably not every issue that you
would see addressed in a full EIR for a major project, as you saw in the
last EIR for the entire property.
CAMPBELL Okay. One other question. Their mixed use plan puts C-2 zomng on 14
acres at the corner of Lampson [Avenue] and Seal Beach Boulevard. The
commercIal development restricts them to the existing zoning, whIch is
5.5 acres. What could you work up, what would be the worst case
scenario for maximum build out for the 14 acre site versus the 5.5 acre
site?
.
WHI'ITENBERG That is probably already done to a general extent 10 the alternatives
analysis for the EIR that was prepared for the mixed use proJect.
CAMPBELL Not quite. In the project alternative, they come up with a buildout under
the existing General Plan which 1Ovolves only the Arco site and the SIte
.
.
.
Plae T1 - City of Sell Beach PIaanuIg CommwICIII MmUfe8 of Febrwuy 21, 1996
WHI'ITENBERG
behind the Mobil. It does not include the tennis club SIte. And it does
have a buildout of Just the Arco site but it doesn't have the 14 acre SIte.
And that's why --- .
That would be included as part of the proposed project.
CAMPBELL
No. But that's not buIldout to the max. I'm looking for the worst case
scenario.
WHI'ITENBERG Well, it's hard to determine what that is because even the EIR document
indicated we were just collating some reasonable types of anticipated land
uses for the property. But those may, in fact, not be what could
ultimately be developed. To give you an idea, the property in a
commercial zone could allow anything from hotels, restaurants to new car
dealershIps to a Price Club to a small retail center WIth a market. And,
you know, there's a wide variety of impacts that are generated by each of
those uses. And the EIR process that you went through on the mIxed-use
project tried to focus on what Bixby was kind of telling us they seemed
to think would make sense. We indicated in the EIR that if the impacts
Identified for that mix of uses, WhICh was a hotel and some restaurants
and some office uses, If the impacts on traffic and so on of whatever
would ultimately be proposed on the property was greater than Identified
in the EIR, they would then have to come back an do an supplement to
the EIR to evaluate that increased impact. And, untIl you get an actual
development project before the CIty, you can't give a good defimte
answer as to what the Impacts are going to be. Because, even If you Just
take hotel and restaurant uses, certam types of restaurants will generate
a dIfferent type of traffic demand than another type of restaurant wIll. If
you have a Claim Jumper m there you'll get a totally dIfferent type of
traffic impact than you would if you get a Coco's. So, those are issues
that you just can't deal with at this point in time.
CAMPBELL Okay. Because essentially what they've asked for are zone changes and
once they get the zone changes they can change their mind. And that's
what we're trying to figure out. What is the worst case scenario that we
could be looking at either with the 5.5 acres or with the 14 acres.
WHI'ITENBERG At this point they have not asked for a zone change.
CAMPBELL If they had ---
WHITTENBERG They have withdrawn their applIcatIon.
.
.
.
....028 - CIty of So.II Beach PIanmaa C_IBICIII Mmutca of Pobl1llll'Y 21, 1996
CAMPBELL
Well on the mixed- use plan --- but the Planning CommissIOn turned It
dow~ and they withdrew the plan. But I'm just --- you know --- this has
become an election issue. And I'm trying to get some clarification from
staff.
WHI'ITENBERG I understand. I'm not sure that we can provide the type of answers that
you're seekmg.
CAMPBELL Okay.
SHARP That's what I would think. Until you actually have a request in front of
you for the right to do this or the plans check or something, you wouldn't
be able to spend time on guess at what they're going to do.
WHI'ITENBERG I think the possibilities for future land use requests mayor may not ever
be filed with the City by the Bixby Company are really speculattve at this
point. The grading plans indicate certain Size of budding pads. I think
you can draw some inferences from those sizes of building pads as to the
type of u~es that may eventually be proposed for those properties. But
until you actually have a building plan before you that indicates the actual
use of those properties, a 100,000 square feet of buildmg pad could be a
lot of different things. And there's really no way for us to know what
might ultimately be submitted.
CAMPBELL Okay. Well, a lot of claims are being made by the developer and I'm just
wondering is there's any clarification that we can get from staff. That's
It.
WHI'ITENBERG I've tried to give you the best answers I can at this point With the
information we have. I'll be happy to review that matter with the City
Attorney's Office and if there's some way that we think we can provide
some additional information to you and to the Council regardmg those
Issues, we will do that in writing.
CAMPBELL Okay.
SHARP Well I think because it is a polittca1lssue we have to be awfully careful
how we get staff mvolved in it.
WHI'ITENBERG That's why I would want to work With the City Attorney's Office.
CAMPBELL Okay; thank you.
....029 - City 01 ScaI BelIch I'Iaamm& COIDDUI8IC11l MIIIUte8 01 Pcbruuy 21. 1996
. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Campbell adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
qD~~f\
Joan Fillmann
Recording Secretary
APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1996 were approved on
March~, 1996.~
.
.