Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1996-03-06 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of MARCH 6,1996 7:30 P M. · City CauDell Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #96-4 I. eLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE n. ROLL CALL ID. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning Commission, this IS the time to: (a) Notify the pubhc 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning CommIssion regarding any items WIthin the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planmng commission, provided that NO action or dIscussion may be undertaken by the Planning CommIssion unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motIon unless pnor to enactment, a member of the Planning commissIOn, staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1996. 2. Receive and File: Staff Report, dated February 26, 1996, Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. 652. 1be CIty of Seal Beach c:amphca With lbe AmcnClllll With DI88bdlllca Act of 1990 If you nced I18sl8laDce to attend thiS meetmg, please telephone the City CIerlt's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours pnor to !he meellllg . . . ....e 2 - City of Seal BelIch I'I8amuIa CammlaBIOII · Agenda for MlIrch 6, 1996 3. Receive and File: Staff Report, dated February 26, 1996, AB 616 - Residential Building Occupancy Standards. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 [Continued from 1/17/96 & 2/21/96] 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 withm the rear yard setback. If approved, the proposed amendment would allow decks up to 12 feet in overall height to be built to within 10' of the rear yard setback. The proposed amendment is intended to address rear yard slope along the rear yards of Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf Place. Recommendation: Pleasure of the CommIssion. s. Negative Declaration 96-1 Zone Change 96-1 Zone Text Amendment 96-3 General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B . "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1 Background Studies - Main Street SpecIfic Plan Report and AB 1600 Report. [Continued from 2/21/96] Applicant: CIty of Seal Beach Request: The City of Seal Beach is recommending reVISIons to the existmg Main Street Specific Plan, and conforming reVIsions to the General Plan's Land Use and Housing Elements, a Zone Text The CIty of Seal Beach compbe8 With the Amenc8DB With D188blhllea Act of 1990 If you need D8Blstance to attend thlB IIIcctmg, please telephone the City CIert'B Office at (310) 431-2527 at leaat 48 boon pnor to the Dlcctmg . . . Page 3 . CII1 of Seal Beach PIaaau18 CamousSIOO · Aaeoda for March 6, 1996 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 the CIty Counctl adopt negative Declaration 96-1, and approve any amendments to the General Plan, MalO Street SpecIfic Plan, zoning Ordmance and Zoning Map determined appropriate, through the adoption of: 1. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending Adoption of Negative Declaration 96-1, Relating to RevisIOn 96-1 of the MalO Street SpecIfic Plan; 2. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending to the CIty Council approval of General Plan Amendment 96-1A, Amendmg the Land Use Element to Matntain consIstency Between the Land Use Element and the Main Street SpecIfic Plan Revision 96-1 and to Revise the "Summary Table of Existing and Proposed Land Uses in Acres" of the Land Use Element to Depict the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Matn street Specific Plan Zone" land and Appropnate Decreases of Other Land Use Categones Withm the City. 3. Resolution No. 96-_m A Resolution of the Planning CommissIOn of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the CIty Council Approval of General Plan Amendment 96- IB, Amending Table 16 of the Housmg Element to DepIct the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Main Street Specific Plan Zone" land and Appropriate Decreases of Other Land Use Categories WIthin the CIty; 1bc CdJ of Seal Beach complies With the Amcncans With Dl8alllblles Act of 1990 If you need assistance to aUcnd thiS mcctmg, please telephone the CII1 CJcrt's OtrlCC at (310) 431-2527 at Icaat 48 hours pnor to the mcctmg . . . P&ae 4 - CJ~ of Sc8l Beach PIamuDg CommIIlIOll · Aaeoda for March 6. 1996 4. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning CommIssion of the City of Seal Beach Recommending that the City CouncIl Approve Revision 96-1 of the Main Street SpecIfic Plan. 5. Resolution No. 96- ,A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City CouncIl Approval of Zone Text Amendment 96-1, Creatmg the I'Mam Street SpecIfic Plan Zone" (Sections 28-1250 through 28-1257) and Amending Section 28-1804.3 and 28- 2408.C to Mamtam Internal Consistency of chapter 28 of the Code of the CIty of Seal Beach. 6. Resolunon No. 96- , A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommending to the CIty Council Approval of Zone Change 96-1, Changing the Zoning to Depict the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Main Street specIfic Plan Zone" Land and Appropnate Decreases of Other Zonmg Categories 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 CONCERNS 6. Staff Memo re 909 Ocean A venue - EI Burrito, Jr. #2 VDI. COMMISSION CON.CERNS The ~ of Sc8l Beach compbca wdb the AmcnC8111 With Dlsabdlbca Act of 1990 If you need assistance to aUCnd thiS mccbng, please telephone the CI~ Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at 1caat 48 hours pnor to the mccbng . . . Plge S - CIty of Seal Beach I'IamuDg Comnu88100 · Agenda for March 6, 1996 IX. ~ The CIty of Seal Beach comphea with the Amencao8 With DJ8lIbahtaea Act of 1990 If you nc:ecI U818tanee to allend 11118 meetmg, plea'le telephone the CIty C1ert'8 Office at (310) 431-2527 at 1eaat 48 hours pnor to the meetmg . PIle 6 - City of SoU Beaeb PIanaun8 COIIIDU8II011 · Agenda for March 6, 1996 MAR 20 APR 03 APR 17 MA Y 08 MA Y 22 JUN 05 JUN 19 . JUL 03 JUL 17 AUO 07 AUO 21 SEP 04 SEP 18 OCT 09 OCT 23 NOV 06 NOV 20 DEe 04 DEe 18 . 1996 AGENDA FORECAST . . . . ZTA 95-1/Banners [Continued from 2/21/96] ID 96-1/700 Southshore Drive/Setbacks per kitchen addition. CUP 94-6/981 PCH/The Daily Orindl12 mos. review. CUP 94-4/770 PCH/Burger King/3 mos. review. . . . . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. ZTA 96-2/Third Stories [Continued from 2/21/96] CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/EI Burrito Jr.l12 mos. revIew. CUP 95-111013 PCH/Pietro's @ 12 mos.lhours. . CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC [Changed ownership 1/96] · CUP 94-1/600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC · CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review The CIty of SoU Beaeb camphca With the AmcnCllllll With Dlsababbcs Act of 1990 If you need alllltance to aUcnd thll mcclulg, please telephone the City ClcIt'I Office at (310) 431-2527 at bit 48 boun pnor to the mcclmg - - . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of MARCH 6, 1996 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session in City Council chambers at 7:30 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: Development Services Department Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Absent: Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary AGENDA APPROVAL Commissioner Dahlman requested extraction of item #2 from the Consent Calendar for separate conSIderation. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Agenda with item #2 considered separately. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Brown, Law, Campbell ORAL COMl\fJllSICATIONS There were no oral communications. ALE D MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda as follows: 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1996. 3. Receive and File: Staff Report, dated February 26, 1996, AB 616 - Residential Building Occupancy Standards. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Brown, Law, Campbell PIce 2 - Cdf of Sc8I Beach l'Iaanmg CoamuaIICJll MmufcI of March 6. 1996 . For the Record, the Chair noted a typographical error on page 14 of the Minutes. The word should be preserved instead of reserved. Staff will make this change. The Commission considered item #2 separately. 2. Receive and File: Staff Report, dated February 26, 1996, Telecommunications Competition and Deregu1lJtion Act 011995, S. 652 and H.R. 1555. Commissioner Dahlman said he was very impressed with Senator Feinstem's response and the position she took. He felt she deserved credit for being open-minded and championing home rule. He noted some Republicans are determined to deregulate freely, attemptmg to federalize and take away home rule from us in the telecommunications area. He felt it is very important we retain the ability to adapt our cable television, for example, to local conditions and needs. Senator Feinstein supports this fully and he applauded her for that. Commissioner Dahlman expressed his disappointment in Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. for abandoning home rule. Mr. Whittenberg said he believed the telecommunications bill has been signed into law now by the President. The pre-emption which the City of Seal Beach was objectmg to is now part of that law. . , Mr. Steele said the actual result was the Senate went part way toward Senator Feinstein's position where there's a limited pre-emption rather than the full pre-emption. The League of California Cities doesn't consider it a very positive compromise. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to receive and file Staff Report, dated February 26, 1996, Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, S. 652 and H.R. 1555. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Brown, Sharp, Campbell VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 [Continued from 1/17/96 & 2/21/96] Staff Re,port Mr. Curtis presented an addendum staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. . P8&c 3 . Cdy of Seal Belch PImmq CommwIClll Mmutca of March 6, 1996 . There have been two changes since the last meetIng. At the January Public Heanng It was suggested by some Marina Hill homeowners that a deck, regardless of height, should be a level extension of the level part of the rear yard. City staff canvassed the area adjacent to the back side of the Hill. Staff provided the Commissioners with a topographical map of the area. Staff found some of the affected lots backing to Gum Grove Park had a grade differential of 25' in the sloping part of the back yard. This would allow a structure to be bullt to 28' in height to the property line. Staff does not believe it would be appropriate to have structures of that height bullt within that close proximity to a rear property line. The 28' in height would exceed the maximum height for a home in that zone. Because of the extreme grade differential on a number of the lots, staff doesn't believe a straight rule which would allow a level extension of the flat part of the rear lot would be appropriate. Another question was whether a utility line easement exists either on the back of the Marina Hill homes or on the Hellman Ranch property and does it divide the properties. Staff found there is a 6' utility easement on the back of the Hill homes but none on the Hellman Ranch. It's a general utility easement held by the City of Seal Beach and it allows electrical, gas, water and any other utilities to be placed in the 6' area. . Because of the extreme grade differential and the utility easement, staff recommended the Commission, if voting to approve this, consider a mlmmum 6' setback. Staff did not beheve it is appropriate to have structures built into the City's utility easement. Additionally, staff continued to propose a maximum 12' height limit which would allow a deck to be 9' above the lowest grade with a 3' guard rail around the deck. Aesthetically that is most appropnate adjacent to some type of future land use on the Hellman Ranch. Commission Comments on Staff Re.port Planning Districts vs. Councilmanic Districts Commissioner Dahlman clarified that Planning Distncts are different than Councilmanic DIStnCtS and they are numbered differently. This is in CouncilmaniC District 3, Manna Hlll. Dave Bartlett Assoc. & Hellman Family Mr. Whittenberg presented a letter from Dave Bartlett Associates, representing the Hellman Ranch, with comments on the proposals before the CommiSSion tonight. Referencing the note from Mr. Bartlett, Commissioner Sharp asked staff if they are talking about a 6' setback from the easement or a 6' setback from the property line? Mr. Whittenberg said hiS interpretatIon, from reading the letter, is that the measurement is from the property line. He indicated Dave Bartlett was in the audience. Conflict of Interest The Chair indicated Commissioner Dahlman declared a conflict of interest because he lives within 300' of the affected properties and excused himself from participation m this portlon of the Commission meeting. . . . . PIce 4 - CIty of Sell Beach I'Iluuunc CclmmJI8IClIl Mmutea of March 6, 1996 Utility Easement The Chair asked staff what utilities are currently in the easement? Mr. Curtis said electrical and phone for certain but he did not know about other utilities. These are above ground and he couldn't say with certainty if there were any utilities below the ground. Lot Depth Commissioner Sharp asked the difference in depth for the existing lots on the north side of the street versus the depth of the other lots on the Hill. Mr. Curtis said the lots on the north side average 25' deeper than the standard 100' lot depths. Commissioner Sharp said he wanted people to realize the 25' was added on because of the slope, not because they were making the lots bigger. Public Hearing The Chair opened the Public Hearing. Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks spoke against limiting the height of decks. Mr. Shanks said a logical law is one that fits the needs of a city, does not harm anyone and makes common sense. The Marina Hill ~ea would be safe ground during an earthquake, while everything else IS subject to hquefaction. This is the only place in the City of Seal Beach which has that type of slope to contend with. To limit the height of patios would punish some homeowners. The 6' setback makes sense because the utilities could be undergrounded sometime. Bill Morris * 1729 Crestview. Seal Beach Mr. Morris said he had previously testified on the issue of extendmg the existtng level of the rear yards. He asked the Commission to consider this and a zero foot setback. He felt that If there's a 4',6' or 10' setback the homeowner will still have an unaccessible area which is hard to maintain and may become an eyesore. He wanted to see Option #1, a zero setback, to allow the existing decks to remain, and to provide some aesthetic treatment for the decks so they would look pleasing from the Hellman Ranch property. He read a letter from Lou and Vicky Carreon for the Record [Attached]. The Chair said she had visited the Hill area and walked along the rear of many of those properties. She noted some of the properties don't slope off at all. She asked how many homes have a slope problem? Mr. Morris guessed at 25 to 30 homes. Commissioner Sharp said Mr. Morris stated that if the decks were not allowed to go to the property line it would be more difficult to maintain the property underneath. He asked how they would maintain the property underneath If the decks were run to the property line as there's no way to get down there? Mr. Moms said the area should be closed off, with no access. No weeds would grow because there would be no sun. Plae 5 - City of Seal Beach PImaq CommwIOll Mmutea of March 6, 1996 . Mr. Morris added a 6' easement does exist. If the Commission did allow the setback to become zero feet, a CUP could or should require that if the City needed to get into the easement to, for example, underground those utilities the homeowner would be required to remove the structure. Terri Meiers * Crestview Avenue Mrs. Meiers said she agreed with Mr. Moms' comments. She said she is willing to cover the bottom part of their deck and maintain it. She said she spent a lot of money to purchase their house in Seal Beach and they are spending more money on an addition. TheIr deck is beautiful and it's an enhancement and they will maintain It. They are willing to put in more screening trees. . Anton Dahlman. M.D. * 1724 Crestview Avenue Dr. Dahlman agreed with Mr. Morris' comments, saying the 0' setback IS the only fair option. Most of the 30 homes in question are backing to Gum Grove Park and there's no way the Hellman's would ever be building against Gum Grove Park. As long as the homeowners real1ze they may have to remove their structures to facilitate the City getting to its easement, the 0' setback will not hurt anyone. The beauty of Gum Grove Park may be enhanced by the homeowners maintaining the areas beneath the decks. The CUP process will allow the City to require nice vegetation to dress the area up even more. The key thing here is fairness, noting the properties which do not have drop offs can build decks to the back property line. The only reason these decks are not allowed is because they are conSidered structures instead of decks. They are only called structures because they have to be elevated. They have to be elevated only because of a topographical abnormality. And this is the type of abnormality which qualifies these people for a Variance one-by-one. What is appropriate to do is to make thiS a fair ball game and zone it the same way for everyone. The fair way to zone this is with a zero setback. The Chair asked how many homes there are from the end of Gum Grove Park to Seal Beach Boulevard which have a slope? Dr. Dahlman said 10 to 12. Many of those don't have a steep drop off. All the plans proposed by Mola Corporation for the Hellman Ranch included a 15' or 30' buffer proposed for access and safety. Commissioner Brown asked Dr. Dahlman how he could say there would be no adverse impact when thinking about the persons/residents who are enjoying Gum Grove Park? They would be in a wilderness park with a deck that's 20' to 25' above their heads? Dr. Dahlman replied that an adverse impact exists as can be seen from the pictures. What will happen, if the right decision is made tonight, is that people who have those eyesores will be required to come before the Planning Commission and obtain a CUP. They will be reqUired to make their area safe and aesthetic. Vegetation will make it look aesthetic. Commissioner Law stated that with a zero setback there will be no place to plant vegetation. . Commissioner Brown asked Dr. Dahlman if he was saying bushes would be planted under the decks? The bushes wouldn't grow because there would be no light. Pllae 6 - CJty of ScaI Beach PIImmIa c-.u... Mmufes of March 6, 1996 . Dr. Dahlman said several of the properties have walls by their decks and these could have ivy planted to grow on them. Vines are another suggestion. Commissioner Brown said he just envisioned being in Gum Grove Park and having this 25' structure going straight up from the border of Gum Grove Park. "It just doesn't sound to me like that would be very aesthetic". Dr. Dahlman said it isn't aesthetic and it already exists. These things are crying out for vines or some type of trellis treatment that will allow for vegetation to grow and hide some of the adverse appearance. Mr. Curtis said photo #4 shows a conforming deck which was set back quite a ways. And photo #5 shows one deck conforming and one non-conforming. The Chair said that in all fairness everyone should walk Gum Grove Park as she did the other day. Decks exist which are up high but also, because of the vegetation in Gum Grove Park, you're down low, walking on the service road. If you wanted to see those homes or their decks you would have to hike up the slope to find them. The homes' decks are not staring at you. Dr. Dahlman said he felt a lot of the decks would be more presentable given the provisions in the staff reports recommendations. . Commissioner Sharp said he had a problem with the City's easement. He said the City should never get itself into a position where it would have to require homeowners to lop 6' off their decks so the City can get to its own easement. The easement should be left clear and the property line would have to be inside the 6' easement. Then he would have no obJectlOns to building out to the property line. As it is now, when someone builds/extends over what is allowed it's almost impossible to get them to comply with the law without gomg through a lawsuit. Commissioner Law said she didn't like the looks of the structures. While she knows It's convenient for the property owners it looks like the back end of a movie set. The front looks good but the back looks horrible. Any structure that tall should be screened with trees and shrubs, not just a trellis and vines. She felt the height hmit should be less than 25' and there should be a setback. Dr. Dahlman said many residents adjacent to the Hellman Ranch already have deep lots. The people affected tonight are different from most of those because they can't use all of that space. It makes in no sense to put in a masonry structure because it may well have to be removed as Commissioner Sharp indicated. . Commissioner Law asserted that when the property owners having steep slopes purchased their homes they knew what the drop off was. She suggested those persons having steep drop offs could step down or terrace their decks. . . . Pqo 7 - ~ 01 ScalIIeIeb PIaDma Cnmm..."'" Mmutoa 01 March 6, 1996 Dr. Dahlman said any elevated deck is a structure under the City's Code and that's why there's a problem here. He also felt most people want wooden decks. Commissioner Law said a wooden deck could be stepped down and it didn't have to be built level with the back porch or lawn area. Chairperson Campbell said Dr. Dahlman's point was the people without the drop offs can go all the way out to the property line with their decks. One group can go out to the property line and one group can't. Commissioner Law said she doesn't believe in building to the property line. Chairperson Campbell said the Code allows some homeowners to build right to the property line. Commissioner Law disagreed. Mr. Steele suggested the Public Hearing should be concluded prior to CommIssion comments. Dave Bartlett * Representing Hellman Pro,perties at 711 Seal Beach Blvd. Mr. Bartlett said he concurred with Commissioners Sharp and Law regarding the 6' setback. The Marina Hill area is fairly expansive, running the entire length of the Hellman Ranch from Pacific Coast Highway to Seal Beach Boulevard. He said that's an expansive edge conditIon which they are very concerned about. In general, however, the Hellman's are supportive of a solution. Everyone on the Commission and the property owners are trying to find a solutIon. He said, on behalf of the Hellman family, that they are supportive of trying to find that solution. As mentioned in his letter, they would support a 6' setback. Preferably they would support a 10' average setback with a 6' minimum which would allow articulation of a deck and allow landscaping to be planted and maintained; this is their primary concern at this time. The deck height is also a big concern and staffs recommendation of 12' is reasonable. He suggested the Commission consider the constraint of the City's easement and that a 6' easement be established and some landscaping and screening mechanism be set in place to make the edge condition aesthetically pleasing for years to come. Damon Swank * 1685 Crestview Drive. Seal Beach Mr. Swank addressed the issue of the disposition of existing decks. He urged the Commission to adopt Option #3, or, at a minimum to adopt Option #1. He felt that if a property owner comes to the Commission WIth approved plans, proper permits, proper construction and approved inspections, that structure should be permitted to remain. To be discussing amortization or removal of the structure would be wrong. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Swank if his property was involved in this? Mr. Swank said no, he did not have a deck. . . . Plco 8 - CIty fIi Sc.I BaIcb PIamuaa CommwIClll Mmuta of MarcIt 6, 1996 Commissioner Brown asked staff how the City happens to have permitted but non-conforming structures? Mr. Curtis said, going back to 1991 when this matter was initially brought up, one of the decks had a permit from the late 1970's. It was built approximately 8' from the rear property line. The majority of the remaining decks built into the 10' setback don't have permits and he did not know how the one deck did get a permit. Commissioner Law said one homeowner has built from property line to property line on both sides of the house and at the rear of the house. Mr. Swank said that where the properties do have a substantial slope, the area next to those slopes is not going to be buildable. As Commissioner Dahlman mentioned, nobody has ever suggested that they wanted to build on that; it would be impractical. There would likely be a buffer zone between any proposed development and these properties. He agreed the height is of concern but felt the lateral placement was of no great Importance. He asked the CommIssIon if they had considered the economic costs to remove/relocate the walls and decks? He said "I think you should weigh equitably how much you are going to gain and how much ... it's g010g to cost" . David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman said he agreed on protecting easements. He said he was concerned about Dave Bartlett's mentioning aesthetics when there are at least four properties on Surf Place where the Hellman property has barbed wire fences despite numerous requests from the landowners. It seemed to him that the Hellman's were talking out both sides of their mouth. Ref: Cleweley * 945 Catalina Mr. Cleweley spoke in support of maintaining and/or strengthening the City's building~. He said the 10' number was chosen for specIfic reasons, one being aesthetics. By eliminating the required 10' setback, the Commission would be legislating away the building Code. This would affect all properties which abut the Hellman Ranch. People can find loopholes 10 any legislation and would manipulate the laws. He felt the 10' setback was a good law and has served well for a long time. There being no other speakers, the Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Heif:ht Measurement Commissioner Sharp commented he felt it would be preferable to build a rear yard deck at the yard's fust level, rather than building steps down a slope and building the deck down at the bottom of the slope. At the lot level they would be required to have the proper foundanon for safety. He asked staff how this could be written? Mr. Whittenberg said the provision as staff is recommending would take the measurement for that height from the lowest point covered from the proposed deck area. At the furthest extensIon . . . PIce 9 - Cdy of s.J Beacb I'I8aam8 CclmmwIClll Mmuta of March 6, 1996 of the deck out toward their property line, normally the lowest point, that is where the 12' height would be measured from. That height would be measured to the top of the rail of the deck, not to the deck's floor. Controver$Y on Deck Setbacks Commissioner Sharp said there is controversy on the deck setback issue. He mentioned that where a property has a drop off or steep slope, a deck there must have a 3' railing, whereas a railing is not needed for a level patio. Director Whittenberg explained that for a level lot, a property owner could pour a slab right to the property line. The same would be true for individuals with sloping lots if they would terrace the property downward. If the area under the easement discussed was flat, they could put a concrete slab out to the property line under the easement only. Chairperson Campbell said she wanted to re-open the Public Hearing to allow someone who just arrived to speak. Public Hearing Re-Qpened Matt Michelson * Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Michelson said the Hellman's have been great neighbors of his for ten years. He found It amazing that someone testified about barbed wire when the properties's that have barbed wire are encroaching on Hellman property. It was amazIng to hIm that people will encroach onto someone else's property and then when the trespassed property owner puts barbed wire up the offenders complain about it. The people who back up to the Hellman Ranch say every plan presented by Mola Corporation has a 15' buffer zone. But yet they can't give up 6' or 10' of their own property and yet they want the Hellman's to give up 15' of their property. Anton Dahlman * Seal Beach Dr. Dahlman said there have been two persons speaking against what most of the persons here tonight have asked the CommiSSIon to do. Neither one of them has the drop off and therefore they actually benefit by their property values going up if the Commission does nothing to help the 30 - 40 homes with sloping yards. The Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Continued Commissioner Brown said he agreed with Matt Michelson, noting "The whole thing does astonish me ... what people are asking for". He felt the purpose of the Planning Commission IS to defend the rest of the resIdents and/or property owners against the desires of the apphcants and to look at the City as a whole. These 30 to 40 homeowners bought their properties with the knowledge that they could not build into the Hellman Ranch. Agreeing with a prior speaker, . . . PIce 10 - Cllf of ScaI BelIch 1'Iannma CclmmJuIOll Mmutca of March 6. 1996 he felt the 10' setback was placed for good reasons. Then to say we want to build mto that property and we won't bother anyone because there's nothing on the Hellman Ranch really is taking the property rights of the Hellman's away from them. If development had occurred on the Hellman Ranch the Commission would probably be hearing these same 30 to 40 property owners saying no, we don't want big decks overlooking our property. Additionally, he did not feel it is fair to put the responsibility for a 30' or 40' buffer zone on the Hellman's. "I feel that this whole Zone Text Amendment is wrong. If you want to put your deck out to the property line then buy 10' of property from the Hellman's ... I can't see how that benefits anybody in Gum Grove Park --- to see a wall with massive structures ...". There are solutions that people can do with that property. For example, they could landscape it, they could terrace it. They don't have to install decks. It may look good from the house out but from the other view it looks bad, it does look like a movie lot. He continued to say the Planning Commission is talking about a special privilege in this z:r A. The Commission would be giving certain persons special property rights that they would not otherwise have. He did not see any reason to do this as their properties are already deeper than most. "To be frank, I think the property owners are being a little bit greedy here. They've already got a big property. They want to go all the way out to the edge. I know this is not going to make me popular with the property owners; I'm sorry, it's just the way I see it". Commissioner Law said she remained in favor of setbacks and she dId not lIke the way the decks looked when viewing them from Gum Grove Park. She felt the people who built the decks without the proper City permits created their own risk because everybody knows you have to get permits to build. "If it costs a lot of money to take it down or to conform with the Code that's too bad". Commissioner Sharp said the Commission must be sure it makes the proper rulings to make certain the existing decks are safe and up to Code. As for allowing the existing decks to remain, if they're not within the 6' setback he agreed to leave them as long as they were brought up to Code, properly maintained and landscaped. The landscaping must be suffiCIent to make the deck sub-structure look decent if being viewed from the Hellman Ranch. While the Hellman's property is not yet developed, sOmeday it will be developed. And if that development is built to its fullest extent there will not be a lot of easement to block the view of the tall decks. He said the Commission must be very careful not to infringe on the Hellman's property rights. Chairperson Campbell said Marina Hill does not have a problem with liquefacDon whereas the Hellman Ranch has the Newport-Inglewood fault going through it. The reason the Mola Corporation's development proposals were turned down by the City was due to site liquefaction concerns. "The Newport-Inglewood isn't a straight shot. It goes through like fingers. So, you've got it going through the Hill, you've got it going through the Hellman property, you've got one or two scarps coming through Old Town, a couple that go through the Weapons Station and one that goes into Rossmoor. But as it goes through the Hellman property you have a property with liquefaction. So housing is really not in the foreseeable future in that area. I believe they are talking about a golf course. Now when you're talking about a golf course you . . . Pqcll - Cd;y of ScaI Bc8ch PJmuuoa Cclmmu8Ioa Mmutca of March 6,1996 still have to say to yourself how offensive are the backs of these homes to a golf course'? I don't know". She said she would have a problem asking someone to take out an existing deck or wall. Commissioner Sharp said he wouldn't have a problem WIth that so long as it wasn't permitted. If the structure was permitted that would be a different matter. Commissioner Law agreed, saying that if a structure was permitted it would be legal. Commissioner Sharp said to the Chair that if she were gomg to start talking about liquefaction then she would have to dispose of 90% of Seal Beach because 90% of Seal Beach is on liquefaction land. Chairperson Campbell said "No, no, that section through the Hellman property is really bad, with a water table that is ground zero". Commissioner Sharp said lilt isn't any worse than any of the rest of Seal Beach". Chairperson Campbell said that was true right now but, the Hellman property has a degraded wetlands and the' water table is at ground zero. But again, m College Park East the water table is a ground zero because it has rained a lot lately. But all year round the Hellman Ranch's water table is at ground zero. Chairperson Campbell said she does not want to ask someone to take out a deck that's already there. Someone who did not get a permit, they need to come forward and find out if their deck is conforming. And if it's not conforming it must be brought up to Code. She said she has a problem with building out into the City's easement area. One problem could be due to the fact of calling something a structure and because you're calling it a structure it falls into a different category. lilt does seem not fair to me that people who don't have the slope can go right out to their property line and then those that do have the slope cannot go out to their property line. Actually, I applaud them for being very ingenious and inventive in findmg a way to use that property. That's the American way; sorry. ... I would hke to amend the Code to allow 6' setbacks for decks from here on out because ... of the utility easement. And I would hke to require the removal or upgrade to Code of all non-conforming decks. If they can have them brought up to Code I think they should be allowed. I don't know how old some of those are. ... The permitting process in Seal Beach has been with us awhile. But yes, there are probably some people who just started building it and didn't think it was a big deal. Probably put it in. That's not right but that's probably what happened in some of the cases". Commissioner Brown said he was surprised at some of the Chairperson's comments. II If I were sitting at my home looking at building plans, I'd probably rush right out and build something and say well, the Planning Commission isn't going to make me take it down after I've got it up. And in fact, we have done that to people who have built structures. II The reason this is a structure instead of a deck is exactly because of the slope, it's elevated. He advocated staymg with the 10' setback. He indicated there was a similar situation in Newport Beach, where people had built patios out onto the sand, publicly owned property. The City of Newport Beach did sell those owners the property and charged the property tax assessment on that. Mr. . . . PIlle 12 - CIl,y of Sell Beach PIIIIamc 0--..lIOII Mmuta of March 6. 1996 Whittenberg said he also thought that was the solution Newport Beach took but was not positive. Commissioner Brown said he felt strongly that these property owners are taking the Hellman Ranch land or Gum Grove Park and are infringing on those owners. It isn't fair to say something will not be built there as we just don't know. Commissioner Sharp indicated Gum Grove Park also belongs to the Hellman family. The Chair said the issue is then how far out can someone build and how high? Commissioner Brown said the current Code says a 10' setback and a 25' height limit must be met. Commissioner Sharp asked if a site had a 28' drop off, if they went back 10' they could build up 25'? Mr. Curtis said yes, noting the deck would be 10' shorter because of the slope. They could actually build a house at the 10' setback which was 25' high under the present Code. Commissioner Law said she would not want to see a 25' structure at the 10' setback point. She also indicated screening trees or bushes was mandatory. Commissioner Brown agreed with a previous speaker, saying that when you have an overhanging deck, no matter how you screen it, people are going to find a way to cut through the screening, such a fence holes, and it would Jle used for unwelcome activities. It is a legitimate safety issue. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg for a synopsis of what the CommIssioners have been discussing? Mr. Whittenberg said he is hearing different desires from different Commissioners and he was not certain there is a consensus of opinion on what direcnon the Commission would like to go. On one hand, Commissioner Brown is saying keep the ordinance as it is and make no changes. The remaining three Commissioners are saying to not build in the 6' setback area but Commissioner Sharp is saying don't build in the 6' setback area but then require an average 10' setback for what would be in that area between 6' and 10'. Commissioners Campbell and Law are saying that at the 6' setback line you could have the structure straIght across the rear of the property. There's not a full consensus. He felt it might be best to form some motions and see if one can be approved. If a motion is approved, then staff will return at the next meeting WIth a resolution for signature. Commissioner Sharp asked what would be the best way to make the motions? Mr. Whittenberg suggested starting with the setback issues first. Then deal with non-conforming and non- permitted structures. If it's decided to not change the current Code provisions, then those structures which are currently built within that area without permits would go through the same process the City goes through for somebody who's built something without permits. The current Code does not allow does not allow any structure within the rear 10' of the property. If a change to the setbacks is recommended, the non-conforming issue will have to be dealt with separately. . . . PIeD 13 . CII1 of Seal Beach PJamuaa CommwIClll Mmutoa of March 6, 1996 MOTION by Law; SECOND by Brown to retain the existing 10' setback and not change the provisions of the City's municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 3 - 1 - 1 Law, Brown, Sharp Campbell Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg said no issues remam. The Comrmssion has said leave the Code as it currently is. Staff will come back at the March 20th meeting with a resolution for adoption. It will have the necessary discussion and findings. Commissioner Sharp asked if this matter would automatically go before the City Council? Mr. Whittenberg said no. The recommendation to not make a change goes to the Council but there's not automatically another Public Hearing at the Council unless someone appeals the decision of the Commission to the Council. The appeal period will begin at the signing of the resolution. The Chair asked what happens to the decks with are non-conforming and/or non-permitted? Mr. Whittenberg said if the City Council has a hearing on this matter it will depend on what the Council's decision is. We can't answer that at this point. If the City Council does hold a hearing on this matter, staff will report back to the Commission what their decision is. RECESS The Chair called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:03 p.m. s. Negative Declaration 96-1 Zone Change 96-1 Zone Text Amendment 96-3 General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1 Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report and AB 1600 Report. , Staff Rqx>rt Director Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planmng Department for reference]. The applicant, the City of Seal Beach, recommended revIsions to the existing Main Street Specific Plan, and conforming revisions to the General Plan's Land Use and Housing Elements, a Zone Text Amendment, and a Zone Change to designate those areas of the City to be designated Main Street Specific Plan Zone. The Director Indicated this matter was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1996. Public testimony was received at that meeting and the Public Hearing was continued to this evening to receive additional testimony. . . . Plso 14 . CJI,y of Seal Be8ch PIaIuwJc ComouIaIoIl Mmukla of March 6, 1996 Drrector Whittenberg briefly reviewed the issues brought forth at the February 21st Public Hearing: . Regulation or cap on the number of alcohol-serving businesses; . Looseness of Findings; . Parking Meters in Main Street Specific Plan area; . Service Station Standards; . Arborist vs. Landscape Architect; . Business Improvement District. Commission Ouestions on Staff Report Alcohol-Related Uses Regarding alcohol-related uses, Commissioner Brown said one of the ideas presented in the jOint workshop was that there would be uniform hours of operation. He felt the Main Street Specific Plan does not address this or simply leaves the hours blank. Mr. Whittenberg replied the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Council, must take into account pre-existing land use rights which were granted for every alcohol-serving business With the exception of one establishment on Main Street. All those grants included hours of operation. To go back and try to change approved hours would be very difficult. If the Commission were to determine hours of operation for new businesses that would be something the CommiSSIOn could recommend but the new hours would probably not apply to existing businesses. Commissioner Brown said while he understood those restrictions, the concern is that the Planning Commission not have to go over the whole process of hours each and every ome an CUP application is received for an alcohol-related land use entitlement on an ad hoc basis. Mr. Whittenberg said he understood the Commission's concern but wasn't sure the Commission would want to put such a broad blanket over the issue of hours. There may be certain types of uses proposed for Main Street for which it would make sense to stay open to midnight on a week-end night. Other uses may not make that same sense and those hours would be different. The operational characteristics would be a major factor in the conSideration. He was not sure the Commission would want to preclude consideration of the most appropriate hours Via the CUP process. Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission could give hours by right without further hearings? And if a business wanted additional hours to hold additional Pubhc Hearings on that? Mr. Whittenberg said that would depend on how the Commission addressed the issue of allOWing new establishments on Main Street. As staff is proposing, the CUP process would bring the applicant to the Commission for a Pubhc Hearing. It may not make sense then to have pre-set hours of operation. However, if the Planning Commission determines to allow new bUSinesses . . . PIle 15 - CIty 01 Seal Beach PIanmDc Commwaoa Mmutca 01 March 6, 1996 to open by right, without a CUP, by putting a cap on the number of certain type establishments allowed on Main Street, that would be the time to set forth standard operating hours. A new operator would come in, submit his building plans, get his business license, open hiS business and be subject to set conditions. The Planning Commission would not see the application at all. Commissioner Brown said the Commission could still require a CUP for an alcohol-related use and yet have standard operating hours. Mr. Whittenberg said yes but he would recommend against it. Phase I. Phase n and Phase m Parking ReqJJirements Commissioner Dahlman said he feared the parking budget would dry up in two or three years and the City would be forced to go to Phase n at that time. He felt a better solution would be to pick a better number up front, rather than $3,600. He wanted to know what the projected cash flow was in Phase I, broken out over ten years. He wanted to see if it stabihzed at some pomt. A preliminary assessment should be made and the City Council would need to decide price tags. Mr. Zucker said the phasing is not set on dollars but on a view of operations. You wouldn't go to Phase n when you have the money to go to Phase n. Rather, you'd go to Phase n only if Phase I is not working. And likewise, if Phase n is not working adequately, you'd move into Phase m. The budget is set to balance but, it's hard to calculate a cash flow model because you don't know exactly when you're going to get the $3,600 to begin with. You do know what your current cash flow is. Money is coming in and there is money in the account. Commissioner Dahlman, looking at the question of equivalency between $100 per year and $3,600 one time fee, said they were not equivalent on his spread sheet. He thought a higher number than $100 per year should be sought. Continued Public Hearing David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman spoke to the parking issue, stating his disagreement with the Main Street Specific Plan's analysis that the parking demand and supply is in relative balance. He felt thiS analysIs would bring trouble in the future and said "Where people will come in, when you try to deal with the parkmg problem if measures I, nand nI don't work, and they'll say but you already adopted a report that says everything is in order and all you have to do is fine tune It" . Regarding hours of operation by right, Mr. Rosenman said "As talked about With [former City Manager] Mr. Bankston, the idea was if we had a Specific Plan and I guess the hours by right, as Commissioner Brown was talking about, we wouldn't get caught up in these on-gomg battles. And I think that was how it was initially sold to the town when we picked consultants". . . . "'C 16 . CIty 01 ScaI Beach 1'IIIuuoa CommwIClD MmutCI 01 Man:b 6. 1996 Regarding pages 10 and 11, additional findings required, Mr. Rosenman said this language is so vague that if there's a different City Council or Planning Commission it may be unable to be interpreted. As written, it will lend itself to ongoing contentiousness and harassability of citizens and businesses people with nothing being accomplished. He felt the original idea, as he understood it from Mr. Bankston, was the City was trying to come together as residents, businesses and government with a plan everyone could live with. He noted the Sun newspaper had no representative in the chambers tonight for the second time running. He thought they would want to publicize these hearings so readers would know what's going on. Regarding the Business Improvement District (BID) he had ten telephone calls on this issue. He said one way of proceeding with the remainder of the Plan would be to sever that part of the Plan from the rest of the report and put it aside for further study. If It's not severed the City may be lost in wrangling for a long time. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Rosenman if he had any solutions to the parking issues other than what is proposed here? Mr. Rosenman said he would like a chance to speak on this at the next meeting but, in rough format, he would say here are community-accepted standards for parking. If these are exceeded. ... rather than endorsmg the Plan as a given. Commissioner Brown, rephrasing Mr. Rosenman's comments, clarified that when the Main Street Specific Plan refers to the parking demand being in balance, it's considering the beach lots along with the Main Street parking. He agreed with Mr. Rosenman's idea to exclude this language as that would show the parking is not in balance. Mr. Rosenman added that parking meters may be one of the potential revenue getters in the future but they will not fly politically. He added that if we know the solution may not be in sight, then if we're already saying it's in balance we're cutting our own throats. Commissioner Sharp jokingly suggested that the Chair talk to the Sun newspaper and get Mr. Rosenman appointed as a special reporter so he could write the articles. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said this Specific Plan is almost identical to the Specific Plan that was before the Commission and Council in the past. The reports are so identical that you have the same parking consultant, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, making the same recommendations in the two reports. The one major difference is they are proposing relaxation of parkmg standards. With that in mind, he read for the Record, a letter to the City of Seal Beach, eleven years ago. The letter, dated February 22, 1985, from the California Coast Commission to then-City Manager Allen Parker is attached for reference. Mr. Antos provided the Commissioners with a copy of this letter. . . . Pl8e 17 . CJly of Sell Beach 1'Iamuoa CclmmwIOll Mmufea of March 6, 1996 Commissioner Dahlman said the relaxing of the parking requirements, especially for the new coffee house category, by requiring fewer spaces per square foot of business area, is a relaxation of a requirement. "I wonder if we were just hoping to squeeze it by or they wouldn't nonce']" He said he certainly noticed and thought this was a good point. Roger West * 1201 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. West said he was speaking for the thousandth time to say he is absolutely and adamantly opposed to the creation of a BID. Creating such a district would be creating a monster. According to the California Supreme Court in Knox v. Horlan, this could put control of downtown Seal Beach in the hands of a clique of promoters who could do whatever they want with no accountability and do it out of sight. The result would be to assess the CIty residents directly to pay for "Main Street business shenanigans". He felt the citizens of Seal Beach are being taxed to support Main Street enough. To improve business on Main Street better businessmen are needed, not a new method of subsidIzing ... the gaggle of alcohol pushers and sleeze merchants clamoring for help to make them profitable". Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks said he liked the Plan's mention of bicycle facilities as the more people can ride and walk into Old Town the better, as there will be less traffic. The Plan dISCUSseS at length opening the stores so they are more visible. This idea includes more trees and cutting parking off so the businesses are available. This idea is contradictive with the banner proposal. Banners have their place but they create a problem. If you design stores so they're more open and people can see in and then block the interior view with banners, that doesn't make sense. "I don't know what the answer to this is but I thlOk It'S a serious problem". He felt the Commission should be very careful about expanding banner availability, especially on Main Street. While he doesn't like the banners at the stores along Pacific Coast Highway, he felt this was more of a strip situation. Regarding Mr. Rosenman's comments, Mr. Shanks said there is creep. For example, there used to be the Old Town Wine & Spirits store. It was a very hIgh class wlOe and cheese shop. It has now grown into Papillon's restaurant which is the only place having entertainment on MalO Street. This entertainment gets pretty loud and the restaurant has also had several problems. A coffee shop is shortly a delicatessen which is shortly a restaurant which is shortly a beer bar. While this may not happen in all instances, there is a history in which it has happened. WhIle the Commission can't restrict businesses, he remembered California having a restricnon on the number of hard liquor stores or saloons according to population. So the State has a history of restriction --- it's not unheard of. The City could restrict also. If there is a limit of 25 and the 26th wants to come in the Planning Department can say no, forget It. That stops the coffee shop from creeping into a deb, into a restaurant with wine and beer. Additionally, he felt the coffee shop/parking ratio is a dangerous precedent to set. ....018 - CIty of Sa1 Beach PIuuuac CommwIOll Mawtes of March 6, 1996 . Regarding the BID, he said look at the business community representation tonight --- none of them are present. They can never seem to get their act together. This is unfortunate because they could make things better for themselves. They should be here because this is important. Therefore, leave the BID out of the Specific Plan. . Reva Olson * Seal Beach Ms. Olson said she thought it's coincidental the Main Street Specific Plan is being worked on at the same time as the Bixby development proposal. "Is this just a coincidence or is something going on here?" She said she was glad the News Enterprise was represented tonight and didn't know why the other newspapers weren't present. She was shocked the local merchants weren't present to discuss the BID. She researched the BID to see if it is still as bad as it used to be. She telephoned a land consultant, Sheri Pasmarcurtis in Sacramento, and Ms. Pasmarcurtls said a BID gives powers for parking authorities so they can go out and take anyone's property by eminent domain. It also has many other powers without a vote of the people. Her final statement was "Forced taxation with unequal representation". Ms. Olson also telephoned Bixby Knolls where they have a BID and talked with a Mr. Kristiano. He said it doesn't matter what they call it, it's bad for business. It has created so much dissention in the community that businesses just move out. They had no vacancies before the BID and now they have. 375 vacancies. It's hard to get rid of the BID once it's in, so don't do It. Regarding AB 1600 she telephoned a taxpayer's group and the person she talked with said he didn't know anything about AB 1600 but would fmd out. He did however know a lot about BIDs and said the consultants are rushing out allover the State to get BIDs because If the proposed Jarvis initiative goes through they won't be able to get away with the things they've been doing --- assessing people without a vote. He said the BID has a free hand to over-ride the will of the people. He explained they draw districts so they get 51 % approval and then redraw the lines on these districts until they get another 51 % and they keep expanding. "It's taxation without representation and let's keep the voters in control in Seal Beach". Mario Voce * Seal Beach Mr. Voce said his comments tonight are the same as they were at the February 21st meeting. Regarding trees, he asked if pending legislation, such as a tree ordinance, post dates the Main Street Specific Plan or how does that affect the Plan? Which would take precedence? Mr. Whittenberg said the Specific Plan is a guidance document. The Specific Plan in this case is a level below the General Plan but a level above the zoning ordinance and above any other implementing ordinances such as a public tree ordmance. The tree ordmance proVisions would need to conform to the provisions of the Specific Plan. As long as the tree ordinance provisions conform to the provisions of the Specific Plan that ordinance can be adopted at a later time as an implementing action to the Specific Plan. This is what is envisioned for both street tree programs and banner ordinance provisions. . . . . J>.co 19 - C1ly of Sca1 Balch PI8muDa CclmauDKlD Mmutos of March 6, 1996 Mr . Voce said the Plan's discussion of trees was simple. It noted certain trees were not there and it recommended planting trees where gaps exist. He became concerned when talking WIth City staff about Main Street trees. Those trees may have to be replaced because they are an inappropriate size for their confinements. The fichus benjamani on Main Street are actually too large for the confmed space. While the Plan doesn't call for tree removal on Main Street would the tree ordinance call for removal? Would these conflict and what problems are foreseen? Mr. Whittenberg said that if the Specific Plan indicates there should be trees along Main Street at certain locations the ordinance would delineate what types of trees should go in, how they should be planted, what maintenance is needed and who is responsible for this. The locatIOn of the trees and the general feel for the general atmosphere the City wants is in the Specific Plan, with the details in the tree ordinance. Mr. Voce recapped by saying the General Plan is the number one document, the Specific Plan would be underneath that and the City ordinances follows. The ordinances are Implementing tools to the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Mr. Voce said he was concerned about a BID being created. He felt Seal Beach is a small community which has always relied heavily on input from its residents. For those people to be outside the decision-making process for Main Street on a long term basis would be out of character for the very active resident-participatory democracy. He did not want to see a dynasty-type of situation forming in which residents would be beside the point. Harold Rothman * Seal Beach Mr. Rothman, a Seal Beach resident and owner of commercial properties, spoke on the fees the businessmen must pay in other Southern California cities. He indicated the residents of the City of Seal Beach are taxed to provide parking, lighting and other common area maintenance for Its merchants. He felt the property owners of the businesses were the ones who really profited. In another city, he would be required to pay from $ .30 to $ .80 for a common area parking, sidewalk, maintenance but if he moved to Seal Beach the residents pay for property taxes, his customers to park there, the landscaping and lighting. Mr. Whittenberg said that's correct if he were to purchase a piece of property with an existing building already on it and decided not to tear that building down to build something new. That situation exists in most cities in Southern California. He felt the business people who do well in Seal Beach are people who have good VIsion and good business knowledge. There are other businesses who have a httIe tmy store and see Seal Beach as a place to get started. Their concept is wrong and they don't succeed. They then come to the City and complain. He has lived in Seal Beach since 1972 and he felt more and more businesses will do well on Main Street when they have the right concept. He cited Art on Glass as a successful business. . . . Pqo 20 - Cd,y of Sc8I BeacIa I'IIanmc CommwIClll Mmutea of March 6. 1996 He said the alleys should be used for additional parking rather than allowing merchants to fence of parking spaces to erect storage shelves. The beach parking lot is valuable. If it were his business, he would get a small time clock with a punch-in mechanism. He would then use the clock on a trial basis without going through a major $60,000 expense. He would prefer Qto use $300 for a one month trial rather than spend a huge sum. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Rothman, as a restaurant operator, if he could comment on the parking at a coffee house which may/may not prevent a coffee house from becoming a restaurant? Mr. Rothman said 1200 square feet is a fairly large building in Seal Beach. Coffee shops are very popular now, yogurt shops used to have this popularity. Coffee shops will be out In two years and they will want to transform that into something else. He didn't think it should be opened up to where coffee shops proliferate Main Street. What's nice about Seal Beach IS the proper mix and that's hard to regulate. If you allow only so many bars, suddenly the price of bars would sky rocket. The value of bar is going to cause a better operator to go in there and you'd have more drinking. He felt to allow a coffee shop to have 1200 square feet and to make an exception on parking is not right. A coffee shop could very easily become a restaurant. It seems like the coffee shops have turned into semi-restaurants and over a generation each good businessman will change his business about 10% yearly to keep up with the time. For example, he'll start off with coffee, then croissants, then ham in the croissants and in the morning he'll add eggs to the croissants. The City Council and/or Planning CommIssion will change. And that same businessman will jam as many seats as he can in there. Eventually it's tables, then it's booths. Stan Anderson * Seal Beach Mr. Anderson said he is a long-time City resident and current President of the Business Association. Regarding the validation of parking the City beach lot, he said five years ago the City Counctl voted 5 - 0 to put metered parking in at the ocean lot. The Specific Plan stated a beach parking lot has gone from 75% full to 50% full or less even on the busiest days. He said the lot IS not being managed well and it was felt the metered parking was going to manage it better. In the five years it has not been done. The current City Manager is addressing this issue and says we're going to do it. It will cost a lot because the collection booth will be moved to another location, away from Ocean Avenue, so traffic won't be blocking Main Street. City Manager Till feels it should be working this summer. He said that if he lived on the streets adjacent to Main Street and looked out his windows and saw the beach parking lots almost empty whtle hIS streets were packed with beach-going parkers he would be upset. He couldn't have hIS friends over because they couldn't park. The merchants also want a balance --- they want parking for their customers and they want to be good neighbors too. He felt the Zucker plan makes valuable suggestions such as better management. PIle 21 - CIty of Seal Beach PIaaamc CclmmuaKJa Mmutca of March 6, 1996 . Regarding money, the merchants would like to see monies from parking meters utilized to make repairs on Main Street. For example, the sidewalks need repair. Red lines are being sprayed on Main Street sidewalks because people are falling. The merchants are trying to address the issues too and very much appreciate the Commission's help. The merchants aren't asking for any extras. The 300 block merchants will most lIkely not have their customers parking in the beach lot. The Business Association would like to see the beach parking lot have a bathroom that you or your children can use. An outside shower would be helpful. They would like to see the Community Safety Building open late at night and not just from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and then closed --- "Those are banker's hours". The issue is being addressed with volunteers. He felt volunteers should be there in the day and police personnel at night. The beach lots and 8th Street parking lots should be utilized and if they're empty on a major holiday that's a sign that too much money is being charged to park. . Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Anderson his position on a BID? Mr. Anderson said the Seal Beach Business Association initially wanted a BID. They talked with then-City Manager Jerry Bankston. They talked with Dennis Pullman in Belmont Shore who has been involved with the development of their BID. In Belmont Shore, when you pay for your business lIcense it's twice a costly. Half of the money goes to the BID and the other half goes to the city for theIr bUSIness licenses. He said that if a new business does not apply for and obtaIn a City business lIcense nobody knows there. That merchant could get away without paying fees. This issue needs addressing. He suggested the City may be able to link up with the telephone company, who would have a record of the City businesses. He said the City merchants gIve and do a lot and sometimes this goes unrecognized. For example, donations to charities. Commissioner Brown commented that the Planning Commission and City appreciates when he comes to speak to the Commission on behalf of the merchants and thanked him for doing so. . Mitzi Morton · Seal Beach Mrs. Morton said she didn't object to a BID per se but noted that every one which has been formed has created problems for the merchants. She contacted Bixby Knolls also and talked to one of the merchants. Their BID was formed by the Business Association soliciting signatures for a petition saying they wanted a BID. They were told costs would be nominal. They found afterwards that the fees kept increasing every year and that most all the monies went for rents, telephones, staff and management and very little was going for what they thought it was going to go for. For a small business, like a tiny gift shop, the City of Long Beach BID charges $217.61 for the license, $5.64 for each employee, $185.00 for the BID and $4.00 for each employee you have --- that's $412.00 per year cost to the merchants. The highest fee is $500 and that's for a bank. It depends on what type of business you have per what your BID assessment is. Until the City of Seal Beach studies more and the Seal Beach Business Association is more clear on how this would be set up she would recommend WaIting. It dIdn't . . . ....e 22 - CIty of Seal Belch I'IIanmc CommwIOD Mmutea <<March 6. 1996 pass the last time because the vote was too close --- 49 % against and 51 % for. The wisdom of the Council was that there just weren't enough merchants in favor of it. This time it could change. Bixby Knolls has been trying to get rid of their BID and they can't because the City Council won't comply. One enterprising and unhappy merchant went throughout his district and got all the other merchants to agree that they weren't happy with the BID and they were able to get rid of the BID in their little district. But the rest of it is in utter chaos. Regarding the Specific Plan she said the coffee house issue disturbs her --- having 1200 square feet and 12 person seating capacity. She measured the interior of the City Council chambers today and decided it is 45' x 40' or 1800 square feet. That's a pretty large size building for a coffee shop. To expect them to only have 12 seat in it wouldn't work. She suggested changing the philosophy or changing the word coffee shop as it just doesn't make sense. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Curtis how bIg Taco Surf is? Mr. Curtis said he thought Taco Surf was approximately 1800' to 2000' square feet. The new Grandma's is 1100 square feet. Regarding the in-lieu parking, Mrs. Morton said no conclusions have been reached. She felt lohn Baker was right when he said we really don't know how much we have. She SaId the packet is outdated as it references funds in hand or pledged as of November 1994. She asked what happened to 1995? She asked exactly what does pledge mean? She said the bookkeeper shouldn't have lumped the monies together. She should have so much money on hand and so much money pledged. Currently there are 196 in-lieu spaces which are allowed by the Coastal Commission and she said she would like to know where the City is going to put them? The report states the City will accumulate eight (8) additional spaces a year. ThIs doesn't make sense to her. The consultant says we should try to find parking spaces between 8th Street and 10th Street for $15,000 per space. It also states a parking space costs $35,000 to $40,000 If you were going to buy the land. There are many contradictions in the report. The City WIll never be able to buy land based on $100 in-lieu fees. It would take 36 years to buy one parking space and that's ludicrous. She felt that if the City does have some money at the present time the City should make an arrangement to purchase the property behind lohn's Market as that's the only logical spot for centrally located parking and people would use it. The property-owner, Mr. Curtis, is elderly, in his mid-90's, and the City should act as soon as poSSIble to get an optIon on the land and tie it up before some developer comes along. She felt this was urgent and necessary. The 8th Street lot should be metered as soon as poSSIble. The City has been waItIng three years to get parking at the beach and agreed with Harold Rothman's idea to use an inexpensive time clock as a suryey. I Commissioner Dahlman said he pays the business tax in the City of Long Beach and it's steep. And on top of that he pays professional license fees and a DEA too. It's about $500 per year. nI can't conceive of the businessmen really wanting this". Rita Brenner * Seal Beach Ms. Brenner asked if anyone has done a census on high crime and/or rape statistics? She SaId some parking structures are not safe to be in. . . . Paco 23 - c.,. at So8J Belch I'IIanaIa Cnmm........ Mmutoa of March 6, 1996 Co~missioner Dahlman asked the Chair if additional testimony would be taken another evening? The Chair said either that or split it up. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Public Hearing would be continued or closed? Commissioner Brown said he would be in favor of continuing the Public Hearing but his fear was that we'd have more of the same people saying the same thing. He would be in favor of hearing from different speakers with new information. He felt the City's coming to the end of this process and being able to close the Public Hearings at the next Commission meeting to be followed by Commission discussion. He wanted to be certam all persons who want to speak get the opportunity to do so. The Chair asked if the Commission wanted to contmue the Public Hearing to March 20th or April3rd? Mr. Whittenberg Sald both of those meetings already have heavy agendas. On March 20th the Commission has the continued Public Hearing on the banner ordinance, several CUPs for review and a Vanance request. On April 3rd the Commission has the continued Public Hearing on the ZT A to eliminate third stories in the Old Town area, and two CUPs are up for six months reviews. He indicated if this matter were continued to March 20th the Commission could hear the banner ordinance and the M8.1n Street Specific Plan concurrently. The Chair said there would also be the chance of having more representatives from the business district. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Brown to continue the Public Hearing on Negative Declaration 96-1 to March 20, 1996. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: 4-0-1 Law, Brown, Campbell, Dahlman Sharp Director Whittenberg said Paul Zucker would like to respond to some of the issues which have been brought up. Staff will prepare a written response to the other issues for the next meeting. Paul Zucker * Zucker Systems Mr. Zucker said Seal Beach has talked many issues for many years and has just not acted on them. It's hard to know what the response is going to be when you put some of these things into place. They see this as a management issue and you won't know how people are going to react until you do something. Zucker Systems would like to encourage the City to move ahead. He felt some of the issues are key ISSUes and need to be disposed of one way or the other. On other issues the Commission may be placing more into them than is there. Business Improvement District Regarding the BID, there can be good or poor BIDs. Some of what you heard tonight he felt is not accurate and some of it is accurate. The point is if you adopt the Specific Plan exactly as it is presented tonight it does not mean you're going to have a BID. If you want to knock out that one policy, which you can do without harming the Plan that much, it won't mean you will never have a BID. The Plan's language is not such that it does not mandate either. He did not feel the Commission should get too hung up on this issue. It could be an issue which diverts the Commission from adopting the Plan. If thiS is the case, he suggests the CommiSSIOn drop the policy. . . . Plco 24 - CIty of Seal Bach I'IIuuuDg Cnmm.._ Muwte8 of March 6. 1996 Parkini The important issue is the setting of the fees. He felt Commissioner Dahlman was right, if you take the current value of the $100 versus the $3600 at the front end there is a differential there. It's a very difficult calculation to make. Assumptions on mterest rates must be made, calculations on how long a business will be paying. It's also true that $3600 will not build a parking space and this is stated in the Plan. This is a pragmatic, not a technical, decision. You can't say this is precisely what it will be and we can stand behind that figure. It's a political decision in a sense. It's a market decision from the standpoint of how much can the market support. And then can we put together the necessary AB 1600 findings. Commissioner Dahlman asked if a study was done for a businessman, for example in the Pavilion's center, who pays for a parking space? Mr. Zucker said there's no question a differential treatment exists on Mam Street versus the rest of the City. He said that shou14 not bother the Commission as a lot of time was spent on the surveys and in talking with everyone. The response was that Main Street is the heart and soul of Seal Beach and it is different. Main Street is basically built. All the Commission IS dealmg with is minor remodeling and potential intensification. Regarding the relaxation of parking standards, the Plan says deliberately relax them. Because there was a great deal of feeling in the surveys that there are certain uses you want more of and other uses that you're not certain you want more of. When that's boiled down it comes to one use --- restaurants. The restaurant standard is staying exactly as it is. That comes down to whether the $3600 in-lieu parking fee is a good figure or not. If a restaurant replaces a retail use it will have to provide parking or the $3600. Other retail use parking standards are being relaxed. And if a retail use is replaced by a retail use they won't be paying the large fees unless the expand the building. Regarding the coffee house issue, he recommended the Commission look at and say well, do we want to have that relaxed standard at all for coffee houses or ifwe do, is 1200 square feet IS too big? You can lower the 1200 square feet to a smaller number. This is a feeling and not a technical issue. Do you want to encourage or discourage those uses. If a coffee house is counted as a restaurant you will be discouraging those uses. Commissioner Brown asked staff if they could come back at the next meeting with a list of comparable restaurants, their sizes etc. Mr. Zucker said that after listening to all the testimony there are really not that many issues on the table. There's the issue of the BID, the appropriate size of the m-lieu parking fee, the issue of coffee house and liquor license numbers. Commissioner Brown indicated the question is not restaurants with alcohol solely, the issue is with bars, the hours of the full Service bars and the beer bars and the restaurants that turn into bars. P1a1l25 - CIty of Seal Bach PIlamma CclmauIaJoD Mmutoa of March 6, 1996 . Regarding setting a cap on alcohol-related land uses, the Plan does not allow any new bars to be located on Main Street. The Commission asked about the hours of those bars, no new liquor stores and restaurants which are called bars by their owners. Mr. Whittenberg said that what someone refers to as a business and what it is determined to be under the requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act are two different issues. Commissioner Dahlman say that's exactly his point. They come in as restaurants but operate as a bar. Mr. Whittenberg said they are restaurants as licensed by ABC and they need to meet certain criteria under ABC and they do meet that critena. He said "I understand there's a difference of opinion on that issue but technically they are restaurants". Commissioner Brown said some of those restaurants have been known to fudge the figures a bit as meeting the ABC criteria. Mr. Whittenberg said that's an Issue for ABC to deal with. They pre-empt the field in that area as a State agency. . Mr. Zucker clarified that he felt the Commission could focus on the four above-referenced tOpiC then the Commission can bring this to a conclusion. Public Hearing Re-Qpened The Chair re-opened the Public Hearing to allow testimony from Mr. Rosenman. David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman suggested the Commission ask staff to provide them With a copy with the numbers and figures for the two-story parking structure on Glen Erie Street 10 Laguna Beach that was funded by an in-lieu assessment. That would help the Commission get an idea of what was possible or not possible. The Chair continued the Public Hearing to Wednesday, March 20, 1996. STAFF CONCERNS 6. Staff Memo re 909 Ocean Avenue - EI Burrito, Jr. #2 Mr. Whittenberg said a Staff Memo was provided to the Commission indicat10g there has been a change in ownership at 909 Ocean Avenue, EI Burrito, Jr. #2 restaurant. The new owner has agreed to abide by all prior Conditions of Approval. . PIle 26 . CIty of ScaI Beach PIamIJaa CclamuaaIClll Mmutea of March 6, 1996 . COMMISSION CONCERNS Land By John's Food King The Chair referenced Mitzi Morton's comments on the land behind John's Food King and asked staff is anyone has looked into this land. The Main Street Specific Plan contains this informatIon in the background studies and there's a tentative parktng layout provided. The Chair asked if the City is doing anything to acquire this land? Mr. Whittenberg said staff is waitIng to see what the desires of the City are regarding the Specific Plan. In the past there had been discussions with the property owners and in the past they were not willing to grant an option to the City. ARea Site At Lal1'\Pson Avenue The Chair asked if the ARCa site at Lampson A venue and Seal Beach Boulevard has been cleaned up or are they still working on it? Mr. Whittenberg said he was uncertain of the current status but believed the site cleanup has been completed. He will check and report back. ~ The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. She indicated the next Planning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, March 20, 1996. . Respectfully Submitted, ~;m:::) - Recording Secretary Attachments (2) NOTE: These Minutes were transcribed from an audio tape. APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1996 were approved on March ~O~ 1996. ~ . We6~ 31lt/Oj ~ PIfJJ\n)~ ~. . Seal Beach Planning CommissionmMarch 6, 1996 From: Lou and Vicky Carreon 1335 Crestview Ave. Sea I Beach . Although we are unable to attend tonight's meeting, we would appreciate our opinion heard. We support the proposal for a relaxation of the rear yard setback. We believe that the current 10 foot setback rule is extreme for the circumstances. Our property lines are raised slopes that when built upon do not infringe directly on anyone. With some of the severe sloped properties, this is the only way to gain backyard space. Although this current rule does not affect us now, it would be great to know that our property could be utilized in a more useful manner if needed in the future. We do not believe that this would turn into a neglected area, since all of the homeowners take pride in living where we do. If in fact a homeowner did neglect a structure and it became an eyesore or danger, the city could handle the individual homeowner accordingly. It also makes sense that if a homeowner has sloped land that is inaccessible for maintaining, it could look much worse and become a problem. Thank you for attention. . ArT19eHM6AJr . ~~f California, George Deukme'l.. . Governor California Coastal CommisSion SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, SUite 380 POBox 1450 Long Beach. California 90801-1450 (213) S~S071 1<ere.t;>ed 3/ ~ Iqf.Jt /:>Jo.nnlt'lOC'msh · February 22, 1985 Mr'. Allen Parke~, C~ty Manager C~ty of Seal Beach City Hall 211 E~ghth Stree~ Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Allen, . Currently there are two coastal development perrn~t appl~cat~ons for new developnent ~n the Seal Beach downtown a~ea pend~ng be- fore the Comm~ss~on. I~ ana:yz~r.; the proposed development, we have become aware of several cases of development wh~ch had oc- curred w~thout a coastal permit and several changes ~n park~ng regulat~ons wh~ch have been ~nst~tuted throughout the c~ty without the necessary coastal perm~t. A development or act~v~ty conducted w~thout a pe~it ~s a v~olation of the Cal~forn~a Coastal Act of 1976 and can result ~n poss~ble c~v~l f~nes and/or penalt~es. Spec~fically, the problem ~s recycl~ng of businesses (intens~f~cat~on) be~ng proposed w~thout adequate park~ng ~n the Main Street cornrner- c~al d~strict. Th~s is a ser~ous matter that may halt or delay any future development unt~l some form of pa~king management pro- gram is implemented or new parking spaces are created downtown. Any development that does not prov~de adequate park~ng fac~l~t~es incrementally im?acts publ~c access to the beach and is, the~efore, ~nconsistent w~th the Coastal Act. Further, the placa~ent 0 s~gn l~~t~ng on-street park~ng to one and two-hour time l~itat~ons also erodes uol~c access and is incons~stent w~th the Coastal Act as well As a result of recent act~ons, park~ng def~c~enc~es have become an issue that w~ll need to be addressed ~n the c~ty's Local Coastal Program. I feel it is necessary that we meet to discuss the issues of parking defic~encies, ~~e k~nds and types of act~ons wh~ch requ~re a coastal . A"T7')qCH ",en r - , . . . Mr. Aiien .t"ar.Ker, \...l.-.;.y l"!CUlQ~=L February 22, 198~ Page 2 permit and any known future development proposals in Seal Beach, includ~ng recycling or change in use of commercial structures along Main Street. As previously mentioned, we cannot recommend approval of any project that does not provide adequate parking on-s~te or an acceptable mitigation. A var~ance which allows developers to use ex~sting public parking spaces is not an ac- ceptable alternat~ve. I will contact you w~th~n a week to arrange a meet~ng to discuss th~s matter further. S(f;6elY Robert F. Ass~stant yours, Joseph D~str~ct D~rector RFJ/sws ~ T71'1(!H m5,fJr