HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1996-04-17
\;"
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING CO:MMISSION
AGENDA of APRIL 17, 1996
7:30 P M. · City COUBeiI Cbamben
211 Eighth Street, Seal Beacb, CA
Next Resolution: #96-9
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAN.C,E
II. RQLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the tIme to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Notify the public of any changes to the agenda;
Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or
Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission,
staff, or 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 Planning
Commission, provided that NO ac,tIon or discussion may be undertaken by the
Planning Commission unless otherwise authonzed by law.
V.
AR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior 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 April 3, 1996.
Tbc CdJ of Seal Beacb comphca Wllb tbc Amcm:aRs Wllb DI'IIIbdllJes Act of 1990 If you need assistance to allend lbls mectmg, please telephone tbc City
CJert's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 houn In advaocc of Ihc Blectmg
.
.
.
"
PBge 2 - CdJ of Seal Beach PIannmg Comnulllllll Agmda of Apnl 17, 1996
2.
Minor Plan Review 96-2
Address:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
3. Minor Plan Review 95-4
Address:
Applicants:
Property Owners:
Request:
Recommendation:
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Walter MIller
Walter MIller
Architectural review of a proposal to
construct a new mixed use development at
229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed
development consists of a one-story
commerCIal building at the front of the lot
with a three-story, two-unit residential
structure at the rear of the lot.
Approval through the adopoon of
Resolution 96-_, subject to condIoons.
1101 Seal Way
Renee and Fanny Bollen
Renee and Fanny Bollen
To remodel the second floor of an existing
apartment structure to include reducoon
from four (4) to three (3) umts, a new roof
line which will increase the height of the
front pomon of the structure by
approximately two (2) feet, the exterior
remodel and a reconfigured stairwell
access to the second floor. The subject
property is non-conforming due to
inadequate on-site parking, density and
rear and side setbacks.
Approval through the adoption of
ResolutIon 96-_, subject to condIoons.
The CdJ of Seal Beach compbca With the Amencans With DI'Illb.hllcs Act of 1990 If you need assistance to allcnd thiS mcclmg, plcose telephone the Cdy
Clcdt'I OffICe at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 houn m advance of the mccl1ng
.
.
.
....e 3 - Ctly of Seal Bc8ch I'Iannma ComnuSSJOll Agenda of Apnl 17. 1996
4.
Receive and File:
Staff Report on Senate Bill 1538
Conditional Use Permits, Regulation of
Hours a Compensable Taking.
5.
Receive and File:
Staff Report on City Review and
Preparation of Comments re 1996
Recirculated Draft ElR - Bolsa Chica
Local Coastal Program and Status
Report.
VI. SCHEDULED MATIERS
6. Consideration of Resolution 96- for Fee Adjustment -
Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fees.
7. Consideration of Resolutions regarding "Main Street Specific Plan"
Revision 96-1 [Continued from Apnl 3, 1996]
a.
Negative Declaration 96-1
Resolution No. 96- _, A Resolution of the Planmng
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending Adopnon
of Negative Declaration 96-1, Relating to RevisIon 96-1 of the
Main Street SpecIfic Plan.
b. General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B
Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planmng
CommIssion RecommendlOg to the City Councll approval of
General Plan Amendment 96-1A, AmendlOg the Land Use
Element to Maintain consistency Between the Land Use Element
and the Main Street SpecIfic Plan RevisIOn 96-1 and to Revise
the "Summary Table of Exisnng and Proposed Land Uses 10
Acres" of the Land Use Element to Depict the Increase of
Approximately 14.8 Acres of "MalO Street Specific Plan Zone"
land and Appropriate Decreases of Other Land Use Categones
WIthin the City.
The Cd;y of Seal Bc8ch comphcs WIth the AmencBDs WIth DIBlIbdllles Act of 1990 If you need assistance to aucod thiS mccllllg, please telephone the Cd;y
CIcdr;'s omcc at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 boon m advance of the mcclmg
.
.
.
Pace 4 - C1fy of Seal Beach I'IamwJc CommuaIOO Agenda or Apnl 17. 1996
Resolution No. 96- _, A Resolution of the Planning
CommIssion of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommendmg to the
City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment 96-1B,
Amending Table 16 of the Housing 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.
c.
"Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1
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.
d.
Zone Text Amendment 96-3
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 96-3, Creating
the "Main Street Specific Plan Zone" (Sections 28-1250 through
28-1257) and Amending Section 28-1804.3 and 28-2408.C to
Maintain Internal Consistency of chapter 28 of the Code of the
City of Seal Beach.
e.
Zone Change 96-1
Resolution 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, Changmg the
Zoning to Depict the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of
"Main Street specific Plan Zone" Land and Appropriate
Decreases of Other Zomng Categories Within the CIty.
f. AB 1600 Report
Resolution Number 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the
'lbc CIty of Seal Beach compbca With lhc AmencllDs With DI'UlbdltJca Act or 1990 Ir you need assistance to attend thiS mccIIIIg, please telephone lhc City
ClcJt's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 houn m advlIDce or lhc mcetulg
.
.
.
PBae S - CIty of Seal Beach PIamuog CooumsSIClI\ Agenda of Apnll7, 1996
CIty Council AdoptIon of the Main Street SpecIfic Plan AB
1600 Report and the Proposed AB 1600 Parking Mitigation Fee
Established Therein.
g.
Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report.
In addition, recommend that the City Council receIve and file
the Background Studies - Mam Street Specific Plan Report,
revised and dated January 1996.
8. Resolution No. 96- _, A Resolution of the Planmng Commission of
the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of
Zomng Text Amendment 95-1, Amending Article 18, Sign Provisions,
to Establish Standards for the Display of Temporary Advertismg
Banners in Commercial Zones.
VII. PUBLIC HEARIMiS
9.
Zoning Text Amendment 96-2
[ContInued from February 21 and Apnl 3, 1996]
Applicant:
City of Seal Beach
Request:
To amend to the Code of the City of Seal
~to:
(1) Prohibit new third stories 10 the
medIUm and high densIty zones of
Old Town; and
(2) Allowing certain roof treatments
to exceed the 25 foot height limIt
by up to 2-3 feet, subject to a
discretionary review by the
Planning Commission.
RecommendatIon:
Pleasure of the Commission
1bc CIty of Seal Beach eomphcs With the AmencDns With Dlsabdlllcs Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS mcctmg, please telephone the C1~
CIcJt's OffICe at (310) 431-2527 at 1csst 48 hours ID advance of the mcctmg
~
....e 6 - Cd;y of Seal Beach PIamunc ComnuaSIOO Agenda of Apnl 17, 1996
.
10. Conditional Use Permit 94-4
Business: Burger Kmg
Address: 770 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant: Leroy Stone
Property Owner: Leroy Stone
Request: Review at three (3) months of a drive-
through restaurant at 770 Pacific Coast
Highway. The CommissIOn may extend
this permit for up to six (6) months.
Recommendation: Approval through the adoption of
Resolution 96-_ subject to condltlons.
.
11. Height Variation 96-1
Address: C-37 Surf side
Applicant: Cheryl Johnson
Property Owner: Cheryl Johnson
Request: To construct a covered roof access
structure (CRAS) m excess of the 35'
height lImit in Surfside. Specifically, the
proposed structure would exceed the height
limit by approximately 41h'.
Recommendation: Approval through the adoptlon of
Resolution 96-_ subject to conditlons.
.
1bc Cd)' of Seal Beach CClIIIpbcs With the Amencans WIth DI8lIbdllles Act of 1990 If you need assistance 10 attend thiS mccIIng, please tc1cphone the City
Clcrlt's OffICe at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the mccIIng
.
.
.
Plae 7 - CJlf of Seal Beach I'IInnmg eommwlOll Agenda of Apnll7, 1996
VIII.
STAFF CONCERNS
12. Appeal of ZTA 96-1 re Construction of Decks In Rear Yard Setbacks
To be heard by City Council on April 22, 1996.
13. Letter of March 16, 1996 from Curt Whallon re ZTA 95-1 on
Banners.
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ~
The CJlf of Seal Beach compbes With the Amencans With DllDbIIllles Act of 1990 If you need asslslance to allend thiS mcelll1g, please IelephOlle the City
C1ert's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 houn m advance of the meelmIl
Pege 8 - Cd)' of Seal Beach Plannmg ComnusSIOII Agenda of Apnll7, 1996
.
1996 AGENDA FORECAST
MAY 08
.
.
CUP 95-1/PIetro's Pizza/1013 PCH
Setback Exemptions for Plant-Supporting Structures [2-7-96]
MAY 22 . CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC
[Changed ownershIp 1/96]
. CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 8 mos.
IUN 05 . CUP 94-1/600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC
IUN 19
JUL 03
JUL 17
AUG 07
AUG 21
. SEP 04 . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review
SEP 18
OCT 09
OCT 23
NOV 06
NOV 20
DEC 04
DEC 18
.
The Cd)' of Seal Beach compbes WIIb !be Amencan, WIIb DI'llIbdllles Act of 1990 If you need assistance to allald ibiS meetmg, please te1cphOlle !be City
CleJt's Office at (310) 431-2527 at Ieaat 48 houn m advance of !be meetmg
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES of APRIL 17, 1996
The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session in City Council chambers
at 7:33 p.m.. The Chair called the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Campbell
Commissioners Sharp, Brown, Dahlman
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services:
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant CIty Attorney
Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary
Absent:
Commissioner Law
Barry Curtis, Associate Planner
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to excuse Commi~sioner Law's absence due to
U1ness.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YFS:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell
Law
AGENDA APPROVAL
Regarding Minor Plan Review 96-2, Director Whittenberg mdlcated two letters were receIved
today. He suggested the Commission might want to extract thIS item for separate conSIderation.
The letters expressing opposition are from John L. Tandy, 230 17th Street, Seal Beach and
Marcha E. Katz, 234 14th Street, Seal Beach. [Attachments 1 and 2].
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda with item #2 extracted
for separate consideration.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYFS:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell
Law
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. There were no persons wishing to speak at oral commumcations.
.
.
.
I'It8c 2 . CII1 of Sc.Il Be8I:h J>Iamuoc CammwIClll Mmutcl of Apnl 17. 1996
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Consent Calendar with Item
#2 extracted for separate consideration and with Commissioner Sharp's abstaining from
voting on the April 3rd Minutes as follows:
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell
Law
1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996.
3.
Minor Plan Review 95-4
Address:
Applicants:
Property Owners:
Request:
4.
Receive and File:
5.
Receive and File:
1101 Seal Way
Renee and Fanny Bollen
Renee and Fanny Bollen
To remodel the second floor of an existlOg
apartment structure to include reductlon
from four (4) to three (3) umts, a new roof
line which will increase the height of the
front pomon of the structure by
approximately two (2) feet, the exterior
remodel and a reconfigured staIrwell access
to the second floor. The subject property IS
non-conforming due to inadequate on-site
parking, density and rear and Side setbacks.
Staff Report on Senate Bill 1538
Conditional Use Permits. RegulatIOn of
Hours a Compensable Talang.
Staff Report on City Review and
Preparation of Comments re 1996
Recirculated Droft EIR - Bolsa Chica Local
Coastal Program and Status Report.
Regarding Minor Plan Review 95-4, the Director mdicated a resolution would be prepared for
the next meeting. The applicants, Renee and Fanny Bollen, said this would hold them up.
Commissioner Sharp asked Counsel If there were some way in which the CommisslOn could act
this evening to speed the Bollen's process? Mr. Steele said the Commission could act by Mmute
Order and have the Chair sign a formal resolution at a future time.
PIce 3 - CI1;y of sw Beach I'Iamuac Cclmauuloo Mmutca of Apnl17, 1996
. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to act by Minute Order, authorizing the
Planning Comml~~ion Chair to sign Resolution 96-18 immediately when it is ready.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell
Law
Mr. Steele explained the ten calendar-day appeal period would beg10 once the Chair signs the
resolution.
2. Minor Plan Review 96-2
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
The applicant and property owner, Walt M1l1er, requested architectural review of his proposal
to construct a new mixed use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed
development consists of a one-story commercial building at the front of the lot with a three-
story, two-unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
.
Commission Ouestions on Staff Re,port
Chairperson Campbell, referenced and questioned page 5, Condloon of Approval #6:
6. The applicant shall record a covenant on the ntle of the property
requiring that the occupants of the residential units shall be involved In
-non-residential- uses on the subject property.
Mr. Whittenberg said the Condition's wording was correct. He explained the pre-requisites of
the Limited Commercial (L-C) zone allow only for a residential use 10 coordinaoon With a
commercial use which occurs on the same property. One of the City's goals was to reduce
vehicle trips and encourage people to live close to their business locaoon. The bulld1Og's
occupants must be related to the commercial use on the property. This condloon was imposed
in 1992.
Chairperson Campbell, referenced and questioned page 5, Condloon of Approval #3:
3. The plans shall be amended to provide an average front yard setback of
six (6')feet with a minimum setback of three (3')feet.
and asked if this met municipal Code requirements? The Duector said yes.
.
The Chair, referenced the two letters received by staff today, noong they expressed concern that
the size of this structure would be overbear1Og and they were requesting downslz1Og.
.
.
.
....0 4 - Cdf of Se8J BelIIlh PIIauuJJB CcImauIaIClD Mmutea of Apnl17. 1996
The Director explained the basic application is a request to build a 1900 square foot single story
commercial structure at the front of the property, along Seal Beach Boulevard. At the rear of
the property, off the alley, the applicant proposes ground level parking of four spaces for the
two proposed residential units. Above this would be two two-story residential units of
approximately 1900 square feet each. The plan, with modifications as noted in the staff report,
do comply with all provisions of the L-C zone. Staff provided copies of the letters received to
Walt Miller this evening. The Director suggested it might be appropriate to allow Mr. Miller
time to respond to those letters and perhaps allow the letter wnters to comment also.
The Chair asked if this would be a Public Hearing? Mr. Whittenberg sald It would be a hearIng
but not a Public Hearing. Because the item had been pulled off the Consent Calendar, it would
be at the Commission's discretion as to who would be allowed to speak. CommiSSIOner
Dahlman said he would like to hear from the apphcant and anyone else who is concerned.
Walt Miller * 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach
Mr. Miller, referring to the two letters received, said letterwriter Mr. Tandy rents a reSIdence
at 230 17th Street and letterwriter Ms. Katz, who lives at 234 14th Street also wrote a SImilar
letter. He assumed they had discussed this among themselves. He emphasized this project was
designed to meet the parameters of the newly-introduced L-C zone. The project was
unanimously passed in 1992 with parking at ground level, commercial on the second level and
residential on the third floor. The dimensions of the height and width have remained the same.
The California Coastal Commission objected to the commercial units on the second floor and
requested he change that. After a lengthy argument he modIfied the plans and the Coastal
Commission approved it. The building's design IS set to scale down --- with a single story
facing Seal Beach Boulevard. It will have a replica of a pier deck to gIve it scale. There's a
courtyard between the two buildings to again set it further back. If passing by on Seal Beach
Boulevard it will probably be one of the more attractive structures m Seal Beach. The
uniqueness of the L-C zone is that it sits on Seal Beach Boulevard with no one m front of the
property to obstruct the views and it will remain as such as long as the Navy's there. The rear
of the property sits on an alley and the alley doesn't obstruct anyone's view. ThIS property,
joining with the property he owns next door, will make a statement that the City of Seal Beach
will appreciate. His proposal covers 58% of the site whereas new houses cover 85% - 90%.
He feels he, his daughter and his architect have done an exceptional Job in making open space
in this project and to do anything different would destroy what they have strived to do m the last
six years. "Any time you strive for innovation, you run the nsk of someone getting concerned
about it". The comments in these two letters talk about a boxy, large structure and he pOinted
out that there's a 35' boxy structure on Ocean by Seal Way which has a flat roof; it's a box.
However, it's a permitted use and it's an attractive building. All the two-story buildmgs bemg
built in town have flat roofs so people can use the roof deck as their thIrd story. HIS project
does not have a flat roof, it has a pitched roof. He noted there IS a parapet roof m the mIddle
and balconies. It's an architecturally sound approach.
PlIo 5. CIty of Se8l Beach PIIaomg CamauaIIOll Mmlllcll of Apnll7. 1996
. Commissioner Dahlman asked how he proposed to work Condition of Approval #6, where the
occupants will be involved in the business downstairs? Mr. Mlller rephed that he has designed
an opportunity to, for example, telecommute. The family room is separated on the second floor
and that could be used for a person working out of their home. This IS being encouraged by
everyone --- by the Internal Revenue Service, General Electric and many large companIes. He
felt that is a very valid feature. Someone could also have a business located there. They could
live and work in the same area and this is the theory behind the L-C zone.
John Tandy * 230 17th Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Tandy introduced himself as a professional Planner who has lived in Seal Beach for seven
plus years. He said most aspects of this plan are wonderful, such as the frontage along Seal
Beach Boulevard, which does not create a two-story box. He felt the wooden matenals to be
used are more appropriate for a beach area than stucco. He satd he would like to see a
reduction of the residential portion of the bullding in the back so there is more of a stairstep
articulation. This is a large structure, 35' in height and each of the two apartments is 1900
square feet. This would have less of an impact on the existing residenttal neighborhood.
Chairperson Campbell asked if he had talked with Mr. Miller? Mr. Tandy satd no.
.
The Chair asked if anyone else wished to comment on this project; no one came forward.
Commissioner Sharp said he was on the Planning CommIssion throughout this plan's mception.
He thought it would be an asset to the City and its local area. He saw no reason to not approve
it.
Commissioner Brown asked why no parking is provided for the commercial parkmg? Secondly,
he didn't see any way in which Condition of Approval #6 could be enforced.
.
Mr. Miller explained the site had C-2 zoning in 1986 when his project was initially proposed.
One of the conditions to allow this property to be developed was to ehminate curb cuts and to
give a parking credit on the street --- because of the Navy property across the street. To
eliminate a curb cut and to put commercial traffic into a reSIdential 12' alley means you cannot
have commercial parking on-site. He noted that the alley for his commercial property next door,
which he has owned since 1975, has not been used for commercial traffic other than trash
pickup. The L-C zoning was a compromise to allow hIm an opportunity to do something WIth
his property. The Coastal Commission wanted 17 parking spaces on a 60' x 100' lot. The City
proposed and finalized commercial off-site parking spaces in exchange for the L-C zoning. ThIs
project was designed with that in mind. He is allowed 10 credits for this lot and he's using 7;
they are in-lieu spaces. The theory is if commercial spaces were put on-site there would be no
way to get the cars off or on the site without a curb cut. When a curb cut is put m beach access
is hindered. Commercial traffic in the alley is untenable because there's no two-way traffic.
He noted his bike shop was an attractton to the beach access and the L-C zone was deSIgned and
limited to encourage beach access and improve the street.
.
.
.
PIce 6. Cdy of Sell Beach PIauma CommwIOll Mmutea of Apnll7, 1996
The Director said the proposed conditions are enforceable. The City regularly Imposes
covenants on property and they are enforced. The Covenants are recorded on the property and
would show up in a title search. Future owners would know the restrictIOns.
Commissioner Brown said he didn't see how that could ever be enforceable. He felt the City
can't enforce the violations it has on Main Street. And felt It almost ludicrous to try to enforce
something going on inside a building. He said he would prefer, in deference to the complaints,
to continue this matter to the next meeting so he could visit the site and see what the reSidents
are talking about.
Mr. Miller said there is no building in town that's built to the alley specifications. The City
has never considered people objecting to the back view of a house when standing in the alley.
Alleys have garage doors, overhead balconies, trash cans. This property was stepped-up ---
from Seal Beach Boulevard. The building behind the smgle story has to be three stories because
the parking is on the first floor. He has been working on this project over four years at thiS
point and to delay it would put his construction time off again. "For me it's an extreme
financial hardship. So I'd hke to answer any questions you have tonight. And even go out With
you after the meeting's over if that's necessary ...".
Commissioner Brown said the City has two letters from residents requesting changes. While
they may/may not be appropriate the purpose of the Planning Commission IS to represent all the
people of Seal Beach. He noted that Renee and Fanny Bollen have had delay after delay through
no fault of their own. IIThat's the on-going serial drama of the Planning CommiSSIOn".
Mr. Miller said he was not familiar with their situation but the plan under discussion tomght is
not different than it was in 1992. He noted Mr. Tandy's only concern seemed to be a stepped
approach so his alley view would be nicer. He said alley views have never been an issue before.
In every alley in this town you'll see apartment houses, stucco, not attractive but they're three
stories. If you live in a bungalow next to a two-story house it looks hke you're in a canyon
because they're enormous. But those new buildings are built to Code. He said he's Within the
City's requirements and he has sacrificed to do It. He urged the CommiSSIOn to consider hiS
comments.
The Chair, rephrasing Commissioner Brown, said he seemed to be saying that if the applicant
has waited four years, another three weeks won't matter. She said the Commission wants to
make sure it's doing things right and not have problems after the fact.
Commissioner Sharp pointed out that Mr. MIller hasn't waited four years, he's been four years
in the process of getting his project approved. He's done everything he could poSSibly do. And
he agreed that the rear view from the alley isn't usually considered.
Commissioner Dahlman said the recent letters appear to be more toward the zomng of the area
than the specific project. When the letters say the house is boxy when viewed from the rear It
....0 7 - C1ly of Seal Beach I'IIIuwI8 CCImau_ Mmutos of Apnl17. 1996
. must be remembered the project totally comphes with Code requirements for the ZT A. And,
the ZT A was subjected to Public Hearings over several weeks before either Commissioner
Brown or Chairperson Campbell were on the Commission. Mr. Miller's proposal IS consistent
with the meaning and intent of all those hearings.
Commissioner Brown said this is an Architectural ReVIew and not question of whether It's in
compliance.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to continue Minor Plan Review to May 8,
1996.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOFS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
2-1..1-1
Brown, Campbell
Sharp
Dahlman
Law
The Commission asked if two votes in favor were sufficient to pass this Motion? The DIrector
said yes, a procedural Motion may carry with a majority of the quorum.
.
SCHEDULED MATIERS
Director Whittenberg briefly discussed and indicated any changes made for each resolutIOn under
consideration prior to a Motionl being made.
6. Consideration of Resolution 96-9 for Fee Adjustment - Transportation Facilities and
Programs Development Fees.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution No. 96-9 as
presented with Commi~ioner Sharp abstaining.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
3-0-1-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Sharp
Law
.
.
.
.
Plall B - CIl1 of Seal Beach PIaaauIa Caamw.OII Mmutea of Apnll7. 1996
7.
Consideration of Resolutions regarding "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1
[Continued from April 3, 1996]
Commissioner Brown, referencing page 22, asked how staff arrived at the number 48 in-lieu
parking spaces. The Director explained 30 parking spaces would be created by deckmg the 8th
Street parking lot and 18 spaces could be created by re-stnping existing City-owned parlang lots.
Commissioner Dahlman commented on economic constraints, the role of government and
taxpayers and parking issues. [Attachment 3].
Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Dahlman that there has been a long pubhc
process in reviewing the Main Street Specific Plan. Although it may seem the CommIssIon is
going to review and vote on the resolutions fairly quickly, he wanted to assure people that this
is taking place only after a long process. He emphasized that the CommiSSIon is not voting for
parking meters per se, it is voting for a Plan which includes the possibility of parlang meters.
The Plan also includes other possibilities such as double-decking the 8th Street parking lot. The
City Council will hold future Public Hearings to determine what the Plan will be. The
Commission has set out parameters establishing a framework for those diSCUSSIOns. He wanted
to make especially clear that he was not voting for parking meters, for or agamst a decked
structure on 8th Street or an additional parking lot. But he was votmg for a Plan with options
and which takes into account future needs. Main Street can be considered a mall WIth the CIty
being the mall's manager. A city government is not a good mall manager in that It doesn't
respond quickly or efficiently enough --- but it's doing the best it can. He agreed WIth
Commissioner Dahlman that the taxpayers and the City are subsidizing many aspects of the
businesses along Main Street. Those subsidies would not be found in a dIfferent area such as
South Coast Plaza. The City gets benefits from those businesses such as a nice place to stroll
and a friendly town and a nice atmosphere. "It's a mutually symbiotic relationshIp". It must
be understood as a unique relationship.
Commissioner Sharp said these resolutions have been crafted and pohshed by the Planning
Commission and now they go to the City Council for final action.
Chairperson Campbell said she was very pleased with Commissioner Brown's comments at the
last meeting to the effect that we need to provide as many options as possible for the City. It's
important the City be able to do what it wants and needs to do. She said the Importance of
parking cannot be emphasized enough, notmg that when a merchant lacks parking people just
don't patronize the business.
Director Whittenberg asked the Commission to first review the resolution for AB 1600 as the
figures from that Resolution were incorporated into the other resolutions.
Plco 9 - CIty of Seal Beach PIIIuuac CommuaIoa Mmutea of Apnl17, 1996
. The Chair, referencing pages 21-22, Table 2 - Estimated Costs of Parking Improvements Over
8 Year Time Frame said two of the calculations were miscalculated:
. Parking meters for City lots
. Parking meters for 8th St. lot
$52,325 should be $52,238.00
$17,250 should be $19,837.50
These changes would necessarily change the AB 1600 figure from $5,164.66 per space to
$5,197.62 per space. Staff will correct all the resolutions to reflect the corrected figures.
a. Negative Declaration 96-1
Resolution No. 96-10, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Seal Beach Recommending Adoption of Negative Declaration 96-1, Relatmg to
Revision 96-1 of the Main Street Specific Plan.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 96-10
as presented.
.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
b. General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B
Resolution No. 96-11, A Resolution of the Planning CommiSSIOn Recommending
to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 96-1A, Amendmg the
Land Use Element to Maintain 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 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 Categories Within the
City .
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution No. 96-11 as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
.
***
.
.
.
....e 10 . CIty of Sea111each PIImuDc CClIIImuII_ Mmutca of Apn117. 1996
Resolution No. 96-12, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of
Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of General Plan
Amendment 96-1B, Amending Table 16 of the Housing 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.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution No. 96-12
as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
c. "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1
Resolution No. 96-13, 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.
I
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution No. 96-13
as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahbnan, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
d. Zone Text Amendment 96-3
Resolution No. 96-14, A Resolution of the Planning CommIssion of the City of
Seal Beach Recommending to the City Councll Approval of Zone Text
Amendment 96-3, Creating the "Main Street Specific Plan Zone" (Sections 28-
1250 through 28-1257) and Amending Section 28-1804.3 and 28-2408.C to
Maintain Internal Consistency of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal
~.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution No. 96-14
as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahbnan, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
.
.
.
Plae II - 011 of s.I Belch PIaaDaI8 CamauuIoa Mmufea of ApnlI7, 1996
e.
Zone Change 96-1
Resolution No. 96-15, 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 Appropriate Decreases of Other
Zoning Categories Within the City.
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution No. 96-15
as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
f.
AB 1600 Report
Resolution Number 96-16, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the
City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Adoption of the Main
Street Specific Plan AB 1600 Report and the Proposed AB 1600 Parking
Mitigation Fee Established Therem.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Resolution No. 96-16
as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
g. Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report.
In addition, recommend that the City Council receive and file the Background
Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report, revised and dated January 1996.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to recommend the City Council
receive and fde the Background StudIes - Main Street Specific Plan Report,
revised and dated January 1996.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell, Sharp
Law
***
.
.
.
Plae 12 . CIly of Seal Beach PImnma COIIUDJIIIClO Mmutel of Apn117. 1996
8.
Resolution No. 96-17, A Resolution of the Planning CommIssIon of the CIty of
Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zoning Text
Amendment 95-1, Amending Article 18, Sign Provisions, to Establish Standards
for the Display of Temporary Advertising Banners in Commercial Zones.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brian to approve Resolution No. 96-17 as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
***
The Chair called a recess at 8:55. The meeting resumed at 9:05 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Zoning Text Amendment 96-2
[Continued from February 21 and April 3, 1996]
The applicant, the City of Seal Beach requested permiSSIOn to amend to the Code of the City
of Seal Beach to:
(1) Prohibit new third stories in the medium and hIgh denSIty zones of
Old Town; and
(2) Allowing certain roof treatments to exceed the 25 foot heIght limIt
by up to 2-3 feet, subject to a discretionary review by the Planmng
Commission.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file m the Planning Department
for reference].
Commission Comments on Staff Report
Commissioner Sharp indicated he had watched the Apnl 3rd Plannmg Commission on cable
television and he was advised he could then vote on this matter.
.
.
.
....013 - CJIf of Seal Bcacb PIIDnm8 CclmmwIClll Mmutcl of Apnl17, 1996
Public Hearing
The Chair asked if there were any persons wishing to speak on allowing roof treatments to
exceed the 25 foot height limit by 2 - 3 feet. No one came forward and the Chair closed the
Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
With a consensus of the Commission, the Chair called for a vote on ZTA 96-2(a).
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to deny Zone Text Amendment 96-2(a), thus
denying the prohibition of new third stories in the medium (MIlD) and high (RHD)
density zones of Old Town and instnJcting staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Dahlman, Brown, Campbell
Law
Regarding ZTA 96-2(b):
Allowing certain roof treatments to exceed the 25 foot height limIt by
up to 2-3 feet, subject to a discretionary review by the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Brown asked if staff had received any addIuonalletters as he had receIved
telephone calls on this matter? Mr. Whittenberg said no. The Chair said she received one
phone call.
Commissioner Brown said he also received a phone call who opposed exceeding the height
limit. The caller felt the neighbor's ocean views would be blocked because the entire roof
line would be higher.
r
Commissioner Sharp said he would be very cautious in increasmg the height limit. While 2'
or 3' doesn't sound like much, in a beach town the ocean view is much more Important to
more people than whether the building has a pitched or a flat roof.
Commissioner Dahlman said this was also his concern when he asked if thIS would be
applied City-wide. He said the testimony has related to the approxImate 13 homes which are
on lots 37.48' wide instead of 371h' wide. He suggested restricting this type of approval to
just those homes because in those cases the view issue doesn't apply. It could be tned with
minimal risk. If it's popular and demand increases City-wIde then the Commission could
hold further hearings.
l'Iao 14 - CJty of Seal Belch 1'IIaama Commu._ Mmutos of Apn117, 1996
. Commissioner Brown said those 13 lots are exactly the lots people are concerned about as
they are beach-side and they could block somebody's view.
Commissioner Dahlman said those views are already blocked by three stories m every case
except the corner homes; their views are already blocked by an entire third story.
Commissioner Brown said that if a third story were added then we're not talking about
allowing an extra 2' or 3'. We're talking about increasing the height limit from 25' to 28'
for a roof treatment. That could apply City-wide or only in Old Town. He did not get the
impression that the Commission was focusing on only those 13 lots. The majonty of the
testimony was to allow people to have a third story when they have the 371h' and not takmg
that away. He felt the caller had a valid point, that when a lot is 37' + --- Just a fractlon
away from allowing a third story. Half of those are ocean front properties and those are the
properties most likely to block a cherished view of someone behind them.
Commissioner Dahlman said that if that were really Commissioner Brown's lOgIC, he should
have voted not to allow any more third stories in Seal Beach. That would be the logic of the
person who called him. And yet Commissioner Brown voted the other way.
.
Commissioner Brown said the caller's view of the third story issue was that the thIrd stories
are on the back of the lots and they don't affect people's views.
Commissioner Dahlman said that to have your view affected by those lots you'd have to be
across or on Ocean Avenue looking toward the beach. Their decks are on theIr second story.
He asked if they would lose their ocean view because someone on the corner added 2' - 3' of
roof treatment?
Commissioner Brown said yes, the deck would be at 22' and if you're a 6' person your eye
level is at 51h' which is 27'. If the neighbor buIlds a 28' roof, you've got a VIew of a roof
line. Now, however, with a 25' roof you can see over hIS roof.
Commissioner Sharp asked if people in the Marina Hill area had decks?
.
Commissioner Dahlman said he didn't think this issue would apply to Marina HIll homes.
He said he thought it just applied to people who were deprived of a third story by 1/8" in lot
width. The Bollen's thought they were buying a 371h' lot but when someone performed an
excruciatingly exact survey they were 1/8" short of the 371h'. This means that their house,
which is just like their neighbor's house, can't have the thIrd story that their neighbor can.
Commissioner Sharp said the Planning Commission passed the Bollen's applicatlon but It was
subsequently turned down by the City Council. CommissIOner Dahlman saId the CouncIl
took that action at a time when they thought there was a lot of support for removmg all third
stories in town. When the lot size clarification was turned down the CouncIl sent the
Planning Commission a ZT A on eliminating all third stones and the Planmng CommissIOn
has subsequently heard there was overwhelmingly no support for disallowing third stories.
.
.
.
PIle 15. CII;y ofSeal Beach I'1amuDa CommuaIOll Mmutea of Apnll7, 1996
Commissioner Brown said this application is not about dIsallowmg third stories or about
those lots which mayor may not be allowed to have thIrd stories, It's about allowing roof
treatments to exceed 25' in height.
Commissioner Sharp asked staff for clarification on how much territory this apphcation
covers.
Mr. Whittenberg said that is stafrs question to the Planning CommIssion. Testimony was
basically received from Old Town area residents but in many cities the application would
apply city-wide. Staff wants the Commission to know this could apply CIty-wide if they
wish it to. The Commission should advise staff where it wants the applicanon to apply.
The Commissioners expressed their views on allowing roof treatments to exceed 25'.
Chairperson Campbell said she thought it should only apply in Old Town. Marina Hill,
Leisure World, College Park East and College Park West all are different. The construction
is completely different and that comes Into play.
Commissioner Sharp felt the Commission had to be very cautious on how thIs ZT A was
worded because of the view situation.
"
Mr. Whittenberg suggested the municipal Code has language now and staff would propose
the same language if the Commission were to consider this type amendment. Any
application would be subject to a Height Variation, with a Public Hearing, and requires
Notice to all persons within 300' of the subject site. It would be simIlar to a covered roof
access structure application, which contains a requirement that the structure not block a view
from an existing deck area.
Commissioner Dahlman said that former Planning Commissioner Joe Orsini added wordIng
into that application which said does not block the Drimary view. He didn't think the CIty of
Seal Beach residents or Planning Commissioners want to get into regulating VIew Issues. "I
think we should get to a height limit and stick by it. And if the sense of the Commission is
not to pass this, then fine. But... we could go on forever with views and It can end up with
all kinds of litigation n. He then described some of the litigIOUS problems the CIty of Laguna
Beach has had over view issues. He said he felt this is a dangerous Issue to get into. He felt
Mr. Orsini was mistaken in getting that added into that ordinance and I regret that. And I've
already said that previously. I
Commissioner Brown said the Planning CommIssion was becoming Involved in blocking
view issues. He thought it was best, at this time, to say the City has a height hmit of 25' as
there did not seem to be an overwhelming Interest one way or the other for increasing the
height limit. He noted prior discussions on covered roof access structures where people were
upset blocking a portion of a view. With this application there's dIscussion of blocking a
view along an entire roof line and it's not a good idea at this time.
.
.
.
Plgo 16 - ~ of Seal Beach l'1aaomc COIIIID1IBIOII Mmutos of Apnl17. 1996
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to deny Zoning Text Amendment 96-2(b), thus
not allowing certain roof treatments to exceed the 2S foot height limit by up to 2 - 3
feet, and instruct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
Before the vote, Commissioner Dahlman said it's a shame that this ZTA will be denied
because it perpetuates a box-type of zoning in Old Town. The examples from staff on the
cities of Huntington Beach and Dana Point are excellent and should be considered at some
future time by themselves. Something along these lines could be done and could improve the
diversity of architecture in Old Town. Right now everyone is maximIzing therr allowable
space and the effect is box-like. It should be done in such a way that the residents of Old
Town would support it.
Commissioner Brown suggested that if there were more trees in Old Town, that would block
to look of the box-like structures.
,
Chairperson Campbell referencing a newspaper article regarding Balboa, saId they are doing
things to encourage architectu~ diversity, to get away from box-like bulldings.
,
3-1-1
Sharp, Brown, Campbell
Dahlman
Law
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
10. Conditional Use Pennit 94-4
770 Pacific Coast Highway * Burger King
Staff Rej)Ort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department
for reference]. The applicant, property owner and business owner, Leroy Stone, for Burger
KIng at 770 Pacific Coast Highway, is requesting a SIX (6) month extension for hIS dnve-thru
window. Staff inspected the site on April 8, 1996 and found it to be complying with all
provisions of the initial Commission resolution. In addloon to the six month extenSIon, the
applicant requests permission to: place a child-sized table In the recreation area to be used by
small children's groups for birthday parties. The table would be 18" off the floor and would
seat ten children. Staff sees no ,problem with the additional request for the table.
Other issues, not related to the application, are smoke and odors. Staff receIved a petition,
included in the staff report, which addresses smoke and odors emanating from the restaurant
due to the cooking methods.
Plae 17 - CIty of Seal Beach I'IImw!a CommwIOll Muude8 of Apnll7, 1996
.
Additional correspondence received by staff and presented to the CommIssIon IS:
. Opposing letter from Donald Pasch, 332 8th St., Seal Beach, dated April 12,
1996 [Attachment 4];
I
. Applicant letter from Leroy Stone, 16936 Coral Cay Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated April 15, 1996 [Attachment 5];
. Applicant letter from Leroy Stone, 16936 Coral Cay Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated April 17, 1996, enclosing a petition [attachment ]; and
. Applicant letter from Leroy Stone, 16936 Coral Cay Lane, Huntington Beach,
dated April 17, 1996, enclosing site photographs [attachment ].
The applicant has committed to installing a catalytic-type emissions scrubber which will
eliminate smoke and odors outside the restaurant. The AIr Quality Management District
(AQMD) has said this equipment will reduce those exhaust duct emissions approximately
90%. Concerns regarding Burger King employees using street parking has been addressed in
the staff report. He indicated these are not issues directly related to tonight's review of the
drive-thru window. Staff feels ~ese side issues cannot limIt the approval the continued use
of the drive-thru window. He added this application wIll be before the CommissIOn agaIn m
. six months for final review. This will allow time to see how the new equipment will work.
Commission Comments on Staff Re.port
Commissioner Sharp asked if there is a timetable for installing the catalytlc scrubber?
Commissioner Dahlman said the applicant's letter indicates the machinery will be operatlonal
in two weeks.
Public Hearing
The Chair opened the Public Hearing.
Leroy Stone * 770 Pacific Coast Highway * Burger King
Mr. Stone said he had no substantive additional comments to add but noted the CommiSSIOn
is being asked to review only the drive-thru window. He has voluntarily addressed the Issues
of smoke and odor and believes his catalytic machmery will please the community.
Commissioner Brown asked if his horizon ordenng window worked? Mr. Stone said yes and
it operates during all hours of operation. Commissioner Brown said he had driven through
the drive-thru but the ordering system didn't appear to work. Mr. Stone SaId he would check
on this.
.
Plao 18 . CIty of ScaI Belch PIaaIaIme Commw_ Mmufea of Apnl17. 1996
. Joe DiMento * (No Address Givenl * Seal Beach
Mr. DiMento asked the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request for addltlonal
seatlng. He thought it would be better to wait until the upgraded equipment IS installed and
the test period has begun to evaluate the efficiency of the equipment. The test period would
run during the summer, the busiest time of the year. It must be proven that the smoke and
foul odors can be contained before additional seating is approved.
Commissioner Dahlman asked about the restaurant's sound system and the kid's seating.
Mr. DiMento said he has not been bothered by the sound system but the kid's seatlng is
going to result in an increase in business. Where the children are the relatlves are and that
would increase the smoke and odor. He asked where we would go from there? On a
positive side, Mr. DiMento thanked Mr. Stone for his extra effort in installing the new,
upgraded equipment.
No one else wished to come forward.
.
Rebuttal * Leroy Stone
Mr. Stone said he could understand Mr. DtMento's concerns regarding new equipment. He
assured the Commission the new equipment has been approved and certified by the AQMD.
The same type equipment is currently in use at other and more high volume restaurants. For
example, it has been in use for the last 3 - 5 years at Knotts Berry Farm. The equIpment
solved all their smoke and odor problems. The manufacturer offers a money back guarantee
if it doesn't do the job.
Regarding children's birthday parties, the restaurant already has the parties but they're done
in the adult areas. This new table would keep the children's party noise away from the
adults having lunch by having the table near the playground. It would not necessarily
increase business.
Commissioner Dahlman said the main objections have been about the smoke. He
complimented Mr. Stone on going out on his own and obtaIning this equipment voluntanly.
He asked about the capacity of the new equipment. Mr. Stone said even if the restaurant's
volume doubled from its present volume this machinery would be more than adequate. ThIS
Burger King is a low volume Burger King.
Commissioner Dahlman then asked if the applicant would object to a CondItion of Approval
being added to his CUP requiring this equipment? Mr. Stone satd no, he has already
committed to this in writing. Commissioner Dahlman explained that the CUP must reflect
the fact that the present applicant may, one day, sell thIS restaurant to another owner and the
Commission is looking to protect the interest of the area residents. Mr. Stone explained the
equipment is permanent and physically becomes a part of the broiler.
.
Chairperson Campbell asked what the applicant would think of a three month extension
instead of a six month extension to see if this equipment works?
Plae 19. Caty of Seal Bach I'IluIam8 CClmaua81l111 Mmldel of Apnl17, 1996
. Mr. Whittenberg said that would be the Commission's option. However, the purpose of
tonight's Public Hearing is to consider the operation of the drive-through WIndow. The
restaurant itself is a permitted use. The restaurant is currently complying with all CIty and
AQMD requirements with its current equipment. The new equipment w1l1 improve the
situation but the restaurant could continue to operate because it's a permitted use. If the
Commission were to deny this CUP, at any time, the applicant could still operate the
restaurant with its existing equipment. The restaurant will still be in compliance even If the
new equipment doesn't satisfy all the neighbors. The COml!1isslOn is dealing WIth how
people react to odors and smoke and that's the same way people react to noise. The
Commission needs to focus on the drive-through window.
Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Whittenberg if he was saying that there is nothing Mr.
DiMento can do about his complaints on smoke and odors because the restaurant IS in
compliance? Mr. Whittenberg said it would be very difficult to prove an issue that would
involve the City. The CUP is for the applicant's drive-through WIndow, not for the
restaurant. The restaurant is an allowed use in that zone. As long as the apphcant meets all
the City's building and zoning code requirements and AQMD emission requirements he has
the legal right to operate the restaurant. The Chair said something isn't gelling. Mr.
Whittenberg said if the requirements are not suffiCIent, that IS somethIng for AQMD to
resolve.
.
Mr. Steele said the particular problem at issue is not one which can be addressed under the
municipal Code under the CUP process, which is what the Commission is looking at. It can
be addressed through the AQMD through their regulations and permitting process. It can
also be addressed through the private nuisance abatement remedies under State law. It could
rise to the level of a public nuisance theory. Under the City's municipal Code the restaurant
is a permitted use as of right and the CUP is for the drive-thru operation. The City cannot
address the smoke and odor emissions through the CUP process.
The Chair asked the applicant when his new equipment would be operational'] Mr. Stone
said within two weeks. The Chair asked if the neighbor's would be able to reahze the
change immediately'] Mr. Stone said yes.
Commissioner Dahlman, referencing Mr. Steele's remarks, said the easiest way to deal with
this is to attach a Condition to the CUP.
Mr. Steele said given the fact that the applicant has consented to the attachment of thIS
condition he wouU:l have no problems WIth it.
Commissioner Dahlman said If a future owner tried to economize and not repair the
equipment and was in violation of that Condition then he would lose his drive-thru privilege;
that would be an incentive.
.
.
.
.
PIle 20. CIty 01 Seal Bcacb PIluuuaa CclmmwIOll Mmutea 01 Apnl17. 1996
Mr. Steele said he was concerned for the nexus between the burden of a drive-thru and the
imposition of a condition. However, since the applicant has consented to the Condition, the
City doesn't have to find the nexus; it can add the Condition comfortably.
Commissioner Brown said the nexus would be if there are less people going through the
drive-thru because it's not allowed, then there are less hamburgers being cooked and
therefore less smoke. Mr. Steele said that would be the theory and he would have to have
evidence to support it.
Mr. Stone said if he could add more tables in the restaurant it would change the parking
requirement.
Commissioner Brown said that when the applicant initially came before the Planning
Commission he had to make part of the restaurant a play area for parking requirement
calculations. He asked how the proposed children's table would impact the SItuation, aslang
if it was the size of the restaurant and not the number of seats which determined the parking
calculation?
Mr. Whittenberg explained the square footage of the restaurant area determines the parking
needs.
Commissioner Brown said the children's table would increase the square footage of the
restaurant area. Mr. Whittenberg said that would be an interpretation, noting staff VIews the
proposal as not increasing the size of the restaurant. It's located in a non-restaurant portion
of building and secondly, it is an additional use in the recreation area that now is occumng
in the restaurant itself. Commissioner Brown disagreed.
Mr. Stone suggested to the Commission that the review tonight is for the dnve-thru window
and not the other issues.
Commissioner Brown asked the applicant what his parking requirement would be if he did
not have the drive-thru window? Mr. Stone said he didn't have that figure. He recalled he
could expand the interior of the restaurant to 2400 square feet versus his current 1800 square
feet. The Director said he would have to review the ongmal staff report to verify the
numbers.
Commissioner Brown asked the applicant not to take this review personally, that he felt his
restaurant was an extremely clean, nice restaurant. On the other hand, the Planning
Commission must balance the rights of all the City's reSIdents and to achieve the most
equitable solution.
Mr. Stone said he agreed with Commissioner Brown and that's why he voluntarily ordered a
$5,000 catalytic emissions scrubber to eliminate the smoke and odor problems.
.
.
.
....e 21 - City of Seal BeIIi:h PIIIaaaI8 Camaumcla Mmutc8 of Apn117. 1996
Commissioner Brown suggested a one month continuance.
Commissioner Dahlman said if a Condition of Approval is to be added then the ComrmsslOn
needs to wait anyway.
Commissioner Sharp said the Commission was getting on the wrong track by considering
issues other than the drive-thru window. He commended the apphcant for instalhng the
emissions scrubber and noted that in six months this matter WIll be before the Commission
again.
The Chair closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-4 for
a six (6) months extension, a children's table to seat ten (10) children and the addition
of a Condition of Approval regarding the catalytic emissions scrubber, and instruct staff
to prepare the appropriate resolution.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Brown, Campbell, Dahlman
Law
Director Whittenberg said staff will bring back a Resolution at the Commission's next
meeting, May 8th for final approval. The Resolution will specify the actual model number
of the equipment being installed. Once the Resolution is adopted it will start a ten calendar-
day appeal period.
Chairperson Campbell asked what remedy the citizens will have if the emIssions scrubber
does not work?
Mr. Whittenberg said they should begin by talking with Planning Department staff. Staff
will then talk with AQMD staff, and ask them to reVIsit the SIte. If resolution can't be
achieved at that point, staff will explore other avenues.
Commissioner Dahlman said before the Commission actually approves the resolution, the
equipment will have been in for, seven days.
Commissioner Brown indicated the residents are free to come to the next meetIng and request
the Resolution be pulled for discussion if there are problems.
.
.
.
i'lce 22 . Cdy of Sell Beach PIIuuuo& CclmnusIIClll MmuteI of Apnl17. 1996
11. Height Variation 96-1
C-37 SurCside ,
Staff RqK)rt
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department
for reference]. The applicant and property owner, Cheryl Johnson, requested approval to
construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the 35' height limit in
Surfside. Specifically, the proposed structure would exceed the height limit by
approximately 41h.'.
Commission Ouestions on Staff Report
Commissioner Brown asked if this is a one bedroom residence? The applicant said yes.
Public Hearing
The Chair declared the Public Hearing open.
Cheryl Johnson ... C-37 Surfside
Ms. Johnson asked if the Resolution is signed at the next meeting does she have to wait one
month to begin? She indicated her application has already been submItted to the Califorma
Coastal Commission.
Director Whittenberg asked if her plans had been submItted to the City's plan checker? Ms.
Johnson said no. Mr. Whittenberg said she could begin that process if the CommissIOn takes
a position to approve this.
Mr. Steele said the Commission can act by Minute Order.
No one else wished to speak and the Chair closed the Pubhc Hearing.
MINUTE ORDER: MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Resolution
96-19, authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution once it's prepared by staff, thus
approving Height Variation 96-1.
Before the vote, Commissioner Brown indIcated he would not want to see the Plannmg
Commission set a precedent for authorizing the signing of Resolutions pnor to therr
preparation and presentation to the Commission.
Mr. Whittenberg apologized, saying staff had anticipated having the Resolutions to the
Planning Commission on Monday but the workload did not allow that.
Commissioner Dahlman left the meeting.
.
.
.
PIle 23 - City of Seal Beach I'I.uuuDc CommIssIClll MIIlutes of Apnl17. 1996
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
ABSENT:
3-0 -2
Sharp, Brown, Campbell
Dahlman, Law
***
STAFF CONCERNS
Commissioner Dahlman returned.
12. Appeal of ZTA 96-1 re Construction of Decks in Rear Yard Setbacks
To be heard by City Council on April 22, 1996.
13. Letter of March 16, 1996 from Curt Wballon re ZT A 95-1 on Banners.
The Director indicated that after the Public Hearing on ZT A 95-1 another letter was
received and that correspondence is in the Commission's packet tomght.
COMMISSION..CONCERNS
Resienation Letter
Chairperson Campbell read her letter of resignation, effective May 20th, from the Planning
Commission as she has been elected to the City Council. The Chair's last Planning
Commission meeting will be May 8, 1996.
~,
With the consensus of the Commission, the Chair adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
C;o~
Joan Fillmann
Recording Secretary
APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1996 were approved on May
_, 1996.
Attachments: 7
.
.
.
April 17, 1996
APR li"'C~
, 7 l;JvO
City of Bea1 Beach Plannin; Commi..1on
City Hall
Dear Planning Oommi..icn.~8,
A. a r..ident of Seal B.ach for the p..t .even-and-a-hal! ye.~., I
have cheri.hed the value whieh has been given to preaerving tte
.mall town visual character of our wonderful city. .
, -....~- - -_.....~
- .
. ~ -' ~
I "'c-"- r - . -: fr:.:: v (:ES
~~.::---_.. _1
I live directly across the alley from the project propose~ by Mr.
Miller fo~ 229 Seal Beach Boulevard (item 9~-2).
In many way., I think he b.s put together a goo~ proposal. The
frantage along Seal Beaen Bc~levard is :rea~ed well, wi~h a one.
story commercial, and the materials which echo ~he wooden
construction of the pier seem to me an excellent choice.
I am alsc understar.ding or ~he need to revitalize the commercial
f~ontage of Seal Beach Boulevar~, WhlCh has heen 9haracterized by
two-story Rhoxes" in t.:'le past which detract from the charac~er of
our city.
However, I have a major problem with the bacle: portion of the
project which faces the alley ana the adjacent residential
neighborh.ood.
Th.e proposea residential units are cuite large (1,910 s~~are feet
apiece), and the size of these results in a nbox-type" elevat~on
wh~ch will completely overwhe~m the existing neighborhood.
I realize that the Limited Co~merclal Zone a:lcws fo~ a ~eight of
35 feet a~d is designed to allow for flexibility and encourage
creative redevelop:nent in the area. As a professional planner
myself, I understand and appreciate these goals.
However, as the zoning code notes, one of the intent. of the LC
zone i. to "m:.nimize vlsual and functional conflictSl beeween
resider.tia1 ana nO:1-residential uses w.l,:hin and abutting the zone. II
"
I would respectfully suggest that the impilct upon the adj acent
residential ne~ghborr.ood acro.s the alley eouid be 8ignifioantly
mitigated by two measures!
· Increasing the ..tback from the minimum of 1~ feet, ana
. Reducing the .ize of the ~..idential unit. 80 that th.~e
could be 80m. "Dtepping'" and areiculation, thereby reducing
the "boxiness" of the p:ropoDed building.
(continued)
Attachment 1
Planning Commisslon Minutes 4/17/96
.
'.
I
!
.
john tandy/item 96-2
page two
As I said before, I realize that the height of 35 teet is allowed
within the LC zone. However, because this structure will overtly
dominate the entire area, considerable care should be give~ eo that
the impact upon what is a very fine neighborhocd is kept to a
minimum.
Thank you for your consideration.
Your. truly,
(~2~1'
230 17th St.reet
Seal Seac;:b, CA
(310) 596-6'45
--
90740
.
.
.
234 14th Street
Seal Beach, Ca. 90740
April 16, '996
Dea~ Membe~. of ~h. Planning Commi..ion,
1 am a r.eid.n~ of Sa.l a..ch for 17 year. and a property
own.~ of 228, 230, 232 17~h Street and 234 14th Street.
I am very concerneo about ~he proposed 8~ruc~ur. by Walter
F. Miller a~ 229 Seal Beach 91~d. I have carefully reviewed
his ~endering8. I find the rear structure of multi-f.~ily
residences non-conforming to existing standards and styles
of ~he ne1ghborhood. The rear structure i. too large (excess
~nterior equare footage), too high, too wide, too "boxy" looking.
T~e structure would ben6fit from 80me relief to the eides
o~ ~he building, a reduction of the interior courtyard to
accomo~a~e f~ther setbacK from the ally that could be used
for parking. The proposed parking under the structure create.
a negative visual impact.
I It~on91y appose this structure as re~eered. It star~ly contr&8~S
from the small town village appearance ef 8xisting editices.
I alse want to qo on record to say that Ol~ Townls root designs
should not exceed the 2S feot heiqht llmlt.
I feel eWI city's inte;rity is in yeur hands, please help
~he residents maintain Seal Beachls character.
Very Sincerely,
~tf}~
Marcha E. Katz
Attachment 2
--- Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/96
.
Anton Dahlman, If.D.
GenenII, v....... 0nt:0I0g1t: Surgery
332S Palo Vente Avenue - 811118 101 Long 8Nt:h, CllllfDmla...
Phone:31D~1 F.x:31DGf....74
.
Economic development. business development. or whatever you want to call it. has
evolved over 200 plus years of American history. In fact. it was probably the economic
limits in Europe during the 18th and 19th Centuries. rather than religious and cultural
restraints. that led our ancestors to come to these shores and settle this vast country.
And this is the case throughout history. because you can look at the Roman Empire.
the invasions of England by the Normans and by the Danes. nearly every war for
thousands of years. or you can look at the political and religious struggles that still
plague us in the former Yugoslavia. in Ireland and in the Middle East. and you will see
the economic constraints at the root of the unrest.
So business and economic development has always been about dealing with limits.
but now the world. the American. and especially the Southern California population
density has risen to a level where the actions of each person have significant impact on
that person's neighbors and environment
Thus. we spend most of our time In Planning Commission meetings trying to achieve
an Illusive optimum. We seek. hopefully. to allow each person to enjoy his or her space
to the fullest, but without infringing on the neighbor's space. So the role of government.
when it comes to economic issues in a free enterprise system. is clear. We must strive
to keep the playing field level. so that the ongoing battle of competing economic
Interests will not unfairly favor anyone specific interest over the others.
So what are the competing Interests as regards Main Street? The businessmen
relate with their customers. with the other businesses both on and off Main Street. and
with the residents of Old Town Seal Beach.
We have very clearly heard testimony that the playing field is not level between Main
Street and other businesses. The city and the Old Town residents are now providing
what parking there is for most of the existing Main Street businesses. The result Is that
parking shortages. even if they only occur on sunny days between May and October.
are limiting Main Street businesses. At the same time. however. most Main Street
businesses are benefiting from an indirect parking subsidy from the city and from
neighboring residents.
This Is not necessarily bad because this parking limitation is an incentive for
businesses to grow the quality rather than the quantity of business. On the other hand.
a minimum volume of visitors. shoppers and customers Is required for our Main Street
businesses to compete successfully with similar operations
located inland or in the surrounding beach cities.
e.
- Attachment 3
Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/96
.
.
.
So. even though the parking demand will certainly grow as the supply is increased. I
am in favor of Increasing the supply over the next few years. What I do not favor is any
process that comes at the expense of Old Town and other Seal Beach residents. And
of course this also means it should not be done by city government at the expense of
Seal Beach taxpayers.
Tonight I will vote for a plan that Includes parking meters at some point. Parking
meters. however. are just a further extension of the subsidy that Main Street businesses
are already getting from the residents of Seal Beach. Parking meters are second best
when compared with simply charging each business In proportion to the number of
parking spaces they should be providing.
With this glaring exception. the parking plan is acceptable and clearly in the best
interests of both businesses and residents alike. so I am voting for it
The other important aspects, as determined by the testimony we heard, are: (1) the
number and hours of alcohol selling and serving establishments. (2) parking
requirements for coffee shops, restaurants, etc., (3) the tree and sign programs, and
(4) the deletion of 8.1.0. As planned, these are basically local matters affecting Old
Town immediate residents almost exclusively. These aspects of the plan will help Main
Street businesses meet their needs without providing some kind of hand-out at the
expense of the rest of us, Also the burden on city govemment is clearly kept to a
minimum, with all special programs pretty much left to the businessmen to finance,
administer and carry out on their own.
Thus these aspects of the plan meet my criteria for being acceptable and beyond that
they are really none of my business. I vote for them along with Dr. Brown as pretty
much a strictly local issue for his district.
Anton Dahlman, M.D.
Planning Commissioner
4117/96
2
.
.
.
CITY OF SE,",~ :.::_
r
I
APR I 1 'S~3
DEPAI1TMEM OF:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
April 12, 1996
Planning Commission
211 Eighth street
Seal Beach, California
Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
Dear Sir:
I am writing to oppose the renewal of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-4,
770 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
I am owner of the resident, 332 8th Street, across the street from
Burger King Restaurant. Have no complaints against Burger King so
far. Now as the weather is getting warmer we well want to have our
windows open at night and there well be increase of out of town
visitors with their loud noises from radio, voices, swearing and
vehicles door slamming. Then what about the truck delivering at
night and early in the morning.
A fast food restaurant should never be allow next to a resident.
Sincerely,
Jf)~~~tP~,
Donald E. Pasch
332 8th Street
Seal Beach, Ca. 90740
Attachment 4
Planning Commission M1nutes 4/17/9S--
.
.
.
LEROY L. STONE
16936 Coral Cay Lane
Huntington Beach. CA 92649
Bus: (310) 597-5206
Fax: (310) 597-7706
CITY C" c
E"6
,...- .--~-.
L..-::"-" . ,
Dc\!E'!..(l':: ': i-
- ....--
APRIL 15, 1996
MR LEE WHITTENBERG
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
CITY HALL
. 211 EIGHT STREET
SEAL BEACH, CA 90740
RE: CUP 94-4 RENEWAL
STAFF REPORT 04/17/96
DEAR MR WHITTENBERG:
AFTER REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT WHEREIN STAFF RECOMMENDS
APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF CUP 94-4, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR COMMENTS FOR YOUR AND THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS CONSIDERATION.
AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE CUP REQUEST PERTAINS ONLY TO THE CONTINUED
OPERATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU, TO walCH STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL.
THE OTHER REQUEST IS FOR INSTALLATION OF A "MINI" TABLE FOR
CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 3 AND 8, FOR THEIR BIRTHDAY PARTIES.
STAFF HAS ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT I FEAR THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY LOSE SIGHT OF THESE ISSUES,
IF RESIDENTS CHOOSE TO VOICE OPINIONS ON OTHER CONCERNS.
HAVING COMPLIED WITH ALL 26 CONDITIONS SINCE OPENING, ONE MIGHT
BEGIN TO FEEL SINGLED OUT, WHEN, IN SOME INSTANCES, THE SAME
RESIDENTS SIMPLY KEEP FINDING MORE AND MORE ITEMS TO BLAME UPON
BURGER KING. I SOMETIMES WONDER ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR
DISCUSSIONS BEFORE BURGER KING WAS ESTABLISHED. I HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN PARTIAL TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND INTEND TO CONTINUE
TO PROVIDE A RESTAURANT WITH QUALITY FOOD, SERVICE AND
CLEANLINESS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY.
SMOKE AND ODOR
UNDER MY OWN INITIATIVE, I HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO PROVIDE AND
INSTALL A CATALYST FILTER SYSTEM UPON THE BROILER.
THIS FILTER WILL VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE ALL PERCEIVABLE SMOKE AND
ODORS.
BURGER
KING
~
Attachment 5
Planning Commission Mlnutes 4/17/96
.
.
.
BURGER
KING
APRIL 15, 1996
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PAGE 2 OF 3
@
APPROVAL FROM THE A.Q.M.D. WAS RECEIVED TODAY FOR INSTALLATION
OF THE FILTER. THE FILTER IS APPROVED AND CERTIFIED BY THE
A.Q.M.D. AS SUCH, IT HAS BEEN ORDERED AND SHOULD BE OPERATIONAL
WITHIN 2 WEEKS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN VOLUNTARILY, AND
AT SIGNIFICANT COST, IN ORDER TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO ADJACENT
RESIDENTS.
BURGER KING CORPORATION HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THIS REGARD,
AND THE A.Q.M.D. HAS NOT EVEN SURVEYED THE RESTAURANT, MUCH
LESS REQUIRED A FILTERING DEVICE.
THE PETITION INITIATED BY MR DIMENTO (730 COASTLINE DRIVE) HAS
BEEN MARKED TO INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THOSE SIGNING. 10 OF
THE RESIDENTS WERE LOCATED ON COASTLINE, ONE OF WHICH IS QUITE
FAR NORTH ON P.C.H., AND IT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS DOUBTFUL THAT
ANY SMOKE BLOWS THAT FAR, OR IN THAT DIRECTION.
THERE ARE 5 RESIDENCES ON 8th STREET. AGAIN, IT IS DOUBTFUL
THAT ANY SMOKE HAS EVER BLOWN IN THEIR DIRECTION.
THE TWO COMMERCIAL ADDRESSES ARE JACK-IN-THE AND BAHIA MARINE.
JACK-IN-THE-BOX OBVIOUSLY HAS A MONETARY INTEREST, AND BAHIA
MARINE CONTINUES TO SPRAY BOATS, EMITTING OVERSPRAY, WHICH FALLS
UPON CARS (LIKE MY BLACK ONE) IN THE BURGER KING PARKING LOT.
THIS ANALYSIS BREAKS DOWN THE "27" SIGNATORYS ON THE PETITION
TO 15 RESIDENCES.
PARKING ON 8th STREET
STAFF'S COMMENT IS THAT A (SINGLE) COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED
REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF A BURGER KING EMPLOYEE PARKING
ON 8th STREET. STAFF OBSERVANCE INDICATED 3 RESIDENTS PARKING
ON THE STREET AND NO BURGER KING EMPLOYEES. MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES
DON'T EVEN OWN CARS, AND GET RIDES TO WORK.
MY SURVEY INDICATED THAT A GREAT NUMBER OF RESIDENCES AND
APARTMENTS ON 8th STREET DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT CODE
FOR PARKING.
ALL PROPERTIES OBSERVED INDICATED THAT IN THE CASES WHERE
RESIDENCES DID HAVE GARAGES, THOSE GARAGES WERE BEING USED FOR
STORAGE, NOT FOR VEHICLE PARKING.
.
APRIL 15, 1996
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PAGE 3 OF 3
PERHAPS IF THOSE RESIDENTS CLEANED OUT THEIR GARAGES, RATHER
THAN LOOKING FOR A SCAPE GOAT, THEY WOULD HAVE A PLACE TO PARK,
OTHER THAN ON 8th STREET. AND THIS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THOSE
PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RENT OUT THEIR GARAGES TO THIRD PARTIES.
PLEASE, LET'S BE REASONABLE AND REALISTIC WHEN DISCUSSING THIS
MATTER.
IN SUMMARY~ I LIKE SEAL BEACH AND WOULD REQUEST THAT I SIMPLY
BE LEFT TO OPERATE MY BURGER KING.
YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST AND YOUR TENACITY IN READING
THIS RATHER LENGTHY LETTER IS APPRECIATED.
SINCERELY,
.
cc: MR BARRY CURTIS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
.
BURGER
KING
@
~
.
.
-~
~-
I~"
l~ .,
, I
~
.. J"UIIJI
"-
I .
s
,
Ot1~ D Of
@) , ot/.-
tI) tI)
@ ~ ~
OZl H tI)
~ tI)
0 ~
8 :z:
(J/l < H
:z: tI)
C) :;,
H a:l
(JOt. tI) "
~
:z: i-=l l1li"'''
0 a:l r-
H <
8 ~
H <
8 c..
~ E
c.. 0
t)
"
.....
[
./ :
\~
~.
'I;
,.
..'
~
.
.
.
."
Apnl 17, 1996
Mr Lee Whittenberg
City of Seal Beach
City Hall
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach,CA 90740
Re CUP94-4 Renewal
Petition for Kid's Table
Dear Mr. Whittenberg
LEROY L. STONE
16936 Coral Cay lane
Huntington Beach. CA 92649
Bus: (310) 597-5206
Fax: (310) 597-7706
Attached, please find a petition, signed by 36 customers supporting the proposal
for installation of a small table, which will be utilized as a place where small
children can have birthday parties. Parental supervision will of course be
mandatory, as It IS for the playground structure.
As the petition has only been available for 6 days, It would indicate that the
commumty overwhelmmgly supports the concept.
I hereby submit said petition for your review
Thank you for your time and consideration
Smcerely,
BURGER
KING
@)
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/90--
.
.
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
.k/~ E ~.ss
PRINT NAME
i!D~E~S fkrct /fve, ~ kn~ CIl- 9P801/-
DAl/l7/1i
/LsJ t. ~
SIGNATURE
a 0.-.1 ~ Du/.;u-
~a:~ ~^J
PRINT NAME
/ I / ~ ~ ~ J1 t'i.w!dL CIJ '166S'J
ADDRESS . J
'f//1/96
DATE /
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DATE
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DATE
.
.
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
l J,) ~I I L /' rf M
PRINT NAME
D. u 7 I )(":;17 A/
-
,<;';(1 is Ld;9~"I # ('L LL. ..11.kZ~ /
ADDR SS
lA' J -< -1;",,( ~ I IT) y--
SIGNATURE
l' -/d ~?~
DAT
l'O~ C--,..4/t(:RA,/j? 2"2_/ /,7? 5/
PINT NAME ADDRESS
~ -- c:-= J -;;> ~ ~
C./)~ ~~~ ~ -~ 7"6'
SIGNATURE ~ DATE
/2-;:0'~ .&-~~c~
LESL"~ I5LE./L
PRINT NAME
~~~J
rJl o.rk H OJ'V~
PRINT NAME
ftr;/ 'f /l1VvV /lfLO ST edlf/VWf; R-
DRESS
(J I-/;{, /cJ?:>
DATE
33t~ E. BrooJWlUf=tt~, ~n.9Be~
ADDRESS
4-1~ -C1l.P
DATE
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
THANK YOU !!!
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
. Cn6-hh IJC!~d4e..
Q~M~
SIGNATURE
~d-h
cS,4JJbRI1 &otJfes
PR NT NAME
c,uJ-u,~~
IGNATURE
Jutl!; 5/1 fils
. PRINT NAME
d-
'1.J2duLd
SIGNATURE
//~ umndda Iiv~. L B
ADDRESS
4/;~/c;~
(
DATE
90 ~ VLlM j)~ d- (Jd~III.MCt
ADDRESS
t/ 1t6/9h
DATE
9,r~ ~ I
ADDRESS
IJiLllLt" tv
DAT'f//C,/CZ &
1-/34 'h AA-tnt -h. , r
ADDRESS
fA,ttj !!xl/cL, / ar~
U
4--lb .q{.,
DATE
.
.
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
pr. Y\~ kfl~
PRINT NAME
Z tJO S--rt'- s-\ / 5.13.
ADDRESS '
~- ~ '-iLfle/10-
St~ATURE DATE I I
jha,tJ/lo(l - !/ur--I-t"J.D .3~1 Jl~tk lil~ 9~03
P\jNT NAME ADDRESS
sjLo~~~ 41OO~
S NATUR DATE
~~}.\E. '-'OWE-
PRINT NAME
b20" (O~ ~\\ \~ ~ L.e, 9~3
ADDRESS
{lIMJ. rG-r
SIGNATURE
~('{1'
DATE
'C~S IIfc.1idCJII st.:iI:2
lJ, 11.1 6u.- eJ.. r.. ~ 9 j) 'E c 1,
ADDR~SS
a \0\ t1l.. ~"t^ '"
PRINT NAME
SIGNATURE
DATE
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
.
L~\\oQ~~
PRI ME
.
~r~
SIG AT E
J C\ f\ (\ j 0 ~(\~C){\
PRINT NAME
~~U~~
SI ATURE
IAv~ EJ/svJ~'K
;{!;E~
I NATURE
.~'~
PRINT NAM '
.~
SIGNATURE
~
If)" {' 37.. \J; 5'1:) r-c../ 1../:/ I CoJ
'tb3cl
U,'fR. ~ U"-t.-
ADDRESS ~7 12~ ~-\: S. ~,
LJ/tSf'tL
DATE
If.;5-1&
DATE
13S- e:,'tJf(,~
ADDR~2~~
DATE C-.L. .'" L. _~
\ ~ 1 0 1 tVr \:1{)-yz;..~
4/\Vltic,
ADDRESS
~ S}3
~).~
t-/ /1 ~- q ft1
DATE
.
.
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
Ch...l S+Oi'''- '" l1J 0 W
PRINT NAM
~.f..fL..r--
S ATURE
(035 A ?fJld(;n Yfjjz t..".~~"
ADDRESS ' I / 1 () r lTL
~
DATE
~
CllWhtLt ~~
PRINT NAME
O{I ,~/_~ 8/+1,$8 "TD7'i 0
ADDRES
SI
4{i!eJ'1b
DATE
S?~') JfrMt")fl+ Ave ::tJ2- LDna Bea("h q 094
ADDRESS J
~~.
~7it ~
PRINT NAME
/
~ IJLdft lj 'VIe,.. )
SIGNATURE
;JJ1!i~
fl5U C. J J41tfv1t./ ~/ t?#~~ c4
ADDRESS /
iult ~
OAT
~h
/
~d \ ~
~ f \
,)
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
~q
'IIIJ'Jj":L fWJf~ ~p dJ-f! ~
ADDRESS
.
, ~'~ J JJt, ~r/d SOU
P~ NT ME
6a4fLUrr6YJ,
SIGNATURE
l{f33 ~Oe.TOf'J ~T. DcJ..AJf\Jfy (0-1 Q024,1
DATE
~f~ ~. tJ.~U~\
~T NAME
IDu~
r1/~ c..~ lv't a.rJ
PRINT NAME
z.v:)J fLifv\J.JU-V ~'"Il~~ ~."t()j C,L9()Pl
ADDRESS
t./ It'! ~b
DATE
3S01- B€Ll.F(~we.,\ ,~CvU. ~~~"'~8
ADDRESS
f/L4v., SJ J.A/YL Ca r~
SIGNATURE
flo/1t d 7 J t?tJJU /rUt). tt~ /.13. 7tJ f'tI.3
DA E
.
"~I..o. dele/. ~e Mol k.~ ".
PRINT NAME
i2/o u/Jvd~?U &. 11,1:3. 12..{,{;.G
ADDRESS
~adJ~U<A'1 ~./ 10/?C
SIGNATURE DATE /
~b
\~'
1.\'
b
.
BURGER
KING
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
THANK YOU !!!
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
.
G~~~v
PRINT NAME
\~ ~""'* (/ (
~
M.;~W
SIGNATURE
j~}\~ lJ iJ ~ S G~\f IN {.(
PRINT NAME
1b#JA.A()JW1
SIGNATURE
.
- , .
, ., ~ .....,...,~.....:.......-,: ~~. ,.. .- ~ . ~...-- ,.
.
1
.,.
~ \ '\I ~ Wl ~\ltx-v ~ "V \; 'J 6\X\t'
ADDRESS
-Je0\Q'f
J i.-- L/'
H5 Q VerS-i?c) a-.
ADDRESS .
IS (j
DfI~6
~/l^Yr So
~l111%J
., ,. If "Jt'
:;.~'"'.~~~~~:;'.'.. .
~
->
DATE
T
~,~6
~,~
o
.
BURGER
KING
-0
@
BURGER KING HAS RESPONDED TO THE HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS BY LOCAL
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED AREA TO HOLD BIRTHDAY PARTIES
FOR SMALL CHILDREN, PRIMARILY FROM THE AGES OF 3 TO 8.
TO MEET YOUR NEEDS, WE HAVE APPLIED TO THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BIRTHDAY TABLE NEXT TO
THE PLAYGROUND. IT IS "KID'S SIZE" AND WOULD SEAT 10 CHILDREN.
BURGER KING WOULD OFFER A "PARTY PACKAGE" WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
PARTY FAVORS, A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BALLOONS, PARTY HATS, PLATES,
NAPKINS, ETC. AND A HOST/HOSTESS, ALL FOR A NOMINAL FEE.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, IS BRING THE CHILDREN AND HAVE FUN!
BURGER KING WILL TAKE CARE OF THE SET-UP AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THE CLEANUP.
A PHOTO OF THE TABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION IS SHOWN FOR YOUR
REVIEW. IT WORKS GREAT! THE KIDS AND PARENTS LOVE IT.
YOU CAN HELP MAKE THIS HAPPEN. JUST ADD YOUR NAME BELOW.
THANK YOU !!!
.
J...AfvDY E. c..~U:rAUJI-\
PRINT NAME
SI~~'~
1o5 \ c..ct.,o "" ~t)'O A\J
ADDRESS
* 3 ~'"\~. ~ 90~~
I
L\- "\2~-~(o.
DATE
L~~E-
PRINT AME
~-g4' {!~e..Ai. +-I. ~ 421.: 49-
ADDRESS
~-/3-1~
DATE
/;,2-
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DATE
.
Ko~c,... :::: Q.\,U~ ~.
PRI NAME
I
"3':1] I S+ St. :#I/fdf SeJ;r~ CA. Cf07'1o
ADDRESS
.Q~ ~<-~#'
SIG URE'
~-/ -:-r -Cj C
DATE
APRIL 17, 1996
TO: MR LEE WHITTENBERG
FROM: BURGER KING, SEAL BEACH
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-
LUNCH TIME 04/16/96
LOOKING SOUTH ON 8 th STREET
12 SPACES AVAILABLE
LUNCH TIME 04/16/96
LOOKING AT BURGER KING
PARKING LOT.
S SPACES AVAILABLE
NOTE: A PHYSICAL COUNT OF AVAILABLE SPACES ON 8th STREET WAS
ALSO TAKEN ON 04/16/96, AT 9:00 P.M.
AT THAT TIME THERE WERE 9 SPACES AVAILABLE.
.
Attachment 7
Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/9S--
---- ---
.
.
.
601 Bayside Drive
Seal Beach, CA 90740~5701
May 1, 1996
- :.=-- -- 'i
City of Seal Beach
Plannmg Commission
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, Callforma 90740
CIlV OF SEAL SEAcn
f .-21996
It.3t~~~gj
D::?/.A-,.v,sr c,"
DEVEL\Jf'Mf~J'~T _~rlof\~I~.:--:' ~
Dear Sirs,
I am m receipt of a notice of a public hearing to consider Zoning Text
Amendment 96~5.
Please be aware that our home has a one story addition that extends from
the original home to a point 13 feet 3 inches from the property line on
Balsa Avenue. Plans for this addition were approved by the City of Seal
Beach on August 29, 1973, Permit #144. I have the original approved Job
site copy and the building inspection card with the various approvals.
I also tlave copies documenting phone calls with Mr. William Compton, Mr.
Ben Yeomans and Mr. David Steward all of Southern Califorma Edison
regarding our possible encroachment of their easement and th~ir findings
that our addition would cause them no problems. I also have documented a
conversation where Mr. George Reid of the Seal Beach Building Department
confirming that he had talked to Mr. William Compton at Southern
Cahfornia Edison and that our addition posed no problem.
I am assuming that any zoning changes that are eventually approved will
apply prospectively. Our home as it exists since 1973 meets your second
alternative, as I understand it, but clearly would not meet the proposed
change. Obviously I will challenge in court any action which would cause
me to incur costs to comply or would negatively impact the value of my
home.
ATTACHIetr4JJ/st,
.
.
.
05/07/1996 23:30 00e0000000
L STONE
MAY 7, 1996
LEROY L. STONE
1'936 ConI Cay Lan_
Huntlnpn 8each, CA '2649
Bus: (310) .597.5206
Fax: (310) 597.7706
MR BARRY C CURTIS JR
CITY OF SEAJ, BEI,CH
CITY HALL
21 1 EIGHT S'l''REE'1'
SEAL BEACH, ~A 90740
RE: ENCENOAIJYST
DEAR MR Ct7R'"1 5 :
PLEASE BE A(>VISt:O THAT AS OF THIS DATE, THE ENCENDALYST HAS
NOT YET BEEN INSTALLED AT BURGBR KING, 770 PACIP'IC COAST HIGHWAY.
'PRTO'R TO TH1r: t,M;T MEETING, ON APRIL 17, 1996, THE MANUFACTURER
HAD INDICATJ.D A VERY SHORT DELIVERY TIME, WKICH I EXPRESSED
AT THAT MEE."1~C;.
I HAVE FOLLOWE,D UP ON THE DELIVER~ DATE WEEKLY.
I WAS ASSURED Yl:STERDAY, BY THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR, GOLDEN WEST
EQUIPMENT emu ANY, THAT AFTER HAVING TRACED THE EQUIPMENT, THE
FREIGHT CARHIE:R PROMISED DELIVERY ON FRIDAY, MAY 17. APPARENTLY
THE DELAY W,\S CJ\USED BY THE FREIGHT COMPANY.
I HOPE THAT YOU AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILt.. BEAR WITH ME
REGARDING THE DELAY, AS THE DELIVERY DATE WAS OUT OF MY CONTROL.
WHEN REC'EIV1.:n, -NSTALLATION SHOULD TARE NO MORE THAN ONF. NIGHT.
PLEASE EXTEND MY APOLOGY TO THE MEMB!RS OF THE COMMISSION AND
THE COMMUNI'rV FOR THE BRIEF DELAY.
I WILL DE OIlT OF TOWN FOR A FEW DAYS, HOWEVER ANY QUESTIONS
MAY BE DIREc'TF:D TO MRS STONE AT (310) 592-4911, FAX: (310) 592-
4211. SHE ~l' 1.l. BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS \iHICH MAY ARISE.
S!NCE:RELY,
eel HR LEE WH1TTENBERG
MEMBERS m' 'rHE PLANNING COMMISSION
PAGE 01
.s
ATTACHMENr.d1L,~
.
.
.
MAY-~2-1996 ~9:15
31~ 594~62~ P ~1
Js.JCD MYER5
...._,
CITY OF SEAL JE
..
May 2, 1996
.-21996
Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach,CA 90740
_ _ Jl
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SE::lV~CEn J
Dear Planning Commission,
We are writing In response to a notice Issued by the City of seal Beach on Aprrl 22,
1996, regarding Zoning Text Amendment 96-5. We were quite upset to see the City
stoop to the ranks of opportunistic land grabbers. We were elated to see the power
lines come down along Balsa Ave. and applauded the City for their efforts but before
the first line Is cavan down your taking an easement that we fell you have no right to.
This is a zoning issue and not an easement Issue Our concern with giving up this
easement (WhiCh we won't do) is that the City could decide later to use the easement
to widen Bolsa Ave. The planning office commented to my wife that they (City) could
have taken the easement at any time. I don't believe this to be true since It would have
involved removing the power linee, which the City was never in a hurry to do. Now that
a local citizen motivated SCE and Rockwell to remove the lines you (City) decide It's
time to take control of an easement you have no right to.
There are currently residential structures that have be.n built within the 36 foot
easement I do you plan on having these removed? Again this Is a zoning Issue and
not an opportunity to lower my property value with an easement. We will suppan the
second alternative of leaving the setback and only allowing oms-story structures to be
built.
We would like to attend the public hearing, however we will be out of town that day.
Please Include this letter in the public hearing. Sinoe the City has received this by
May 2, 1996 we understand that it will be read at the hearing.
Jim Myers
601 Beachoomber Or.
Seal Beach 31o.SQ6-GG21
Poaf-1fI Fax Note
'AI
I
COJDept.
ono
Fill "
Fad
TOTAL P.01
ATTACHMerr!1!Dc..