Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1997-04-09 . . . ~~ ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for APRIL 9, 1997 7'30 P.M. · City Counell Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. Next Resolution: 97-6 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE n. ROLL CALL m. AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) NotIfy the pubhc of any changes to the Agenda; (b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or publIc to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At thIS tIme, members of the public may address the PlanOlng CommIssIon regardlOg any Items witlun the subject matter jurisdIction of the Planning CommiSSIOn, proVIded that the Planning CommIssion may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwIse authorized by law. · v CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate actIon 1. Approve Planning CommIssIon Minutes of March 5, 1997 2 Receive and FIle Staff report to the City Council, dated March 24, 1997, re "ISTEA Re-authorizatlOn Metropolitan Planning Orgamzatlon ActIVItIes-Status Report" 3 Receive and File CIty Letter to Naval Weapons Station, dated February 25, 1997, re "Pre-Final Extended Removal Site Evaluation Work Plan, IR Sites 40 and 70, The City of Seal Beach complies WIth the Amencans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need asSistance to attend this meebng, please telephone the City ClerL. 's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg, thanL. you .- City of Seal Beach PJanmng COmmiSSIon Agenda · Apnl 9, 1997 . NWS Seal Beach" 4 Receive and File City Letter to US Army Corps of Engineers, dated February 24 1997 re Draft EnvIronmental Assessment / Initial Study for Implementation , , of the Multiple Construction Project (SCP), AFRC, Los Alamltos" VI PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 Variance 93-1 [Continued from March 5, 1997] Address 212 Main Street Apphcant City of Seal Beach Property Owner Jim Klisanin Request Consider revocation of Variance 93-1 for lack of payment of required in-heu parking fees The Commission allowed the property to vary from parking requirements for a total of 18 off-street parklOg spaces Recommendation Receive and Flle staff report Take no action on revocation 6 Variance 97-1 . Address 206 Ocean Avenue Apphcants Randy & Mary Johnson Property Owners Randy & Mary Johnson Request Approval for as' roof overhang IOto the rear yard setback A 2' eave overhand is currently permitted RecommendatIOn Deny Variance request IOItiate a text amendment to allow eaves to extend 5' IOto rear yards as decks and balconies are currently permitted 7 Height Variation 97-1 Address 116 14th Street Applicant Albert Urmer Property Owner Albert Urmer Request Approval to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the 25' height limit, 10 conjunction With the construction of a new slOgle family residence Recommendation Approve subject to conditions vn STAFF CONCERNS . Hennessey's Relocation to 143 Main Street . 2 The City of Seal Beach compbes WIth the Amencans With DIsabilities Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend tlus meetmg, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetUlg, thank you . . . " City of Seal Beach P1anmng ConumsslOn Agenda · Apnl 9, 1997 . City Council denial of appeal on ZT A 96-8, Seal Beach Trader Park VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX ADJOURNMENT 3 The City of Seal Beach comphes WIth the Amencans With Dlsabllltles Act of 1990 If you need asSIstance to attend tlus meetmg, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg, thank you . . " CIty of Seal Beach Plamung COl1U1USSlon Agenda · Apnl 9, 1997 ..,. 1997 AGENDA FORECAST DATE ACTION ADDRESS NOTES April 23 Parcel Map 96-182 Bixby May 07 CUP 97-2 143 Main St Tentative Hennessey's move Application not complete yet May 07 VAR 97-2 & Seal Beach Blvd @ New ARCO Station CUP 97-3 Lampson Avenue May 07 Housmg Element RevisIOn 97-1 May 21 June 04 GPA 96-2 & Hellman Ranch TENTATIVE ZC 96-2 June 18 . July 09 Election Chairman & VC July 09 CUP 96-1 Seal Beach Mkt 12 mos ReView July 23 August 06 CUP 97-1 12147 SBB ReView @ 6 mos Yucatan Grill August 20 ZTA 97-1 Electric Vehicles Tentative September 03 September 17 October 08 October 22 November 05 CUP 94-4 770 PCH BK - Indefimte November 19 December 03 December 17 . 4 The CIty of Seal Beach compbes WIth the Amencans WIth DtsablbtJes Act of ] 990 If you need asSIstance to attend thts meetmg, telephone the CIty Clerk's Office at (562) 43] -2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg, thank you . . . CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon Minutes of Apnl9, 1997 The regularly scheduled Planning CommissIon meenng of Apnl 9, 1997 was called to order by Chairman Brown at 7:35 p.m. The meeting began in the City CouncIl Chambers with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: ChaIrman Brown CommissIOners Law, Sharp, Hood, Yost Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, DIrector CraIg Steele, ASSIstant City Attorney Barry CurtIS, ASSOCIate Planner Joan FIllmann, Execunve Secretary AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Law, Sharp, Brown, Yost ORALCO~CATIONS There were no oral communications from the audIence. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Hood to approve the Consent Calendar as presented: 1. Approve PlannIng CommissIon MInutes of March 5, 1997. 2. ReceIve and File: Staff report to the CIty CouncIl, dated March 24, 1997, re "ISTEA Re-authonzation MetropolItan PlannIng Organlzanon Acnvlties - Status Report" . 3. ReceIve and FIle: CIty letter to Naval Weapons Stanon, dated February 25, 1997, re "Pre-Final Extended Removal SIte EvaluatIon Work Plan, IR SIteS 40 and 70, Naval Weapons StatIon, Seal Beach" 4. ReceIve and FIle: CIty letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers, dated February 24, 1997, re "Draft EnVIronmental Assessment/InItial Study for ImplementatIon of the Multiple ConstructIon Project (MCP), AFRC, Los Alamltos". . . . CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssion Minutes of Aprtl9. 1997 MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Hood, Law, Yost, Brown PUBLIC HEARINGS s. Variance 93-1 212 Main Street Staff Report Mr. CurtIs delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in Planning Department]. ThIS Variance has been contmued from the March 5, 1997 Planmng CommIssIon meetmg. The applicant, the CIty of Seal Beach, requested Planning CommiSSIOn consIderatIOn of revocatIon for Vanance 93-1 due to lack of payment of reqUIred m-beu parkmg fees by the property owner, JIm Khsanm. CommiSSIon Comments on Staff Report In-Lieu Parking Fees The staff report indIcated the CommISSIOn's continuance was to allow Mr. Khsamn's check, m the amount of $14,600, to clear the bank. The check has now cleared. Amendment to In-LIeu Parkmg Fees The in-heu parking fee Issue was dISCUSSed, centerIng on the difference between the Development Agreement for 212 Main Street and the MaIn Street SpecIfic Plan. The staff report reported the wording of the Development Agreement indicated the m-heu parking fee would be amended at a future dated based on the provisions of the Main Street SpecIfic Plan. Mr. Klisanin paId $3,500 per In-heu parkmg space minus credits for antICIpated sales mcreases and property taxes. The Main Street SpecIfic Plan requires a $3,500 per In-heu parkIng space fee with no proviSion for credits. When staff discussed thIS matter WIth the City Attorney's Office, the CIty Attorney felt the $3,500 fee paid by Mr. Khsanm matched the fee reqUIred by the MaIn Street SpecIfic Plan because credIts are conSIdered separately from the in-lieu parkIng fees. ChaIrman Brown requested clarIficatIOn of the CIty Attorney's posItIon on the $3,500 per in- heu parking space fee. Mr. Steele explaIned that when the Development Agreement went through ItS approval process, the CIty Manager and the City Council negotiated, and later approved, an mtenm fee. ThIS was an estimate of what the In-beu parkmg fee would be once adopted In the MaIn Street SpecIfic Plan. At the same tIme, certaIn credits were negotIated for the mterIm $3,500 2 . . . City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission M mutes of April 9. 1997 fee. These were to reflect the improvements In the property, mcreased property tax revenue, increased busmess license revenue and various Improvements being made to the property which would result In a benefit to the City of Seal Beach. The intent of the Development Agreement was that the property owner would pay the mterim fee less the credits and if ultImately the City established an in-heu fee WhICh was hIgher or different from the Development Agreement fee, the property owner would pay the addItIonal portIon. It was not intended for the credIts to be taken away once the fee was estabhshed. Chairman Brown asked who came up with thIS lOgIC? Was thIS Mr. Steele's reasomng or Qumn Barrow's reasomng? Mr. Steele saId "Nobody came up wIth the lOgIC. I partICIpated 10 draftIng the agreement at the tIme. The City Attorney partiCIpated In draftIng an agreement at the tIme And we discussed that, after Barry (CurtIs) noted your concern to me after the last meetIng". ChaIrman Brown said "What I hear you saYIng, and correct me if I'm wrong, IS that here's the fee over here. Here are the credits over here. And they have nothing to do with each other. Is that correct? There's no hnkage. " Mr. Steele said "There's a hnkage 10 that the fee is establIshed and then those credIts are an amount that's subtracted from the total amount due as a result of the fee". CommIssioner Sharp noted this IS not the first Development Agreement negotIated by the City for a property in the CIty of Seal Beach. It IS not unusual to give credIts for mcreased revenues, which help the City. ChaIrman Brown said he dIdn't dIsagree with that fact. But the MaIn Street Specific Plan specifically states that the parking fee is $3,500 and no credits are to be allowed. "Before we throwaway $30,000 from a legal mterpretatIon lIke that, which seems to me to be a little bit weak, I'd at least hke the City Council to look at that". Mr. Steele SaId "If by lInkage you're askmg me If the credIts were determmed on a per space baSIS the answer is no. The Development Agreement says thIS partIcular property owner needs "X" number of spaces at $3,500 per space. That's "X" amount of dollars. The developer IS to be credited against the total amount of fees due to the City --- whatever that credit amount was. And one was subtracted from the other. There was not a per space credit amount. It was a calculatIon of the total fees due. A calculation of the total credits to be apphed and that created the balance" . ChaIrman Brown saId the credits were agamst the m-heu parking fees. Mr. Steele SaId "EffectIvely they were, because those were the only fees covered by the Development Agreement" . 3 . 1- . City of Seal Beach Plannmg COnlnllSMOn Mmute~ of Apn19. 1997 Chairman Brown S3.ld in exchange for that they were gIven credits. "I thmk there's a very tight hnkage there. 1 don't know If the Planning CommissIon has any authonty over thIS, but before we just say "Oh well" and let It drop, that's $30,000. Perhaps the CIty CouncIl ought to be aware. If they decide to say okay, we'll let It go. That's theIr prerogative. But It'S very clear to me in the Development Agreement on fhat property, It says that If the fees are changed or raised, that the applicant wIll pay the mcreased fees. The fee IS really $3,500 per space but we're going to give you credits, so here's your new fee, WhICh is $35,000. And yet the $3,500 per space WIth no credits, the way it would be nght now, would be about $60,000. I'm a httle bIt rough on the numbers there. But just before we throwaway that $30,000, and say "Oh well", I'd hke for at least the CIty CouncIl to dISCUSS that". Mr. Steele SaId if the Planning CommIssIon so desires, staff would not have a problem presenting the City CouncIl WIth a memo to that effect. CommIssioner Hood asked how a MotIon could be phrased to refer ChaIrman Brown's question to the CIty CouncIl? He asked If the entIre matter would be referred to the CIty CouncIlor, as he preferred, only the Issue of the fees? He wanted the Planmng CommIssIon to retain JurisdICtion over the remamder. CommiSSIoner Sharp SaId the Planning CommIssIon has JUrISdIctIon only over the revocation. Chairman Brown said the Planmng CommIssion still has JUrISdICtIon because the Development Agreement wasn't met. CommIssioner Sharp said he thought the terms of Development Agreement were met. Mr. WhIttenberg adVIsed the Planning Commission could opt to refer only the Issue of the fees to the CIty CounCIl. The CommIssIon would retam JUrISdIctIon under the revocation as proposed. Chairman Brown asked staff If they could brmg the CommIssion a memo that could be voted on? Mr. Whittenberg saId yes, If It IS the pleasure of the CommIssIon. CommISSIOner Hood mdicated he would not want to make a MotIon at this pomt because it IS the wrong time and asked If the CommISSIon could move to contmue the matter to the next meetIng at WhICh tIme staff could brIng back the correct resolutIon or memo? Mr. Steele SaId he prefers the matter be handled 10 thIS manner because there is no Item on the agenda tonight regarding thIS referral to the CounCIl. The CommISSIon only needs to vote on the continuance. 4 . . . City of Seal Beach Planmng CommiSSion Minutes of April 9. 1997 Unpaid Landscaping Fees The fact that Mr. Klisamn has not paId the $5,000 landscaping deposIt due through the Development Agreement was discussed. Staff gave Mr. KlIsanin notIce that the fee must be paId by July 1, 1997, together with hIS lO-heu parking payment. Because both these fees are delInquent, staff recommended the CommiSSIon contlOue the revocation hearing on the Vanance untIl August 20, 1997. ThIS would allow time for both payments to clear the bank. CommiSSIOner Brown asked what was the mechamsm to ensure thIS money was paid" other than the accidental dIscovery dunng a Planmng CommiSSIOn revocation heanng"? Mr. Whittenberg said normally these fees are paid prior to the BuildlOg Department's issulOg any bUIldlOg permits. However, staff was directed to do things differently by a preVIOUS CIty Manager. "Things happened differently at that point lo time". ChaIrman Brown noted the Planning CommIssion had preVIously dISCUSSed thIS subject. "I don't want this to drop here. It was $30,000 and now It'S $35,00 we're dropplOg". Mr. Whittenberg saId "We're not dropplOg the $5,000". Chairman Brown said "Well we're golOg to get that now. But had that not been discussed, that money would have been bye, bye too. And I think that at a time when we're asking people to pay for a utIlIty tax .. an extra-ordlOary tax on people WhICh they're not real happy about, we certainly shouldn't be leaving money on the table elseways " Mr. WhIttenberg saId It'S not normal polIcy not to collect fees. As the PublIc Hearing was continued from the last meetlOg, the Chair asked If anyone WIshed to speak on thIS item. There were no persons wlshlOg to speak. DIrector WhIttenberg SaId staff recommends the CommISSIon's Apri123n1 meetlOg be devoted to ajolOt study seSSIon between the Planning CommiSSIOn and the EQCB to review the draft EIR on the Hellman proposal. Staff was not intendlOg to schedule any other buslOess items for that meetIng. He suggested the CommIssion could agendIze ItS memo to the City CouncIl for the beglOnlOg of the Apnl 23rd meetIng and ensure It was expedited. The Chair contlOued the Public Hearing to April 23n1 and at that time it Will contlOue the item to August 20, 1997. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Yost to instruct staff to prepare a memo to the City CouncIl requesting Council determlOatIon regard 109 status of credits under eXIStIng MalO Street Specific plan. ThIS wIll be reVIewed at the April 23n1 meetlOg. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Law, Yost, Brown, Hood, Sharp 5 . . . City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission M mutes of Apral 9, 1997 6. Variance 97-1 206 Ocean A venue Staff Report Mr. CurtIs dehvered the staff report. [Staff report on file 10 the Planmng Department]. The apphcant, Brent Sears, archItect for the property owners, requested permiSSIOn to construct a 5' roof overhang withm the required rear yard setback at 206 Ocean Avenue. Staff mdicated the CIty received three letters regardmg Variance 97-1: 1. Bruce Stark 219 Seal Beach Blvd., Suite A Dated March 24, 1997 2. MIchelle Brendel 219 Seal Beach Blvd, SUIteA Dated April 7, 1997 3. Craig Pettigrew Pettigrew ConstructIon @ 6475 E. PacIfic Coast Hwy , Long Beach Dated April 9, 1997 The first two letters were opposed to Variance 97-1 and the thIrd letter responded to the OpposItIon. CommISSIon Ouestlons on Staff Report CommISSIoner Yost, notIng the bUIldmg IS underway, asked why the VarIance IS commg to the Planmng CommIssIon at thIS time? Mr. Curtis explained staff hmIted the overhang to 2' and so advIsed the apphcants. The applicants chose instead to pursue a VarIance whIle they're under constructIon knowmg that they would be at a point where they could stIli make the changes If needed. CommiSSIOner Yost asked if there are any roof decks WhICh stIck out on other Gold Coast homes? Mr. Curtis Said he was not sure, he was lookmg specIfically at roofs. CommiSSIOner Yost SaId he read the CC&Rs for the Gold Coast. He dId not get the Impression the drafters intended to have roof decks stIcking out 10' on top of the houses. He 6 . . . City of Seal Beach PlanO/ng Commlsqlon M mutes of April 9. 1997 was not sure why staff took that leap. He asked If staff had any eVIdence that the drafters were specifically granting roof decks to stIck out lO'? Mr. CurtIs said no. Staff has treated roof deck overhangs as balconies. Commissioner Yost asked if there was any evidence that this project would Impact the VIew of other homes In the surrounding area? Mr. Curtis saId it dIdn't appear the overhang impact a view as It's above WIndow levels of any of the other houses, but It could be seen by anyone who looked up at it. CommIssioner Hood asked if the CommissIon were to follow staffs recommendatIon to deny thIS Variance would staff recommend two separate motIOns or one combIned motIon? Mr. WhIttenberg suggested two separate motions. Chairman Brown referenced mumcipal Code SectIon 28-2501 and asked for clanficatIon: Purpose of Vanance. The sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination and no variance shall be granted shared by other property In the same viCinity and zone,' provided that a variance may be granted perrmtflng the temporary establishment of uses necessary by reason of publlc emergencies or need. Mr. Steele said the section first refers to uses and not to buddIng features or structural features. The ObVIOUS SItuatIon would be the erection of a temporary structure, lIke a management office or a structure for an emergency sItuatIon where we would not normally allow such a temporary structure. It's for a situation where there's a use that's normally not allowed and yet we allow It to happen temporardy because we need it help solve another problem. It's specifically dIfferent from a structural feature as the one beIng dISCUSSed here. Chairman Brown referenced mumcIpal Code SectIon 28-2500: Vanance May Be Granted. When practical dlfficulfles, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent wlfh the general purpose of thiS chapter result through the stnct and lueral interpretatIOn and enforcement of the prOVISIOns hereof, the Planmng Commission shall have the authorlfy, as an admlnlstratlve act subject to the provisions of this amcle, to grant upon such condmons as If may determine such variance from the provIsIOns of thiS chapter as may be In harmony wuh Us general purpose and intent so that the spmt of thiS chapter shall be observed, publiC sqfety and welfare secured and substantial Justice done. 7 . . . City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission Mmutes of Apra19. 1997 He asked if the Planmng Commission, thru a stnct and literal interpretatIon of this section, could approve this Vanance based on "admimstratIve authonty"? Mr. Steele explained there is a difference between an "administrative act" and a "legislatIve act". When you take a given set of laws and apply them to a given set of facts - that's an administratIve act. An admimstratIve act can be performed to accomplIsh these purposes provided the Commission can make the required findings for Vanances per Section 28-2502. Chairman Brown so noted the mandatory findings and moved to open the PublIc Heanng Chairman Brown asked if a 10' awmng would be allowed? Mr. Whittenberg said he would need to research the code to answer. Brent Sears - ArchItect for Mr. and Mrs. Johnson Mr. Sears said that after reading the staff report he was somewhat confused about the ViSUal qualitIes and Impacts that 10' decks would have at three levels. He didn't know he could have a roof deck, notIng that If he had planned that the Johnson's may not have needed thiS heanng. He presented the Commission WIth a drawing of what the Code allows and what is proposed. He explained his clIent was attemptIng to keep the sun from entering the house, fading their carpet and furniture. He added he would be interested in workIng With staff If a ZT A were proposed. He would be interested In deciding that an arbitrary number of feet was not chosen but instead, that there was reasomng behind the footage chosen. He said this overhang Issue IS tIed to the State's TItle 24, whIch reqUIres an architect to prepare an energy analysIs of new buildings, includmg shading devices. The 2' roof overhang would not provide the necessary shade to keep the house cool dunng the summer. He presented a sheet of photographs showing neighboring structures which have roof overhangs greater than 5'. WhIle the maJonty of the bUIldings appear to be older bUIldings, there are what appear to be newer structures and he wondered how they got permission to buIld. CommiSSioner Sharp asked for additional information on the Gold Coast's CC&R's. Who would Gold Coast reSidents contact? Mr. Whittenberg explained the Gold Coast has an architectural committee to momtor their CC&Rs. He noted there are pending issues on this committee at thiS tIme. There IS a review authority but it does not functIon m the same manner as the review authonty center In Leisure World. Plans must be submitted to thiS Committee pnor to the plans being submitted to the City of Seal Beach for processing. CommiSSIOner Sharp asked If the Johnson's plans had been submitted to the Gold Coasts' architectural board and what was their conclusion? 8 City of Seal Beach Planmng Commls~lon MIDutes of Aprtl9. 1997 e Mr. Sears said the plans had been submItted and were approved by the CommIttee. Mr. Sears said that in look1Og at the photographs and 10 referenc10g ChaIrman Brown's comments on discrim1Oanon, "It would appear we are suffenng some of that because there are build10gs that have roof overhangs greater than 2'. Those buIld10gs have no SpecIal cIrcumstances attached to them all those lots are rectangular, all of them are the same size and all of them have more or less that same topography". He was cunous as to how they came to eXIst and why demal is be10g recommended for thIs proJect. He supported staffs request for a ZTA, notmg a 10' roof deck 10 that locatIon would be offensive aesthetically. The beachfront locatIon IS advantageous as It gIves several hundred yards of open space and keeps from impacnng neIghbors 10 that way. Nelghbonng propemes would not be affected because the overhang IS at roof level and would not impact vIews. The ceIling is 8' to 9' high and the top of most wmdows IS 6'8" above the floor --- a person would have to look up to see it. The vIews are of the ocean and the beach 10 a downward dlrecnon. He wondered If the other homes in this area which have overhangs obtamed Vanances? They are not aslong for a specIal privtlege when a 10' roof deck would be allowed and when other homes 10 the same viclmty have large overhangs. . He supported staffs request to change the Code and asked the CommIssIon to approve thIS Variance. One of the problems they are facmg IS that they are now under construcnon and he was concerned about the length of tIme a ZT A would take. They will need to build thIS roof dunng that time. Randy Johnson * 206 Ocean A venue. Seal Beach Mr. Johnson explamed he was the property owner and had hved at this address for the last five years. In the 200 block of Ocean A venue there are SIX houses Of those six, three have the roof overhangs of approxImately 10', includmg hIS neIghbor to the left and the two houses owned by the Cathohc Church. Those overhangs have never obstructed hIS vIew. Because the beach faces due South, it's very Important to have extra shade. Aesthetically, the overhang would Improve the appearance of the house. It dId not appear to him that thIS request would harm or affect any other homeowner. CommIssioner Law asked staff when the 2' ruhng was enforced? Mr. WhIttenberg said the rule has existed for the 9 years he has worked for the CIty. David Rosenman * 81b Street. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman spoke in support of the ZTA, noting that when it appears the CIty IS acting in any way, whIch is less than evenhanded, It'S not a good sltuanon. e 9 e , e City of Seal Beach Planmng CommissIon Minutes of April 9. 1997 Scott Reyes He urged the CommissIon to approve thIs Vanance. He urged the CommIssIon to take into consideratIon the fact that the greater overhang would Improve the structure's appearance and that It would have no negative Impact on the area. BIn Romans * Ocean A venue. Seal Beach Mr. Romans urged the Commission to approve the Variance because nobody on eIther SIde of the property would be affected. The overhang would enhance the appearance of thIS new structure. Ken SchmIdt * 112 First Street. Seal Beach Mr. SchmIdt urged approval of the Vanance, asking why thIs home should be conSIdered dIfferently from other homes haVing the same feature? He felt some people were makmg an Issue of this and that's the only reason why thIS feature was under consideratIon. Carla Watson * 1635 CatalIna Ave.. Seal Beach Mrs. Watson spoke on VIew obstructIon. She noted the CIty of Laguna Beach IS' working on laws to keep houses from obstructing VIews. She saId the CIty'S allowmg other people to bulld so as to obstruct views has bothered her. The overhang being requested would not obstruct any VIew and noted the Gold Coast adVISOry board had approved this request. The overhang would enhance the house, whIch In turn enhances the neIghborhood and then the CIty. DominiC Bebek * 114 Ocean Ave.. Seal Beach Mr. Bebeck said he IS a member of the Gold Coast's archItectural commIttee. He explained it's not really an archItectural commIttee but a group, which reinforces the CC&Rs on properties whIch front the beach. He finds that at the roof level there IS no vIew obstructIon. He mdlcated his bedroom has only a 2' overhang and the sun fades everything dunng the wmter. Also, the room becomes unbearably warm. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Bebek to explain how he was appointed to the CC&R committee? Mr. Bebek explaIned the CC&Rs were first written approxImately 35 years ago and the CC&Rs nominated a committee themselves. The commIttee is self-perpetuatIng and they can nominate a new member whenever there is a vacancy. If all three members faIl, the CIty Councll of the CIty of Seal Beach could appoint three new members. He came onto the commIttee at the death of Mr. DaVIdson, about ten years ago. They meet only when plans are submItted to them for reVIew. Commissioner Sharp commented that view obstructIon IS not a cntena for thIS VarIance approval or disapproval. to e . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg COnlnllSMOn Mmutes of Apn19. 1997 Maureen Plcar * 636 South Shore Drive. Seal Beach Ms. Picar spoke in favor of approval of thIS applicatton. She explatned that she is a realtor and is surpnsed that bIgger overhangs aren't allowed. She IS thrilled the Johnson's are butlding a beautiful home and she hopes the new construction conttnues on Manna HIll and Old Town. The CIty needs to look at changes WhICh enhance the area and not have "cookie cutter" butlding to fit Old Town critena. The following person spoke in opposItion to thIS apphcatlon: Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark said this applicatton would have a negative impact on hIS property, on hIS VIew and the view of hIS neIghbors, the SIsters of Chanty of Orange County. He said thIrty years ago the resIdents of the Gold Coast decided there should be uniformity In the homes --- they should not exceed 25', they should have a restricted setback; they drafted CC&Rs. The CC&Rs were recorded and they run with the land. He questioned whether the City of Seal Beach has the authority to change those CC&Rs. He felt the apphcants were aslong the City of change the CC&Rs. He wondered how the City of Seal Beach could change the CC&Rs and noted "You may set a very ugly precedent. Because if you can umlaterally change CC&Rs then everyone else In town can change CC&Rs". He said the Johnson's had full knowledge the CC&Rs attached to the property at the ttme they purchased. They went to Mr. Sears to have plans drawn for thiS new butlding. Mr. Sears, who is well known In Seal Beach, also knew what the restricttons were and he knew what the CC&Rs were. Mr. Stark said that 18 - 19 years ago the Gold Coasts' CC&Rs were adopted by the City of Seal Beach as a part of the municipal Code. That Code, along with the CC&Rs run with the land and he did not think they could be changed. Whtle CommissIoner Sharp thought the view issue had nothing to do wIth thIS apphcatton, he dIsagreed, notmg It would mterfere wIth hiS VIew. Additionally, he noted the homes face southward and the sun does not pose a problem. He Satd very httle sun comes In his rear windows, into hiS bedroom. He felt approving thIS applIcation would be granttng a special pnvilege, something that does not apply to the neighboring homes and abrogates the CC&Rs. He urged denial. REBUTTAL Brent Sears addressed the following concerns: CC&Rs - Mr. Sears Satd that while he IS not an expert on the Gold Coasts' CC&Rs he dId see a difference between CC&Rs that are tied to property and development standards which are set for by the City's Planmng Department. He dId not beheve the roof overhang IS a part of the CC&Rs but rather a development standard for thIS zone that was carned over from other zones In the CIty. 11 e . . CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommissIon M mutes of Aprtl 9, 1997 SpecIal Privilege - ThIS would not be granting a SpecIal pnvIlege because other roofs wIth large overhangs do exist. Staff supports the Idea of an overhang greater than 2'. He did not belIeve the CommIssIon would be changmg the CC&Rs CommIssioner Hood asked Mr. Sears If thIs house would be air-condItioned and would gas or electncIty power the umt? Mr. Sears saId yes, and It would be powered by both. There are gas-fired heaters and condensmg units that run on electnclty primarIly. CommIssioner Hood asked If an energy study had been performed with and WIthout the 5' overhang? Mr. Sears said no, he had not prepared that detaIled a study. He dId do the State-reqUIred energy analysis WIth the bUIldmg as deSIgned. He dId not look at other options Commissioner Hood asked if he could gIve an estimate of the cost savmgs? Mr. Sears SaId he would guess but his guess would depend on the weather. He thought It could be $50 - $75 Mr. Sears noted such a study could be performed and It would be qUIte accurate. Randy Johnson Mr. Johnson saId hIS house did have an awmng, whIch extended 10'. Unless the awmng was extended, even WIth the air condltlomng on, the front of the house that faces the ocean became unbearably hot. He was most concerned about the clImate control, fadmg of the carpet and furniture. He noted the proposed overhang would not obstruct any vIew --- a person would have to walk out and look upward to see It. As far as he knew, roof covermgs are not a part of the CC&Rs but are a part of the mumcipal Code. The Gold Coast ArchItectural CommIttee approved theIr plans, saymg they were consIstent WIth the CC&Rs. He felt they had been very sensitive to the vIew Issue with all their neIghbors by clIppmg the corners on the house on all three levels (versus 90-degree angles). ThIS allows better vIews toward the pIer and Long Beach. There were no further speakers and the Pubhc Hearing was closed. Commission Comments CommissIOner Yost said he dIdn't see what "all the fuss" was about. It seemed to hIm that this overhang would be consIstent WIth the other homes, it passed the CC&R archItectural reVIew of the Gold Coast committee, It would have a mimmallmpact on the neIghbors, would improve the appearance and It would be energy savmg He agreed the ZT A should be processed . 12 e I . City of Seal Beach PlanmngCommlsslon Mmutes of Apn19. 1997 COmmISSIOner Sharp S3.ld the Planning CommissIOn would have a real problem makIng the State findings to approve this VarIance. He agreed the CIty needs a ZT A on thIS Issue. CommissIOner Hood saId the CIty has to deal WIth the ImmedIate buIlding and any hardshIp it may cause the applicant If delayed. He approved of processing a ZT A. After looking at the photographs presented by the applIcant, he dId not thInk approvIng thIS overhang would be grantIng a special privIlege. He did not thInk mistakes In the past would mandate approval of thIS applicatIon however. He felt that if thIS were approved, It would be granting a pnvIlege for about 4 to 6 weeks, untIl the ZTA came to the CommIssion. He felt a 4 - 6 week SpecIal pnvIlege did not seem excessive to hIm. CommiSSIOner Law saId she felt a ZT A on thIS overhang Issue was needed She saId she would lIke to grant the overhang but the rules do mandate 2'. She was 10 favor of approving thIS Vanance request. ChaIrman Brown asked staff if an awning was allowed? Mr. Whittenberg S3.ld he researched the Code and dIdn't see where It was referenced. The 2' restrictIon is dIrected at permanent structures, such as an eve, balcony, fireplace, raIlIng or staIrway. Something, whIch is permanent, would be restncted to the 2' overhang hmit. Mr. Whittenberg advised that the CIty has a copy of the CC&Rs and has reviewed them. They specify setbacks for the bUld1Ogs, mimmum SIze, height. They have one sentence whIch says "For the purposes of thIS covenant, eaves, balconies, open porches and steps shall not be considered part of the buildIng". Staffs interpretatIon IS that the CC&Rs do not cover eave overhangs and the CIty's muniCIpal Code IS the controllIng authonty. RegardIng the photos presented showing prior construction whIch appears to overhang more than 10', It would be staffs positIon that those may have been bUIlt under previousyl-granted Vanances but, a Vanance IS not the appropriate vehIcle for thIS. A ZT A would be the appropnate vehIcle If the CommISSIon feels thIS Issue needs further revIew, staff feels It does ChaIrman Brown asked which governs --- CC&Rs or the mumcIpal Code? Mr. Steele S3.ld the muniCIpal Code IS the govermng authonty. CC&Rs are agreements between pnvate parties. The pnvate parties need to enforce those among themselves. It may be that the CC&R requirements are stncter than the Code but the parties must enforce them among themselves. The City enforces the Code. Chairman Brown asked If the City would allow a person to bUIld somethIng but deal WIth the CC&Rs on theIr own? 13 City olSeal Beach Planmng Commission Mmules of Apnl9, 1997 Mr. Steele saId "They do so at theIr own nsk then. That construction mIght vIolate the e CC&Rs" . Chairman Brown saId the applIcant presented photos of bUIldmgs that dId not look that old. The question IS, how dId they get there? "Is thIS another staff overSIght?" Mr. CurtIs replied that all the structures shown 10 those photos are old structures, WIth the excepoon of one, which was remodeled WIth the existmg eve in place some orne 10 the late 1980's. Most of the structures shown were buIlt pnor to 1970. He uncertain if, at that orne, the CC&Rs were the only thing govern 109 the setbacks and the CIty adopted the CC&Rs at a later date. Chairman Brown asked "So you're saying that none of these houses were bUIlt after thIS Code, with the excepoon of the one that was remodeled?" Mr. Curtis Said he dId not know what date the CC&Rs were adopted. He could venfy that the photos show all twenty-year-old homes. I Mr. WhIttenberg saId the CC&Rs were establIshed 10 1949 and contmued to 1974, at WhICh time they expIred. The CIty'S baSIC zoning ordmance prOVISIons and projections into the setbacks were a part of the baSIC prOVISIons when that Code went mto place 10 1965 - 66. He had no Idea what the Code proVIded for before that tIme. Chairman Brown saId It sounds hke the majority of the Planmng CommIssion deSIres the processmg of a ZT A to change the Code. He asked what would happen If a Vanance were granted 10 antIcipation of the ZT A? Mr. Whittenberg saId if the Planmng CommISSIon was to grant a VarIance, and a future ZTA has basically the same provisions as the Variance, the VarIance would become a non-Issue. Staff would be concerned, however, If a Vanance was granted for one thmg and the ulomate decISIon on a ZTA were dIfferent. Then you'd have a pIece of property, WhICh IS mconsIstent WIth the future dIrecoon of the City. Mr. Steele Said a Variance is not somethmg that holds a great deal of precedenoal value. TYPICally thIS IS due to the fact that the property IS umque and has charactenstIcs that can be dIfferentIated from other properbes. ThIS property does not look to be umque from other propertIes in the vIcimty. HIS concern was that granting the Variance on thIS eVIdence mIght prOVIde some precedential value for future VarIance applIcants on related Issues What happens on the ZT A cannot be controlled when It gets to the CIty Counctl. Commissioner Sharp asked if thIS VarIance were granted and the ZT A was not approved, would the City be liable for a laWSUIt? e 14 . I . City of Seal Beach PlannmgCommlsslon Mmutes of Apn19. 1997 Mr. Whittenberg said that any tIme a Vanance is granted, the City has the lIabibty of a lawsUIt bemg filed agamst it because there IS a very specIfic set of findmgs which the Planning CommIssion must make to grant a Variance. If partIes were to dIsagree WIth those findmgs, there's an appeal time to the CIty CouncIl and If the appeal IS upheld the Vanance would no longer be in place. If the City Council were to grant the Vanance, then there's another tIme penod in which a legal challenge can be filed as to the granting of that Vanance. This process IS aVaIlable any tIme a Variance or ConditIonal Use Permit IS approved by the Planning Commission. This IS why staff is very careful 10 ItS dIrectIon to the Commission on the findmgs -- in case a court challenge IS made. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Variance were granted and subsequently appealed to the CIty CouncIl, how long would It take to come before the CouncIl? Mr. WhIttenberg saId there IS a ten calendar-day appeal period once the CommIssion takes an actIon and adopts a resolutIon. Once an appeal is filed, the City has to hold a PublIc Heanng on the appeal within forty (40) days. Once the Pubhc HearIng IS closed, the City CouncIl has not set time limit WIthin which they actually have to make a deciSion --- other than a one year penod of time for total processIng. Mr. Steele SaId he did not feel It would be a good land use approval based on the amount of time one course of actIon would take versus another. The CommiSSion should look at the Issue, decide if the findIngs can be made and look at the Issue as though the applIcants would put the permit mto effect the follOWIng day. If the eVidence supports the findmgs the CommIssion should approve. If not, the Commission should deny. CommIssioner Hood said "We have human beings here, who have costs mvolved. And I'm interested 10 a parallel tIme line. Construct for us a parallel tIme hne between the ZT A and the Vanance --- and the longest a Variance would take and the shortest a ZTA could take". Mr. WhIttenberg addressed the Issue of costs, saYIng thiS IS not an issue the Planmng CommIssIon deals with. He cautioned the CommiSSion that when they are lookmg to make findmgs, that costs are not somethIng that can be used for findIngs. CommIssioner Hood said he understood. Mr. Steele SaId that in a contentious situatIon, one in whIch there is an opponent, the ZTA IS a much shorter time period versus the Vanance. Once staff gets the directIon to go, they process the ZTA, come back to the Planning Commission to hold a Pubbc Hearing, and then go on to the CIty Counctl. A ZT A of thiS nature IS not subject to a lot of grounds for legal challenge. It's a dIscretIonary deciSIOn. When the City CouncIl makes a deciSIOn, It'S 10 effect. A Vanance, If appealed, goes to the City CouncIl. It gets on the CounCIl's schedule. If somebody wants to file a laWSUit agaInst the ultimate decISIon of the CIty CouncIl they have 15 - . I . City of Seal Beach PlanmngCommlsslon Mmuteq of April 9.1997 either 90 or 120 days to do so after the decIsion IS final. That lawsuit may take two or three months to get to the mlttal hearmg stage. It goes on from there. It only costs $175 to file a lawsuit. Therefore, the ZTA IS much faster. Mr. Whittenberg said staff understands the issue whIch the Johnson's are bnngmg to the City and staff thmks It'S a good issue, one that needs to be resolved by the City. Staff feels strongly however, that the Vanance process IS not the way to solve the Issue. Chairman Brown said he has always viewed the Planmng CommIssIon's Job as representmg the mterests of the neighbors when a project IS bemg bUIlt. Generally, everybody would like to do to their property what they want and yet not allow theIr neIghbors to do the same thmg. That's where the Planmng Commission represents the neIghbors In this case, he did not see how the request could inflict any harm on the neIghbors. The questton of vIew has been brought up many tImes and, as a pohcy, the Planmng CommIssIon never conSIders VIew as a pohcy. The only tIme VIew comes mto effect IS when the CommIssIon conSIders heIght lumts. ThiS IS not a questton of a height hmlt. When the CommIssIon does conSIder VIews, they talk about the primary view bemg obstructed --- never secondary vIews. The primary vIew here IS toward the ocean. A roof overhang does not affect the pnmary view. In the letters receIved there are allegatIons of SpecIal pnvIlege. He stated that he does not see where there are any special pnvIleges. However, if a Variance were granted that would be a SpecIal pnvIlege. It's the obVIOUS consensus of the CommIssIon that It would hke to let the Johnson's proceed. But the Planmng Commission IS not a dlscrenonary body as IS the CIty CouncIl. The CommissIon must follow the rules and for grantmg a Variance there are very specIfic findings, WhICh must be made. He personally dId not see how the CommIssIon could make the necessary findmgs in any way. The questton of whether the neIghbors have the same thmg IS Immatenal There are no umque CIrcumstances here. The issue of cost IS the only possible umque circumstance. He felt the rules as they stand are lame --- that a roof deck would be allowed but not an eave. However, the rules do not allow the requested eave. While he would hke to vote to approve the requested Vanance he could not and was consoled only by the fact that a ZTA would be more expedIent than a Vanance, whIch could be challenged 10 court. It would set a bad legal precedent. MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Sharp to approve ResolutIon No. 97-6, thus denymg Variance 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Sharp, Law, Brown, Yost Mr. Steele adVIsed the Planning CommIssIon's action IS final and the ten calendar-day appeal penod to the CIty CouncIl begms tomorrow. 16 . . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission M mute~ of April 9. 1997 MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to Instruct staff to proceed with a Zomng Text Amendment which considers an amendment to the mUniCIpal Code amendIng the permitted intrusions Into rear yard setbacks In the Residential Low Density (RLD) zone of Planmng DistrIct 1. Specifically the City would consider whether to allow eaves to extend beyond the currently permit two-foot (2') rear yard Intrusions and whether to hmIt the allowed rear yard Intrusion for balconies and decks at the roof level from the currently permitted ten feet (10'). MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Hood, Law, Brown, Yost, Sharp Mr. Whittenberg advised the ZTA (ZTA 97-1) WIll be scheduled for the Planmng Commission May Th meeting due to legal NotIce reqUIrements. The CommissIOn wanted thiS expedited but staff satd It could not be agendIzed for April 23rd as the legal NotIce would have been In the newspaper thiS past Monday. *** RECESS: The CommIssIon took a five-mmute recess at 9:05 p.m. The meetIng resumed at 9:10 p.m. 4. Height Variation 97-1 116 14th Street Staff Re.port The applicant, Albert Ulmer, requested Planning CommIssion conSIderation to construct a covered roof access (CRAS) In excess of the 25' heIght limIt In conjunctIon wIth the construction of a new single-famIly dwelling at 116 14th Street. The proposed structure would house elevator equipment and would exceed the heIght lImIt by approximately 5' 8". [Staff report on file In the Planmng Department]. The proposed CRAS would accommodate an elevator to the roof deck. This would assist a famIly member who is handIcapped. Mr. Curtis indicated the City receIved five letters from adjacent property owners, each requesting the Planning CommiSSIOn denymg thIS request. Mr. WhIttenberg clanfied that some of the letters may be from persons rentIng the units and not a property owner. CommiSSIon OuestIons on Staff Report Commissioner Sharp asked staff If they ever responded to any of these letters? He felt most of the letter writers do not understand the Code, what IS allowed and what IS not allowed. They seem to think the CommiSSIon would be VIolatIng the Code by approvIng thiS request, which would not be the case. 17 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Comml~slon Mmute~ of Apn19. 1997 Mr. Curtis saId sometimes staff will respond, but not routInely. Staff dId, however, talk to the next door neIghbors (James and Kathleen Murphy) and did explain the Code. Those particular neighbors simply did not want a new, big house next to them. He IndIcated that many times neIghbors WIll call staff and dISCUSS theIr concerns. CommISSIoner Hood asked If the applIcant's proposal blocked anyone's pnmary VIew? Mr. CurtIs Said yes, it would block the next door neIghbor's VIew. Chairman Brown, referenCIng the definition of a CRAS, noted It talks about a "covered staIrwell" but does not address an elevator onto the roof. He asked staff how would regard this, accounting for the fact the Planning CommissIon Just demed a Vanance due to a definition? Mr. WhIttenberg saId the defimtion says "Non-habItable archItectural features" and then gives samples of those. It's not just a "staIrwell", It allows a spIre, a tower, balcomes, monuments, parapets. Chairman Brown Said thIS is not an "architectural feature". Mr. CUrtIS explained staff treated this as a covered staIrwell to an open roof deck. I Chairman Brown objected, notIng thIS IS not what the Code says Mr. CurtIs saId he realIzed thIS but that was the Intent --- covered access. That's why the feature IS called a "Covered Roof Access Structure". Chairman Brown asked where it saId "Covered Roof Access Structure"? Mr WhIttenberg saId In this case, the elevator hOUSIng IS a non-habItable archItectural feature. Then you have a CRAS in addItIon to It. Mr. CurtIs noted the CommISSIOn approved an elevator shaft In Bridgeport about SIX months back. Chairman Brown said "Just because we've done dumb thIngs In the past doesn't mean we should repeat our mistakes". Mr. WhIttenberg saId that if the Planning CommISSIon feels uncomfortable WIth the defimtIOns, staff could review the definition Issue at a later time. Staff defimtely feels that the elevator housing IS a nonhabItable feature e 18 . I . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Mmutes of Aprtl9. 1997 Mr. Steele said State law may allow the elevator structure for disabIlIty access under the Americans WIth DIsabilities Act (ADA). It may be an accommodatIon that the CIty is requIred to make in Its programs and ordInances to allow persons with disabilIties the same applIcatIon of the laws that persons without disabIlIties enJoy. Chairman Brown SaId Mr. Whittenberg was correct, the CommissIOn needs clanficatIon on thIS --- perhaps a ZTA. It does not Include a "covered elevator shaft". PublIc Hearing Craig MacIntosh * Architect for Ap-phcant Mr. MacIntosh said they were under the ImpressIOn the elevator was okay. The owner did want a covered landIng as it would be safer to have all the machinery covered and out of the weather. Also, he was nervous about haVIng an elevator door as the prImary weatherproofing mechanIsm for the elevator Itself. A two-door system would afford more protection from electrical shorts et cetera. They really want some sort of covenng. Martin Porter * 119 141h Street Mr. Porter spoke in support of a new home being bUllt In place of an older facilIty. He knew it would Impede on the Murphy's prImary view but felt 14th Street needs new hOUSIng. There were no other persons Wishing to speak for or agaInst thiS applIcatIon. There was no rebuttal and the PublIc Hearing was closed. Commission Comments CommIssioner Law Said she was In favor of approvIng the request but felt the CRAS should be kept to the mInImUm size CommIssioner Hood had no comments. CommIssioner Sharp Said he favored approvIng the request but lImiting the SIze to a mInImUm because it WIll block a neighbor's view. CommiSSioner Yost had no comments. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve ResolutIon 97-7, thus approvIng HeIght VariatIon 97-1 with the recommendatIon that the 5' x 11' size be reduced to 5' x 5 1/2'. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Brown, Hood, Yost 19 . . . City of Seal Beach Planmng CommJ~slon Mmute~ of Apnl9, 1997 Mr. Steele advised the PlannIng CommIssIon's actIon IS final tomght and the ten calendar-day appeal period to the CIty CounCIl begms tomorrow. *** Staff Concerns Hennessey's Tavern Staff provIded the CommIssIon WIth a memorandum explammg that Hennessey's Tavern has applied to the State Department of AlcoholIc Beverage Control to transfer the lIcense at 143 MalO Street into their name. AddItIonally, Hennessey's Tavern has sIgned the CIty's Acceptance of Conditions form to assume the Conditions of Approval set forth for that address. Hennessey's Tavern has indIcated they may now have two establishments on MalO Street --- the current location of 140 MalO Street and the new locatIon of 143 MalO Street. Chairman Brown asked about Hennessey's filIng a CUP to change the operatmg hours at 143 MalO Street. Mr. WhIttenberg explamed that Hennessey's decIded to WIthdraw theIr CUP applIcatIon and maintam the current hours of operatIOn. ChaIrman Brown noted the MalO Street Specific Plan has hours of operatIon, DIrector WhIttenberg agreed. Those hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. FrIday, Saturday and HolIdays. Establishments WIth preVIously approved hours must conform to those hours. CommIssIoner Sharp asked about Hennessey's Tavern at 140 MalO Street. Mr. Whittenberg explained they have an older CUP and It does not have the full extent of CondItions of Approval that more recent applIcatIons carry. Mr. WhIttenberg further explamed that a CUPs Conditions of Approval run WIth the land regardless of whom the owner IS ZT A 96-8 * Seal Beach Trailer Park Staff provided the CommIssIon with a memorandum mdicatIng the Plannmg CommIssIon's determmation on ZTA 96-8 had been appealed to the CIty CouncIl. The CouncIl denIed the appeal. Hellman Draft EIR Staff dIstributed copIes of the Hellman Ranch Draft EIR to the Planmng CommIssIoners. The publIc comment perIod WIll start Fnday, AprIl 11th. The City WIll receIve the comments untIl May 27th. Durmg that tIme there WIll be hearings on the DEIR before the EQCB. A Jomt study sessIon between the Planning CommIssion and the EQCB WIll be scheduled for April 23, 1997. Staff will be present an overvIew on the purpose of the DEIR and how it folds mto the Planning CommIssion's review the proposal. PublIc Heanngs before the PlannIng CommIssIon are estimated to begm 10 June. The timmg of these hearings will depend on how many comments are received on the document and how long it takes staff to prepare responses to those comments and get the Fmal EIR prepared. 20 . . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission M muteq of April 9. 1997 COmmISSIOner Sharp asked when the CommissIon would receive the first matenals on the Hellman Ranch property? Mr. WhIttenberg saId It would be the first or second meetIng In June. Commission Concerns BIxby Parcel Map CommissIoner Sharp asked staff to elaborate on the Parcel Map for BIXby Ranch scheduled for April 23M. Mr. WhIttenberg explained the Public Hearing would be for a Parcel Map to subdIVIde the tennis court property into two smaller parcels. That will be re-scheduled to the May 7th meetIng due to the JOInt Study Session scheduled for Apnl 23M. Staff Reports ChaIrman Brown complImented Mr. CurtIs on the staff reports, especIally the dIagram of the Gold Coast lot. Vacation Schedules CommIssIoner Hood asked about the Agenda Forecast and how the CommISSIOners could plan theIr personal/professIOnal schedules. Mr. WhIttenberg SaId It'S dIfficult to predIct the agenda and/or the HeHman Ranch schedule Once the publIc comment penod on the EIR closes, staff has to prepare wntten responses to those comments. Those must go back to the EQCB, along WIth any reVISIons to the EIR document itself. A findIng of adequacy for the EIR must be made and forward It to you Again, he estImated the June scenano. CommISSIoner Yost stated he WIH be absent for the May 7th meetIng. Adjournment The meetmg was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next meetmg WIll be April 23M. Respectfully Submitted: Qo~ ~ Joan FIllmann, ExecutIve Secretary Department of Development ServIces I J The COlDlnISSIOn o~ 1997 approved the PlaJUung CommISSIon M1I1ules of Apnl 9, 199~ 21