Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-01-19 . e-. e- CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for January 19, 2000 7:30 p.m. District 1 - Brian Brown District 2 - John Larson District 3 - Len Cutull District 4 - David Hood District 5 - Thomas Lyon Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary r:J City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 pm Monday through Thursday and Friday 8'00 a m to 4 00 P m Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m r:J The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act If you need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527. r:J Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p m. r:J Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404. r:J Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public Inspection City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission . Agenda of January 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET '. The followmg is a bnef explanation of the Plannmg Commission agenda structure: AGENDA APPROVAL The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the Items on the agenda ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only on Items not on tomght's agenda, may do so dunng this time penod No action can be taken by the Planmng Commission on these communications on this date, unless agendlzed PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Public Heanngs allow citizens the opportumty to speak In favor of or against agendlzed Items More detailed Information IS found In the actual agenda attached If you have documents to dlstnbute, you should have enough copies for all Planmng Commissioners, City staff and the public Please give one to the secretary for the City files The documents become part of the public record and will not be returned CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar Items are considered routine Items that normally do not require separate consideration The Planning Commission may make one motion for approval of all the Items listed on the Consent Calendar . SCHEDULED MA TIERS These Items are considered by the Planmng Commission separately and require separate motions These transactions are considered administrative and public testimony IS not heard STAFF CONCERNS Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services (Planning and Building Departments) are presented for Information to the Planmng Commission and the public COMMISSION CONCERNS Items of concern are presented by the Planning Commissioners and discussed with staff All proceedings are recorded . 2 . .- .' City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission. Agenda of January 19, 2000 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission January 19, 2000 Agenda PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II ROLL CALL III AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planmng Commission, this IS the time to (a) Notify the public 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 Plannmg Commission, staff, or public to request an Item IS removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action IV ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Plannmg Commission regardmg any Items wIthin the subject matter JunsdlctJOn of the Planning Commission, proVided that the Plannmg Commission may undertake no action or diSCUSSion unless otherwise authonzed by law V CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are conSIdered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless pnor to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a speCific Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action 1 Approve Plannmg Commission Meetrng Mrnutes of January 5, 2000 2 Receive and File "Trackrng Orange County. Prepared by OCCOG, November 1999 3 Receive and File .Reglonal Forecast for the 216t Century-What Do Trends Tell Us?" Proceedings of SCAG Workshop, December 6, 1999 4 Receive and File "Hard ChOices Housing and Communrty Through 2020. Proceedings of the UClthlnk communrty Forum, Apnl 8, 1999 5 Receive and File "Draft Supplemental EnVIronmental Impact Report-Bolsa Chlca Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service ProJect, Southern California Water Company (Application Nos 98-11-003 and 98-11-015). State Cleannghouse Number Sch 99071049 6 Receive and File Letter to Sara Wan, Chairperson, California Coastal Commission, RE "Application No 5-99-331, 347 Main Street, Seal Beach" Prepared by Keith Till, City Manager 7 Mrnor Plan Review 00-2 1733 Crestview AppllcanUOwner Request Gary and Tern Myers To receive approval for a previously non-permitted deck extending mto the rear yard setback 3 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission. Agenda of January 19, 2000 Recommendation Recommend approval subject to conditIons and adoption of Resolution 00-5 VI SCHEDULED MATTERS '. 8 Study Session Retaining Walls 9 Determination of Appropnate Zoning - Walk-upfTake-out Restaurant VII PUBLIC HEARINGS 10 Zone Text Amendment 99-4 CitYWide ApphcanVOwner Request City of Seal Beach To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of Surf Side to be 10 feet, deep Currently, 10-foot decks are only permrtted on the 1 st floor, with 5-foot decks permrtted on the 2nd and 3rd floors ThiS amendment would allow the owner to choose to place the 10-foot deck either on either the 1st or 2nd floor, but not both, and In no case would a 10-foot deck be permitted on the 3rd floor Recommendation Recommend thiS Item be continued to the February 9, 2000 Planning Commission meeting 11 Conditional Use Permit 98-12 (Indefinite Extension) 1101 PaCific Coast Highway ApphcanVOwner Request Von's Company c/o Keith Lam Indefinite extension to operate commerCial activities between 2 a m and 6 a m at Von's Market, thereby remaining open 24 hours a day ExIsting use of the site Will not change No structural Improvements are required . Recommendation Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-4 VIII STAFF CONCERNS IX COMMISSION CONCERNS X ADJOURNMENT . 4 . FEB 09 FEB 23 MAR 08 MAR 22 APR 05 APR 19 MAY 03 MAY 17 JUN 07 JUN 21 JUL 05 JUL 19 . AUG 09 AUG 23 SEP 06 SEP 20 OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEC 06 DEC 20 . 2000 Aoenda Forecast Zone Text Amendment 99-4 - 2nd and 3rd StOI)' Decks In Surf side CUP 99-5 Sav-On Drugs - 12-Month ReView CUP 99-9 Faith Chnstlan Assembly -12-Month ReView TO BE SCHEDULED o o o o Study SessIOn Study SessIOn Study Session Staff Report ~, .. Permitted Uses and Development Standards m Commercial Zones (5/6/98) Seal Beach Boulevard (10n/98) Anaheim Bay Villas (10n/98) Undergroundmg of Utilities . And Beyond Calendar CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Gnll) ReView (Apnl 2001) ADA Handicapped-accessible Restrooms (Apnl 2001) . . .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of January 19, 2000 Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag 1 ROLL CALL Present. Chairman Hood Commissioners Cutuh, Larson, and Lyon Also Present Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner Absent. Commissioner Brown Mr. Lee Whittenberg reported that he had received a telephone call from Commissioner Brown indicating that he was out of the area and was not sure that he would be back In time to attend the meeting He asked that he be excused from tonight's meeting. MOTION by Cutuli, SECOND by Larson to excuse Commissioner Brown from tonight's meeting. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon None Brown AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Whittenberg notified Chairperson Hood of a letter from Mr Reg Clewley regarding Item No.7, Minor Plan Review (MPR) 00-2 Mr Whittenberg recommended that this Item be removed from the Consent Calendar He also 1 These Minutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19 2000 requested that Item No 8, Study Session Retaining Walls, be moved after Item No 11 to be the last Item on the agenda ChaIrperson Hood asked whether MPR 00-2 would stili be considered a Public Heanng Item If moved to Scheduled Matters Mr Whittenberg responded that this was not a Public Heanng matter, but a matter that the public could comment on He stated that this Item had not been noticed as a Public Heanng Item Mr Reg Clewley requested that Item No 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar Chairperson Hood asked Mr Terrence Boga whether the Commission had any authonty to approve or disapprove Item No 6 Mr Boga responded that because this was a Receive and File Item, all the Commission had to do was receive and file the Item He saId that under The Brown Act, members of the public do have the nght to comment on the action of receiving and filing the Item pnor to the Commission's action He said that the request to remove the Item from the Consent Calendar was acceptable Chairperson Hood stated that he wanted to ensure that everyone understood the process for Receive and File Items MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Cutull to approve the Agenda as amended MOTION CARRIED' AYES: NOES ABSENT 4-0-1 Cutuh, Hood, Larson, and Lyon None Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Hood opened oral communications Mr Whittenberg reported that each Commissioner had been provided a copy of a letter from Michelle A Brendel regarding the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 2000, and requesting that thiS letter be read Into the record dunng Oral Communications Chairperson Hood asked for CommIssioner comments regarding reading the letter Commissioner Larson commented that each Commissioner had received a copy of the letter and they were all able to read It for themselves He stated that the letter could be received and filed Chairperson Hood reviewed the letter and commented that a prevIous request to read a letter Into the record had been honored, and he felt It was appropnate to honor thiS request also He then proceeded to read the letter Into the record (Copy of Ms Brendel's letter IS on file for Inspection In the Planning Department) Chairman Hood closed oral communications 2 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 CJty of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000 2 Receive and File "Tracking Orange County" Prepared by OCCOG, November 1999 3 Receive and File "Regional Forecast for the 21st Century-What Do Trends Tell Us?" Proceedings of SCAG Workshop, December 6, 1999 4 Receive and File "Hard ChOIces Housing and Community Through 2020" Proceedings of the UClthlnk community Forum, Apnl 8, 1999 5 Receive and File "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report-Bolsa Chlca Water Transmission Line and Wastewater Service ProJect, Southern California Water Company (Application Nos 98-11-003 and 98-11-015)" State Cleannghouse Number Sch 99071049 Mr Whittenberg noted that the record should reflect an abstention on Item No 1 by Commissioner Lyon as he was absent from the last meeting MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Cutull to approve the Consent Calendar as amended MOTION CARRIED: AYES. NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3-0-1-1 Cutuh, Hood, and Larson None Lyon (Item 1) Brown 6 Receive and File Letter to Sara Wan, Chairperson, California Coastal Commission, RE "Application No 5-99-331, 347 Main Street, Seal Beach" Prepared by Keith Till, City Manager Mr Reg Clewley stated that the letter wntten to Sara Wan, Chairperson of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) by the City Manager, Keith Till, disturbed him He said that Mr Till was deliberately misleading the CCC With the figures on parking that he had provided Mr Clewley said that the 1994 figures that Mr Till had used were outdated and became obsolete With the Installation of parking meters In the public parking lots along Main Street He stated that these public parking lots "had mystenously become denuded of cars, other than those beanng handicapped placards" He said that this has placed a greater burden for parking on Main Street and Ocean Avenue Mr Clewley noted that the parking figures reflect the "IllUSion of parking" In the VICInity of Ocean Avenue and Main Street where Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and Minor Plan ReViews (MPR) have been approved by the Planning 3 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 CommiSSion making these parking spaces a joke as they do not eXist He cited 120 Sixth Street as one of many examples of a site designated for parking, but where no cars are permitted to park He said that there were "several giant planters obstructing the dnveway" He said that It would be fairer to use the CCC figures and apply them to 347 Main Street than It IS to use Mr TIll's figures Mr Clewley then expressed hiS objection to the City sending Mr Lee Whittenberg to the CCC meeting In Santa MOnica to "SIt around" from 1 00 P m until at least 3 00 pm when Mr Clewley had to leave the CCC meeting to attend to other bUSiness He stated that the City taxpayers had to foot the bill for Mr Whittenberg to simply Sit around all afternoon waiting to address the CCC Mr Clewley stated that thiS was appalling and a waste of taxpayers money and must not continue Ms Sue Corbin noted that Mr Clewley failed to mention that hiS statements were In reference to the property on the comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street She stated that thiS property has just sat there without the proper CCC demolition permit, was red-tagged by the CCC, and at the above-referenced CCC meeting was retroactively approved for a permit to demolish, which had already been done approximately 6 months ago She stated that at the tIme of approval objections had been raised about Inadequate parking for thiS project, and that the CCC had found parking to be Inadequate Ms Corbin commented that she was amazed that Mr Till used the Main Street SpeCific Plan to validate thiS project when It did not comply with the SpeCifiC Plan parking requirements She stated that It was also "amazing" that though the City has no Local Coastal Plan, City Hall stili falls to get the proper permits from the CCC for events, demolitions, etc She noted that for a recent event In celebration of the millennium, a tent erected on 300 Ocean Avenue was not properly approved and was allowed to extend out Into the sand about 10 feet She stated that the City needs to follow the rules and that the CCC Will be sending a letter vOIcing objections as to how thiS millennium party was conducted She commented that thiS was again a case of "special things for special people" MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Cutull to Receive and File Letter to Sara Wan, Chairperson, California Coastal Commission, RE "Application No 5-99-331, 347 Main Street, Seal Beach" Prepared by Keith Till, City Manager MOTION CARRIED: AYES. NOES' ABSENT' 4-0-1 Cutuh, Hood, Larson, and Lyon None Brown 7 Minor Plan ReView 00-2 1733 Crestview 4 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 47 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19 2000 AppllcanUOwner Request Gary and Tern Myers To receive approval for a previously non-permitted deck extending Into the rear yard setback Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 00-5 Recommendation Staff Report Mr Cummins delivered the staff report (Staff Report IS on file for Inspection In the Planntng Department) He stated that thiS Item represents the first of the applications for properties that abut Gum Grove Park or the Hellman Property and have decks extending to the rear yard of the property He prOVided some background Information on the application and presented a photograph of the deck Mr Cummins explained that speCifically, the applicant IS requesting approval of a previously non-permitted deck that Intrudes Into the rear year setback of the property He descnbed the surrounding land uses as follows NORTH Hellman Ranch Property SOUTH, EAST& WEST ReSidential Low Density Housing (RLD) Mr Cummins stated that In 1990 the then owner began construction on the deck as It currently eXists In the rear yard of the property Staff became aware that the deck was being constructed In the rear yard setback, and the Senior BUilding Inspector Issued a Stop Work Order, but the owner refused to cease construction Staff then Instructed the owner of the need to remove the structure or apply for a Vanance The owner applied for a Vanance, which was subsequently denied both at the Planning CommiSSion level and the City Council level The Council then Instructed Staff to cease Code Enforcement action against thiS particular property until such time as a Zoning Text Amendment could be drafted to resolve the Issue of these decks, since there were multiple properties With Similar structures ThiS case initiated what eventually would become ZOntng Text Amendment (ZTA) 96-1 Mr Cummins explaIned that In 1996 the Planning CommiSSion first heard testimony on ZT A 96-1, which was discussed and continued twice to subsequent meetings He noted that one of the pnmary Issues was how to measure the height of the decks In order to determine a height limit, and how to define a Covered Patio Roof In conjunction With the decks, which would create a higher structure There was also the Issue of a 4-6-foot Wide utility easement that runs along the rear of the property Because one of the properties abuts a very steep grade, there may be deck height differences of up to 25 feet, which could create a large height differential, particularly relative to the rest of the City Mr Cummins stated that Staff would like to apologize for proViding Incorrect Information In the Staff Report and stated that the Planning Commission had actually dented ZTA 96-1 by a 3-1 vote He continued that In 1997 the proposed ordinance again came before the Planning Commission With the recommendation that decks that extended to the rear property line be brought before 5 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 Ctfy of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000 the Planning Commission to legalize any non-permitted decks Some new Issued arose at this time related to the structural Integrity of the decks and whether the City would have liability after having Issued a permit and a subsequent injury occurred on these decks The Issue of fairness or special privilege was also discussed regarding those non-permitted decks that would be "grandfathered" In The ordinance was subsequently approved by the City Council on December 8. 1997. however, when the ordinance was presented for a second reading In early1998, It failed and City Council determined that further review by Staff was necessary Staff continued to research the Issue and approached the Planning CommisSion to acquire new Ideas and variations on ZTA 96-1 In February 1999, the Planning CommisSion again considered ZTA 96-1 and on May 10, 1999 ,t gaIned approval by the City CounCil through Ordinance 1419 by a 4-1 vote The two distinct sections of Ordinance 1419 were 1 Newly constructed decks - require a 12 5-foot height limit and must be level extensions from the grade level of the property 2 Non-permitted decks bUilt prior to 1999 - must apply for a Minor pran Review and receive a proper bUilding permit No height limit was placed on these decks Refernng back to MPR 00-2, Mr Cummins noted that the current owners, Gary and Tern Myers, purchased the property In late 1995 At that time they were made aware of the non-permitted deck and were advised that at some future time the City would make a deCISion on how to handle this Issue He stated that the primary Issue before the Planning CommiSSion tonight IS whether the deck IS In compliance With Ordinance 1419 as amended to the City Code Because the deck was bUilt pnor to 1999, the requirement IS to now apply for a Minor Plan Review Mr Cummins stated that Staff had Inspected the property and observed the follOWing 1 The deck IS 15 feet 6 Inches tall, however, no height limit was placed on decks constructed prior to 1999 2 A covered gazebo structure encroaches Into the 5-foot Side yard setback Ms Myers has Instructed Staff that this structure IS not actually encroaching and IS 5 feet from the property line This structure Will have to be moved to comply With the 5-foot Side yard setback, otherwise application for a Vanance would have to be made 3 The underSide of the deck has been used as a storage area for all manner of Items There IS also a large amount of landscape debriS to the Side of the deck To meet fire safety standards and to prevent breeding of vermin, this debriS and all Items stored under the deck must be removed Ms Myers asked that the CommiSSion be made aware that she has attempted to pursue thiS Issue, but has not acqUired permiSSion from the Hellman Property owners to drive a truck 6 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 onto their property to access the rear of the deck to clear this debns Staff contacted the Hellman representatives who stated they would be happy to work With the Myers to get this debns removed 4 Fiberglass roofIng extending from the side of the house to the fence on the north property line encroaches Into the side yard setback Ms Myers advised Staff that this roofing has been removed Staff will confirm removal 5 The deck structure extends beyond the power line poles that abut the rear of the property, but Staff has not yet determined where the rear-yard easement begins as It IS not marked, nor does Staff know where the power lines Sit In relation to this easement Staff recommends that a full survey be completed to determine whether the deck SitS Within the property line or extends Into the rear yard easement and potentially Into the Hellman Property 6 If MPR 00-2 IS approved, a proper BUilding Permit will be required Structural calculations must be completed and submitted to the City BUilding Department Also, per City Code, Post Construction BUilding Permits require payment of double permit fees Staff also recommends that upon approval of MPR 00-2, a 4-month deadline be set for acqUISition of the appropnate BUilding Permit Mr Cummins stated that Staff recommends approval of MPR 00-2 He noted that the use IS consistent With the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Low DenSity HOUSing, and, as conditioned, the deck would comply With all zoning and bUilding and fire code provIsions Mr Cummins proceeded to present more photographs of the deck structure Commissioner Questions Commissioner Cutull asked If a survey would be completed to determIne whether the deck extends Into the Hellman property Mr Cummins responded that this would be one of the Conditions for Approval Commissioner Cutull asked If the survey finds that the deck does extend Into the Hellman Property, whether thiS would negate the approval of MPR 00-2 Mr Cummins responded that It was hiS understanding that thIS would then become a cIvil matter between the two property owners He stated that he believed that If the deck were protruding Into their property, the Hellmans would want the deck moved Commissioner Cutull asked If thiS were not a City matter Mr Whittenberg responded that there were a number of Issues on structures crossing a property line He noted that there were also a number of Issues With the Hellman/Gum Grove Park area He stated that generally under the BUilding Code provIsions and cIty laws throughout the State of Callforma, bUilding a structure across a property line IS not allowed He said that the Issue In thiS case IS If, In fact, the deck structure extends over the property line onto the Hellman Property, as when construction of the Hellman project begins, thiS area would be Incorporated Into Gum Grove Park and become City property He noted that under City regulations provIsions do eXist for allOWing encroachments Into public property, subject to acqulnng an encroachment permit He stated that thiS usually occurs along publiC Sidewalk areas where a sign may overhang Mr Whittenberg gave the example of the City of Newport Beach assessing a yearly encroachment 7 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 permit fee for property owners who had built non-permitted decks dunng the 1950's and 1960's that extended onto public beach property. He explained that the fees are based upon the amount of the encroachment Into the public nght-of-way. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the deck does extend across the property line and Hellman representatives choose not to deal with this issue, the Commission might want to consider assessing fees in a similar manner He said that Staff recommends that decks not be permitted to extend beyond the property line and that the City should require that the decks meet the minimum setback requirement or be removed. Mr Whittenberg stated that it should be noted for the record that at 8 12 p.m. Commissioner Brown arrived at tonight's meeting Commissioner Lyon asked what would happen If the Myers were not allowed to dnve a truck onto the Hellman Property to remove all of the debns Mr. Whittenberg responded that the expectation would still be that the debris be removed from the Myers' side of the property Commissioner Brown apologized for his late arnval and stated that he wanted to speak to this Issue. He clanfied that Staff was recommending approval of MPR 00-2 based upon conditions that had not been met. He said that a MPR usually appears as a Consent Calendar item and can be approved without a lot of discussion He noted that there were several items on MPR 00-2 that did not comply with City Code, and noted that Staff had not determined whether the structure extends over the property line He asked how Staff could justify recommending approval of MPR 00-2 without being sure that the structure IS legal Commissioner Brown stated that If the deck structure does, In fact, extend over the property line, it IS not in compliance with Ordinance 1419. Mr Whittenberg responded that as MPR 00-2 has been conditioned, the required BUilding Permit would not be issued until all conditions for approval had been met. He noted that if the survey reveals that the deck does extend over the property line, the conditions would require that the deck be cut back to bnng it within the Myers' property line He stated that Consent Calendar Items can be assigned conditions for approval, and Staff did not feel that this item was any different from those types of processes. Commissioner Brown countered that this issue was different as It has been going on for over 10 years. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he understood and this was why Staff was attempting to work with the applicant in light of what the Council has adopted in Ordinance 1419 to ensure that upon completion of the conditions, the site Will be fully compliant with all City requirements At this point the Building Permit can be issued making the deck a legally permitted structure Commissioner Brown again stated that this issue had been ongoing for over 10 years, and he did not understand why Staff was recommending approval of MPR 00-2. He stated that Staff was not even certain that this deck complies with Ordinance 1419, so why bother to condition It, especially when considering the history of compliance with conditions within this community. He noted the public consistently comes before the PJanning Commission to complain about business or properties that are not in compliance with conditions ruled upon by the Commission. Commissioner Brown said that he would never be In favor of 8 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 Clfy of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19 2000 approving an Item based upon conditions that haven't been met He said that In hiS seven years as a Planning Commissioner, this had never been done Commissioner Brown asked Staff to Justify this action Mr Whittenberg responded that when a person has an application before the City, there are permit streamlining requirements that apply He stated that this has been a controversial, ongoing Issue within the City, and Staff expected to confront some controversy on the approval of thIs particular project He stated that Staff has provided conditions that, If Imposed by the Commission In approval of the MPR, will bnng the project Into conformance with all City standards pnor to the City Issuing a BUilding Permit for the legalization of this non-permitted deck Commissioner Brown stated that because thiS IS a controversial Issue, It would be better that Staff require that the owner clean up the deck pnor to making application for approval, and not rely on "we hope you do thIS conditions" Mr Whittenberg responded that these were not "we hope you do these conditions" He said that If the Commission Imposes these conditions, they would have to be met before a BUilding Permit legalizing the structure would be Issued Commissioner Brown asked Staff If they were In agreement that there had been times Within the community of Seal Beach where BUilding Permits had been Issued when they should not have been Mr Whittenberg stated that he would not dispute thiS, and that thiS happens In any city In California ChaIrperson Hood announced that although thiS was not a publiC heanng, the Commission would accept public testimony He InqUired whether the applicant was present and Wished to speak Ms Ten Myers stated that she would walt until after heanng public comments to make her rebuttal Chairperson Hood asked If members of the public Wished to comment Mr Reg Clewley VOiced hiS "adamant opposition" to approval of MPR 00-2 He stated that the background Information prOVided by Staff was fundamentally flawed and must be corrected He disputed several Items wntten In the Staff Report, and said that Staff was deliberately misleading the Commission by omitting relevant Information He stated that he had been Cited for code Violations In retaliation for hiS cntlclsm of the City Manager's job performance He said that thiS had been done dunng a time when a moratonum on code enforcement for properties along Crestview, Catalina, and Surf Place was In force He commented on Staff's willingness to use taxpayer's resources, includIng Staff tIme and matenals, to negotiate a prescnptlve easement for the applicant's convenience across land under the authonty of the California Coastal Commission (CCC), which IS owned by Hellman Properties Mr Clewley stated that approval by the CCC, subject to state and federal court reView, would be required for moving men and equipment to remove the debns from around thiS deck structure He stated that Staff has generously offered to pay for thiS He referred to Condition No 3 and Inquired as to how the survey team would be selected and whether the survey would be completed at City expense He stated that Staff had failed to note that there was a 20-foot wall on the sIde yard of thiS property, and that City Code only allows 8-foot walls on the side yard Mr Clewley stated that there were 2 or 3 Vanances that needed to be acquired on thiS property before seeking approval of MPR 00-2, and that the Staff 9 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 Report absolves the applicant of any Incentive to acquire the BUilding Permit He referred to Page 7, Item 6 and stated that this was unenforceable unless conditioned to require a covenant with the City to have the applicant pay for periodic random Inspections each year to ensure compliance Mr Clewley stated that the response In Item 9 of the Minor Plan Review Application submitted by the applIcant contaIns false and misleading Information He referred to Item 10 of the application and stated that this deck was an Imposing structure and a nUisance that creates the threat of erosion to the adjoining property He stated that under the provIsion set forth In Ordinance 1419, this deck does not qualify for approval by MPR, as It was not constructed as a level extension of the flat graded portion of the lot He said that all of the conditions cited In the Staff Report should be completed pnor to comIng before the Planning Commission for approval, and he strongly recommends denial of thiS application Mr Whittenberg noted that the Commission had been prOVided with a copy of a letter from Mr Reg Clewley stating hiS opposition to Minor Plan ReView 00-1 He stated that In listening to Mr Clewley's comments, It appeared that he had read the letter Into the record Ms Sue Corbin stated that although everyone wanted a solution to the deck problem, she did not feel that thiS was It She said that the property owners with decks have had 8 months to bring these structures Into compliance and most have decided not to do so She said that It was likely that other future applIcants would choose to follow the rules but that the Myers' did not want to follow the rules She stated that Commissioner Brown was correct In stating that the Improvements to the deck could not be conditioned to happen at a later time, as It would never happen Ms Corbin stated that there was a fire hazard present With thiS deck, and that must be taken care of prior to proceeding With application for the BUilding Permit She said that Staff has had 10 years to contact Southern California EdIson to determIne where the easement IS She noted that thiS Information appears on the deed, and It was not profeSSional to come before thiS hearing and state that Staff does not have thiS Information She said that the debriS could easily be removed uSing a wheelbarrow and she did not feel that the City should pay legal fees to acquire a prescriptive easement In order to gain access to the Hellman Property to remove the debriS Ms Corbin stated that a geologist was needed as the slough extends from Seal Beach Boulevard and one of the deck pilings extends Into thiS area She noted that the City wanted to bring In an outSide Inspector In order to limit their liability She stated that the Inspector would have to check the pilings to see If they were secure and that deck pilings could not be placed In sloughs as It was unsafe She said that thiS deck was unique from all the others along thiS area and It could collapse at any pOint She stated that 3 Variances would be required before proceeding With the MPR She said that the storage under the decks was reprehensible She accused the applicants of haVing no respect for the law Ms Corbin stated that the City Attorney does not have authOrity to file Criminal law SUitS against IndiVidual residents She said that the City Charter denies him thiS nght 10 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 She stated that the deck should be brought under the law and then return for a heanng before the Planning Commission Chairperson Hood asked If the applicant wished to address the Commission Ms Tern Myers stated that she felt she would be able to "respond to these unsubstantiated allegations" She read from a memorandum that she had prepared In rebuttal to the Revised Staff Report (A copy of Ms Myers' memorandum IS on file for Inspection In the Planning Department) She stated that the debns behind the property and on the Hellman Property was there when the Myers purchased the property and that this could be confirmed Ms Myers noted that she had copies of this memo available for <dlstnbutlon to the Commission and for the public She stated that she was glad that City Council had approved Ordinance 1419, and that she understood that Council had approved the maintaining of the decks as long as the MPR was approved She said that With regard to the deck she has compiled With everything that has been requested of her Ms Myers stated that, contrary to some of the statements made, all that was stored under the deck was a surfboard and some nonflammable roofing matenal She said that everything has been cleaned up and there IS absolutely nothIng under the deck at present She stated that she never would have allowed a BUilding Inspector to Inspect the deck had there been "a lot of Junk or flammable matenal" stored under It She said that she had spoken to the Fire Authonty and that they had no concerns regarding the Items that had been stored under the deck Ms Myers stated that she could proVide venflcatlon of this She said that for the record, to the best of her knowledge, the Myers are In complete compliance In this area She stated that she had allowed City BUilding Inspectors to Inspect her property, and that she had confidence In their determlnatron that the deck was structurally safe She saId that the deck was safe, clean, and strong She stated that when they purchased the property, they were given a copy of a legal agreement drafted by the City Attorney stated that the deck structure was Within the Myers' property i1ne She said that the deck does not encroach upon the Hellman Property Ms Myers noted that "contrary to erroneous statements," she and her husband had compiled With everything they had agreed to do She said that she was In agreement With Staff's determinations She said that If there were other Issues, she would be prepared to address them at the proper time She asked about the conditions that Staff was reqUlnng before Issuing a BUilding Permit She said she was confused about thiS Chairperson Hood noted that to and fro questioning was not allowed Ms Myers asked If she would be allowed to comment after the CommiSSioner Comments Chairperson Hood responded that she would not Ms Myers asked her husband If he had any comments to add She continued by stating that It was Important to pOint out that thiS heanng should be limited to the action on the deck ChaIrperson Hood closed the public testimony 11 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 CommiSSioner Comments CommiSSioner Cutull stated that the deck was not In compliance with current Code requirements for rear yard setbacks He said that many houses In Seal Beach do not currently conform to City Code and, yet, are permitted to eXIst He saId that City Council had approved Ordinance 1419 to allow nonconforming decks to remain at the discretion of the Planning Commission He stated that the Planning Commission's responsibility was to Interpret the laws and make a deCISion based upon that, but not to change the laws He noted that the main question In this case IS whether or not this constitutes special privilege In approving thiS MPR He stated that although he does not approve of special privilege, he does not approve of special persecutions of Individuals either He said that he believes that the Commission should Impose the conditions set by Staff and also Impose the condition that the deck owners pay for a survey If the survey shows that the deck IS on Hellman Property, It must be cut down to confine the deck to Within the Myers' property line He said that If the findings are that the deck does not extend Into the Hellman Property, the MPR should be approved and thiS would set the precedent for approval of other eXisting deck structures Mr Whittenberg noted that Condition 2, as wntten In the Staff Report, prOVides that under no circumstances would the deck be allowed to extend beyond the property line onto the Hellman Property Condition 3 reqUires a survey to be done and be submitted to Staff along With the structural calculatIons prior to the CIty IssUIng a BUilding Permit to formalize the legal eXistence of thiS deck structure Commissioner Brown asked who would pay for the survey Mr Whittenberg responded that the cost would be the responsibility of the applicant Commissioner Lyon asked how the City could Issue a deed for the property Without finding out whether the property IS contained Within the legal property line Mr Whittenberg responded that the City does not Issue deeds, title companies prepare them He noted that In most cases easements over a piece of property are not Indicated on the property deed Easements are usually defined In the title Insurance policy for the property He stated that Staff was requesting the survey to determine the exact location of the structure In relation to the property line He said that most easement documents, particularly With utility companies, will allow a structure to be bUilt Within the easement area, but they do want to know of the eXistence of a structure to ensure that their capability to access a service pole or transmiSSion line IS not compromised Commissioner Brown stated that the Issue of decks has come before the Planning Commission three times, and each time the Commission has denied any Zone Text Amendment (ZT A) He said that City Council does have the nght to make ordinances, and they decided to approve Ordinance 1419 He said that although personally and as a Planning Commissioner, he believes Ordinance 1419 IS wrong, It IS the City Council's prerogative to approve It He explained that the he believes the reason the Council stipulated a Minor Plan Review (MPR) was they anticipated 12 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 that this would be a clean permit Issue, without Staff having to assign conditions to It Commissioner Brown stated that at the very minimum the Commission should send this application back to Staff to have the applicant clean up the deck so that Staff can Issue the BUilding Permit without all of these conditions attached He said that a MPR IS not a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to whIch a lot of condItIons can be assigned He continued that when conditions are placed on a property, they should not be retroactive, as residents of Seal Beach have a history of not complYing with City Code He recommends denYing this request and have City Council deal with It Commissioner Larson stated that he was appalled and angry He stated that Planning Commissions do not know how to treat people properly and don't provide an Incentive to get along and try to act like they are trying to help the people He said that he would vote to deny MPR 00-2 and have It go before City Council for determination He said that Commissioner Brown sees thiS as "dirty work," but that It IS planning It IS something that the Commission IS dOing for the people and It IS an outrage that the Commission tends to not look at the fact that they are dealing with real people Chairperson Hood stated that whether the Commission votes to approve or deny will set precedence for other applications on Ordinance 1419 that come before them He said that the proposal as It IS would open the door to a dozen different applications, none of which would fully meet the required conditions before being submitted, and would result In having all sorts of applications In limbo In response to Commissioner Larson's comments, Commissioner Hood stated that the Commission should encourage applicants to comply with the conditions that have been assigned He noted that one way to do thiS would be to find a way of approving MPRs rather than having them go before City Council He said that the Commission should remand the matter back to Staff so that Staff can have the applicant meet the proposed conditions and return to the CommIssIon wIth a clean proposal without all of the conditions attached, because they have already been met He asked Staff If there was a way of accomplishing thiS Mr Whittenberg responded that the obVIOUS way would be to continue the Item and remand It to Staff to assIst the applicant In achieving compliance with the conditions noted In the Staff Report Chairperson Hood asked what a reasonable time frame would be to accomplish thiS Mr Whittenberg responded that probably 45 days would be adequate ChaIrperson Hood confirmed that there would be no additional fees required on the part of the applicant Mr Whittenberg responded that there would be none He confirmed that as he understood the diSCUSSion, the Commission would like to ensure that the conditions for approval Indicated In the Staff Report have been complied with pnor to the matter again coming before the Planning Commission for reconsideration Chairperson Hood surveyed the Commissioners to determine If thIS was the case Commissioner Cutull responded that If the other Commissioners would feel better If the conditions were met pnor to making application for the MPR, then he would be In agreement with remanding the Item to Staff for 45 days to assure compliance 13 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 Ctfy of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19 2000 CommiSSioner Brown asked If Commissioner Cutull felt he could ever approve this MPR Commissioner Cutull responded that If Staff were able to bnng the deck Into compliance With the conditions set, he would have no concerns WIth voting to approve this MPR He said that he was confident that Staff would comply With this request, and asked why he would have reason to doubt this Commissioner Brown responded that time and again Issues anse and conditions were not met, or bUilding permits were Issued that should not have been Issued He asked to address hiS comments to the applicant and stated that the Planning Commission could not Simply deCide on Issues but had to be concerned With the precedent that IS being set He stated he was concerned With setting bad precedent by approving a MPR that has consequential conditions He stated that this was not what MPRs were for, but that CUPs With a full public heanng were Indicated to accommodate this type of action He noted that on technrcal grounds, this was a very bad precedent to set, and this was why the application needed to come before the Commission as a clean MPR He said that whether or not Ordinance 1419 was a good Idea IS a separate Issue He noted that as a Planning Commission he did not believe It was a good Idea Commissioner Cutull asked Staff what kind of enforcement power the City would use to accomplish compliance With the conditions of approval Mr Whittenberg responded that he understood Commissioner Brown's concerns related to enforcement Issues In the City He commented that this has been an ongoing Issue, was an Issue before he started work for the City, and would probably continue to be an Issue long after he departs the City of Seal Beach He stated that enforcement IS an Issue that comes before the Commission pnmanly In publiC comments or dunng an actual application on a speCific piece of property He stated that Staff deals With many Code enforcement Issues on a dally baSIS Without haVing to go to court He said that for thiS MPR application, the enforcement IS that until the applicant complies With the conditions as proposed by Staff, they would not be Issued a bUilding permit for the deck structure If they do not have a bUilding permit by the time frame stipulated In Ordinance 1419, which IS a year after the effective date of the ordinance, then Staff would go to a court process to have the deck phYSically removed from the property He continued that thiS was a process that the City preferred not to go through, and that IS why Ordinance 1419 was adopted He stated that although he understood there would be differences of opinion on the ordInance, the City has adopted It, and Staff must ensure that the ordinance provIsions are met In the most effective manner pOSSible Commissioner Larson stated that there were many laws that he does not agree With, but that thiS was not the time or place to say that Ordinance 1419 IS a bad law He saId that the CommIssIon IS supposed to follow the law He continued that It has been 10 years, and every time thiS Issue comes up someone sends It back somewhere else, and no one has the courage to say yes or no He stated that he was In agreement With Commissioner Cutull that thiS matter be continued to some time In March, after the conditions have been met He commented that to an outSider thiS would appear to be another effort by the CIty to frustrate people by 14 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19,2000 making them Jump through hoops He said that he felt this was wrong, and that there was something wrong with the City to create this Impression Commissioner Brown stated that the City did not create this Issue and neither did the current owners of the property He said that the people who originally bUilt an Illegally constructed deck without a bUilding permit and violated a Stop Work Order created the problem He noted that the City has spent 10 years attempting to come to a reasonable conclusion to this matter, that IS fair to all concerned He commented that, unfortunately, many times what IS reasonable depends upon who IS elected at the time MOTION by Cutull, SECOND by Lyon to continue this request to the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2000 MOTION CARRIED: AYES NOES ABSENT- 5-0 Brown, Cutuh, Hood, Larson, and Lyon None None Mr Whittenberg announced that there were be no additional notice of the continued hearing, and It would appear on the Agenda of March 22, 2000 SCHEDULED MATTERS 9 Determination of Appropriate ZOnlng-Walk-Uprrake-Out Restaurant Staff Report Mr Cummins delivered the staff report (Staff Report IS on file for Inspection In the Planning Department) He reported that a resident that operates a dry cleaning establishment at 118 Main Street had Inquired about the pOSSIbIlIty of opening up a walk-up/take-out restaurant After conducting research on the request, Staff was not able to locate thiS particular use listed Within the permitted use section of the City Code The Code does give the Planning Commission the authOrity to recommend to City Council that a particular use that IS substantially consistent With other uses Within the zone be allowed Mr Cummins reported that currently the Main Street SpeCific Plan (MSSP) does not acknowledge the walk-up/take-out restaurant as a land use, but It IS defined Within the City ZOning Code and IS a permitted use Within a C-1 Commercial Zone He noted that before the SpeCific Plan was adopted, Main Street was a C-1 Zone and thiS use would have been permitted at that time He stated that currently the C-1 Zone stili permits thiS use subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) He remarked on a sImIlar case that came before the Planning Commission In 1993 where a 15 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 Cdy of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 determination was made that a bakery was consistent with the C-1 Zoning and a CUP was approved Mr Cummins stated that In revIewIng the parking requirements, Staff had determined that they would be Similar to the parking for the Coffee House/Dessert Shop use on Main Street and would require 1 parking space for every 500 square He explained that the rationale was that clientele for this business would be passers by that are already there, and there would be no tables or chairs permitted on the site He stated that Staff felt this to be benefiCial to the area, as there are very few Similar operations near the beach He reminded the CommissIon that a CUP would be required before any operation of this type could begin business Mr Cummins stated that the vote tonight would be to acknowledge that this particular use IS consistent With others Within the MSSP and that the parking demand IS essentially the same He repeated that pnor to beginning operation, approval of a CUP would be required He stated that Staff recommends approval to the City Council that the proposed land use IS an appropnate use In the MSSP Commissioner Questions Commissioner Brown asked how many parkIng spaces are currently at the site Mr Cummins responded that the determination tOnight was not for this particular site but that this use would be permissible under the MSSP He stated that Staff has not begun to research this particular bUilding as this would have to come before the Commission for approval of a CUP, and this Information would be prOVided at that time Commissioner Brown confirmed that this use was not currently Included In the MSSP He asked If the discussion pertained to the bakenes on Main Street Mr Whittenberg responded that these were permitted uses under the Coffee House/Dessert Shop proVISion of the MSSP He explained that no CUP IS required If the site IS less than 1000 square feet He continued that for the walk-up/take-out use Staff IS recommending a CUP requirement regardless of the size of the bUilding CommIssIoner Brown confirmed that Staff Wished to create a new category for stnctly take-out restaurants With no seating Mr Whittenberg confirmed this He stated that there IS an eXisting category for this type of use In the C-1 Zone of the City, which IS what Main Street was zoned for pnor to the adoption of the MSSP He explained that the Issue was whether this type of use could be allowed In the Main Street area Commissioner Brown questioned the definition of a C-1 Zone, stating that he thought a walk-up/ take-out restaurant IS allowed some seating Mr Whittenberg responded that If It IS a walk-up/take-out restaurant, by definition It has no seating Chairperson Hood announced that although this was not a public matter, did any member of the public Wish to address the Commission on this Item Commissioner Brown asked If there was a reason why this Item was dropped from the MSSP Mr Whittenberg responded that In researching archive minutes, he believes that the matter was never discussed when drafting the MSSP, but that It was somehow 16 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 determined that the City did not choose to allow this type of use as part of the MSSP Ms Rosann Rosandlch stated that she was stili confused as to why she would require a CUP and requested further explanation Mr Whittenberg responded that the purpose of the CUP was to allow the PlannIng Commission a review of the business proposal to ensure that the operation as proposed would not have adverse affects to adjoInIng businesses or residents In the area surrounding the proposed business He commented that Issues that anse With walk-up/take-out restaurants are usually IS there sufficient area Inside (he restaurant for people to walt to order or pick up food, disposal of trash and debris generated by customers, limitation of hours of operation, etc Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brown stated that he did not recall diSCUSSion In the MSSP that It would be bad to have a take out restaurant on Main Street He stated that It was previously allowed and, assuming that this was simply an omission, he did not have any problem With approving this proposal MOTION by Brown, SECOND by Cutull to approve Determination of Proper ZOnIng-Walk-uplTake-out Restaurant and adopt Resolution 00-6 MOTION CARRIED. AYES. NOES: ABSENT 5-0 Brown, Cutuh, Hood, Larson, and Lyon None None Mr Whittenberg explained that the matter would now be brought before the City Council for review and concurrence If the Council approves this determination, Staff Will compose an amendment to the City Code and the applicant may then make application for a CUP to be brought before the PlannIng Commission for approval PUBLIC HEARINGS 10 Zone Text Amendment 99-4 CitYWide AppllcanUOwner Request City of Seal Beach To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row of Surf side to be 10 feet, deep Currently, 10-foot decks are only permitted on the 1st floor, With 5-foot decks permitted on the 2nd and 3rd floors This amendment would allow the owner to choose to place the 10-foot deck either 17 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 .47 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 on either the 15t or 2nd floor, but not both, and In no case would a 10-foot deck be permitted on the 3rd floor Recommendation. Recommend this item be continued to the February 9, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 11 Conditional Use Permit 98-12 (Indefinite Extension) 1101 Pacific Coast Highway AppllcanUOwner. Request. Vons Company c/o Keith Lam Indefinite extension to operate commercial activities between 2 a.m and 6 a m at Vons Market, thereby remaining open 24 hours a day. EXisting use of the site will not change. No structural improvements are required. Recommendation' Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-4. Staff Report Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report (Staff Report IS on file for Inspection In the Planning Department) He reported that this Item was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting so that Staff could acquire data related to police reports logged regarding Vons He asked if the Commission chose to have him review the original CUP presentation, or that he simply read from the memorandum outlining the police information compiled. Chairperson Hood surveyed the Commissioners who all agreed that Mr. Cummins could present the memorandum (A copy of the memorandum is on file for inspection in the Planning Department) Mr. Cummins explained that he had contacted Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD) and had discovered that complaints are logged into the system based upon where the complaint is being made As such, If someone calls to complain about nOise In the Vons parking lot, it is possible that the complaint would not be logged as coming from Vons, but to the intersection of 12th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, making it difficult to determine which complaints are particular to Vons He stated that Staff had reviewed the SBPD record of complaints for the Vons address for the previous 18 months and were able to Identify only one complaint made In March of 1998 that could be attributed directly to Vons. Staff met with the store manager to discuss mitigation measures to address the issue of the parking lot lighting He stated that the store manager has offered to Install aluminum covers over the lights to reflect the lighting downward. Also, the truck with the refrigeration unit is no longer parked in the parking lot Staff is recommending a six-month extension with a re-evaluation of this CUP at that time. Mr Whittenberg added that the issue of obtaining reliable Information from the SBPD was addressed during a Department Head staff meeting with SBPD and the City Manager on Monday, January 17, 2000. He stated that it was agreed that the City will establish a program to provide SBPD with a list of properties that must be 18 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 tracked to record certain types of complaints, pnmanly restaurant related Issues, 24- hour operation issues, etc. SBPO will keep City management appnsed of any complaints logged and their logging system will be modified to allow for faster acquisition of this data upon request. He also noted that in meeting with the Store Manager, the Issue of truck delivery times was discussed He announced that a representative from Vons Companies was present at tonight's meeting and would provide additional information on this issue Commissioner Questions Mr Terrence Boga commented that for the record, he wished to state that although Commissioner Lyon was absent from the January 5, 2000 portion of this public hearing, Mr. Boga did speak with Commissioner Lyon at the beginning of tOnight's meeting and he had informed Mr. Boga that he had reviewed the minutes for that meeting He said that because the minutes are very detailed, Commissioner Lyon felt that he was familiar enough with the matter to participate In this heanng Public Hearina Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing Ms Maura Tillotson of Urban Solutions spoke on behalf of Vons She stated that she was disappointed that she had not been informed of the hearing of January 5, 2000 She apologized for her absence, and stated that, unfortunately, there had been a miscommunication She thanked Staff for their assistance and SBPO for their support She said that she had read the Staff Report, Memorandum, and the Minutes and stated that she understood the complaints vOiced by the citizens of Seal Beach, and the store and possibly shopping center issues She stated that she and Staff met with the store manager, and Vons has done several things to help mitigate the outstanding issues that are considered trouble areas as follows: 1. The dock light that appears to be shining out to the residences has been refocused and the manager IS willing to place a shield on the light if It continues to be a problem. 2. Trash bins have been placed behind a locked gate and the hours of trash pick-up have been changed to a later time 3. There will be no trash dumping allowed early in the morning or late In the evening. 4. Signs have been posted on both buildings and memorandums have been sent to delivery agencies stipulating that truck delivery hours are to be restricted to the hours from 6'00 a m. to 10:00 p m Ms. Tillotson explained that thiS Vons store has been designated a "curfew store," which means that anyone in violation of thiS delivery schedule can be repnmanded Also, license plates for those trucks/vehicles In Violation of thiS schedule will be noted and the infraction acted upon She also explained that sometimes trucks arrive earlier than allowed and park in the back of the store and walt until it IS time to unload their stock. She 19 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 . City of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon Meeting Minutes of January 19.2000 said that the store manager is more than willing to enforce a parking curfew to prevent this 5 She stated that during the holiday season there IS a truck containing frozen turkeys that parks behind the store, and dunng this season the store instituted a policy to have the truck compressor turned off from 11 00 P m. to 6 00 a. m Ms Tillotson stated that Vons appears to be abiding by the conditions set forth In Resolution 98-27. She explained that Vons does share the rear loading dock area with the Sav-On Drug Store next door. She said she spoke with the Sav-On store manager, Mr. Dean Alterbaugh, and he has agreed to assist in mitigating any further disturbances. She explained that he has lighting and an unenclosed trash area that will be addressed She stated that the store manager has an alarm that goes off in Sav-On for approximately 1 minute between the hours of 11 00 P m and 1200 a.m when he engages the alarm system It makes a beeping sound, which she assumes is very similar to the signal that goes off when a truck is backing up She stated that Vons wants to be a good neighbor. She inquired whether there was a way to prevent trucks from going back and forth through this area, and if possibly these trucks can be identified to ensure that they are Indeed Vons trucks Mr. Mark Warner stated that he was representative of most of the older people that live on his street but do not have the strength to come to the meetings to deal with the Vons Issue. He stated that he was glad to hear the Vons' representative talking about making some positive changes, and that these were the kinds of things the residents had been diSCUSSing for the past 25 years. He stated that he hoped things would be different now. Regarding the SPBD Information provided to Staff, Mr. Warner stated that he was in disagreement with thiS data. He stated that during the time from Apnl-July 1999 his wife had registered approximately SIX noise complaints and he cited the dates that these complaints were made. He presented to Chairperson Hood a list documenting the dates that complaints were made to SBPD by the Warners. (A copy of this log IS available for viewing In the Planning Department.) He stated that these complaints were made because he was unable to get successful resolution from either Bnggeman Trash Disposal or Vons Market Commissioner Larson asked If Mr Warner had documented the times that the complaints were made. Mr. Warner responded that he had only documented the dates and stated that the complaints were made between the hours of 8 00 a m and 5:00 p.m. He also noted that they had maintained a log of the dates and times when various nOises were heard. He stated that from May-July 1999, there were 25 instances of noise logged, and he proceeded to read a few examples of the items recorded He then provided Chairperson Hood with a copy of the nOise log. Mr. Warner stated that after several conversations with the store manager, who was always very courteous, there has been no change in the level or frequency of noise from the Vons parking lot. He said that although Vons had agreed to place a cover over the dock light, this was stadium lighting and he wasn't sure that a cover would do much good He stated that these lights were never a problem until last year when they were put up along the top of the bUildings He recommended denial of 20 1 . -2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 Cdy of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 the indefinite extension of CUP 98-12 to allow Vons to continue to operate 24 hours a day. Mayor Paul Yost said that he was not present to speak either In favor or against 24- hour operation at Vons. He said that he had spoken with Mr. Warner on several occasions and had asked Mr. Warner to maintain a log of Incidences of noise. He said that he frequently asks residents to do this as It relates to code violations and it can be very effective In helping to resolve the problem Mayor Yost apologized for the lack of communication between SBPD and City Staff and said he was hopeful that this situation would be remedied Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Cutuli stated that this issue was not one of great emotional commitment by any of the neighboring residents that he spoke with regarding Vons He said that one of the indiViduals he spoke with stated that they had gone to Vons In the middle of the night to purchase cold and flu medication that they needed He stated that this was Just one of the benefits of having an all night operation. He also noted that one of hiS neighbors who leaves very early In the morning when going camping stops in at Vons to purchase food and supplies before beginning their trip. Commissioner Cutuli stated that most of the noise generated takes place at the front of the building, on the opposite side to the residences He said that the nOise generated by the trucks at the back of the store was not acceptable. He noted that although Mr Warner had presented his log of dates when complaints were lodged, he failed to include the times the complaints were made, Information that would have been very helpful in determining who or what was generating the nOise. He proposed a short extension of CUP 98-12 to determine exactly what the activity IS between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6'00 a m He stated that he needed to know exactly what IS going on because the 24-hour operation is a convenience to some of the people and a nuisance to others. He said that if Biggeman generates most of the noise, than Staff should address the issue with them. However, If Vons is generating most of the noise, then consideration needs to be given to terminating the CUP Mr. Whittenberg Interjected that the rear of both Vons and Sav-On face the homes In question, and the driveway that goes from one end of the rear parking lot to the other is fairly constricted at both ends. He stated that one of the suggestions made by Staff to deal with the Issue of delivery trucks being In this area prior to 6'00 a.m. was that residents contact the owner of the shopping center about installing chain link gates at each end of the driveway that could be locked at night and not opened until 6:00 a.m. This would not only keep delivery trucks out of the area but also help with noise from Briggeman trash pickup. He noted that the by franchise agreement with Briggeman, trash pickups are not to begin before 6 00 a m He noted that a number of the times in Mr. Warner's log reflected Briggeman making noise at 6'20 21 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 am., 6.15 a.m., 630 am., etc He stated that, unfortunately, this was perfectly legal by franchise throughout the City of Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the chain link gates might provide a solution to nOises after 10 00 P m or In the pre- dawn hours Commissioner Cutull recommended that when residents have a complaint about nOise, they should call SBPD at the time that they hear the nOise so that thiS information will be logged Into the record Mr. Whittenberg stated that the owner of the shopping center had the lights along the top of the buildings Installed for security purposes He said that he believed that the lighting had been installed at the request of SBPD to deal with the Issue of transients in thiS area. Mr Whittenberg stated that Staff would Investigate alternatives to help deflect the lighting behind Vons and Sav-On, but noted that residents would probably stili have to deal with some level of lighting He also stated that enclosing the trash dumpsters would alleViate the Issue of transients in thiS area of the shopping center Commissioner Lyon noted that Mr. Warner's log had documented several instances of noise from air brakes being released. He inqUired as to why deliveries could not be made at the front of the market. Commissioner Larson stated that residents should be able to sleep without being subjected to Intrusive light or loud nOises He said he did not know how to solve the problem, and that the conditions Imposed haven't done much good in mitigating the problem. He read Condition No. 9 regarding extenor lighting, and commented that the wording "lighting In the parking area shall be kept at a level so as to provide adequate lighting for patrons while not unreasonably disturbing surrounding residents" was not adequate. He noted that it was "reasonable" for SBPD to want to deter vagrants but it was also "reasonable" for residents to expect to have undisturbed sleep time. Commissioner Brown stated that there were two Issues presented: 1. Ongoing nOise complaints from the ongoing commercial activities dunng late or early morning hours, and 2 24-hour operation He stated he had not heard any complaints related to the 24-hour operation, but nevertheless, it stands to reason that a 24-hour operation would contribute to increased nOIse, traffic and people. He stated that in a city like Seal Beach where businesses are In close proximity to residences, business owners must be very cognizant of nOise levels Commissioner Brown stated that while he was sympathetic to people needing a 24-hour store, he noted that there was a 24-hour Ralph's Market only 5 minutes away in the Manna PaCifica Shopping Center He said that he had voted against thiS CUP before and he would do so again tonight. 22 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000 MOTION by Cutuh, SECOND by Lyon to extend CUP 98-12 for 90 days and return for review at that time CommiSSioner Brown stated that Vons had already been operating on a 24-hour basIs for a while and has had the opportunity to address the complaints vOiced by reSidents He said that he was not In favor of rewarding Vons for their "poor neighbor policy" Commissioner Cutuh argued that who was making the nOise had not yet been determined Commissioner Brown said that he trusted the reSidents who say the nOise IS coming from Vons CommiSSioner Larson stated that he was In favor of the motion for the reason that maybe Vons did not take the last set of conditions senously MOTION CARRIED AYES NOES: ABSENT. 4-1 Cutuh, Hood, Larson, and Lyon Brown None 8 Study Session Retaining Walls Chairperson Hood recommended that the Study Session be continued to another time Commissioner Larson was In agreement Mr Whittenberg explained that because the study session was not an advertised matter for public heanng, rescheduling would not be a problem He suggested continuing thiS Item to the February 23, 2000 meeting MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Cutuh to continue the Study Session Retaining Walls to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2000 MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES' ABSENT. 5-0 Brown, Cutuh, Hood, Larson, and Lyon None None STAFF CONCERNS None COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Larson referred to the lengthy discussions on the bed and breakfast (B&B) proposal and the preservation of hlstonc structures, and he stated that there 23 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 19, 2000 were stili many issues to be considered before making a recommendation to CIty Council He stated that with all of the public commentary and the heanngs that the City is holding on this proposal. he wondered what was left for Planning Commission to decide He inquired as to how the Commission could approach this matter objectively if the City Council has already held a hearing and made a decision on the matter. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a public hearing was scheduled at the Council level in anticipation that the Planning Commission might have taken action the night that the B&B proposal was presented. He stated that at that time there were pressing time issues in ensuring that the Proctor House was not in danger of demolition He stated that at that meeting the Council took no testimony or action but instructed Staff to hold a Community Meeting so that interested citizens could voice their concerns He said that the meeting was held last evening with approximately 45 people In attendance He stated that the Issue was due to come before the Planning Commission again on February 9. 2000 as continued from the last meeting He said that Staff would provide the Commissioners with a summary of the comments made at the Community Meeting Mr. Whittenberg noted that based upon some of the comments heard, there would be another Community Meeting held prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. He stated that Staff would attempt to further define the limits of the types of properties that this use would apply to and to address other concerns expressed on this proposal. Commissioner Larson said that he thought the Planning Commission Meeting was the community-input forum He wondered what 45 people think when they come to a series of meetings and find that the body that will make the decIsion requires another meeting ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 10.03 p m. Respectfully Submitted, ~Q^ -~~ Carmen Alvarez Executive Secretary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on February 9, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, January 19, 2000. ~.A 24