HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-02-09
,
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSIOd
AGENDA for February 9 2000
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - John Larson
District 3 - Len Cutuli
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
a
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1:00 p.m.
a
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.
a
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
a
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 inspedion.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of February 9, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
J
The fonowing is a brief explanation of the Planning 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 tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning 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 MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning 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 Planning
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 Planning Commission · Agenda of February 9, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
February 9, 2000 Agenda
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ROLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning 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 Planning Commi~ion, staff, or public to
request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate.. "lion.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that 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 Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000.
VI.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Zone Text Amendment 99-4 (Continued from Jan. 19, 2000)
Citywide
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the GA- Row of Surfside 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 3rt! 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 3rt! floor.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 99-36.
3. Zone Text Amendment 00-1 (Continued from Jan. 5, 2000)
Old Town
Applicant/Owner. City of Seal Beach
3
city of Seal Beach P :inning Commission · Agenda of February 9, 2000
Request:
To amend tht Zoning Ordinance to establish the -Residential Conservation
0- ,nay Zone" pennitting bed and breakfast facilities within this zone
sl.~ject to certain conditions and tenns.
Recommendation: Recomrr..3nd approval and adoption of Resolution 00-1.
4. Zone Change 00-1 (Continued from Jan. 5,2000)
:: 08 - 7th Street
Applicant/Owner:
nequest:
Chris Verhulst
To establish the -Residential Conservation Overlay Zone- on the subject
property, pennitting bed and breakfast facilities subject to certain
conditions and tenns as set forth in the -Residential Conservation Overlay
Zone"
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-2.
5. Conditional Use Pennit 00-1 (Continued from Jan. 5,2000 - Fonneny Minor Plan Review 00-1)
308 - 7th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Chris Verhulst
To approve a Site Development Plan on the subject property, pennitting
bed and breakfast facilities subject to certain conditions and tenns as set
forth in the -Residential Conservation Overlay Zone"
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
,003.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
4
r
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
FEB 23
MAR 08
MAR 22
APR 06
APR 19
MAY 03
MAY 17
JUN 07
JUN 21
JUL 06
JUL 19
AUG 09
AUG 23
SEP 06
SEP 20
2000 AQenda Forecast
Study Session: Retaining Walls
Minor Plan Review 00-2
Conditional Use Pennit 98-12
CUP 99-5 Sav-On Drugs - 12-Month Review
CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly -12-Month Review
OCT 04
OCT 18
NOV 08
NOV 22
DEC 06
DEC 20
TO BE SCHEDULED:
[J
[J
[J
[J
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Pennitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10n/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (1 on 198)
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar. CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrilO Review (April 2001)
ADA Handicapped-accessible RestrQoms (April 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 February 9, 2000
Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 9, 2000. The meeting was held in the
City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood
Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg noted that a request was made to continue Items 4 and 5 on the
Agenda to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Reg Clewley requested that Item 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Page 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 February 9, 2000
Ms. Sue Corbin spoke regarding Measure M stating that a "yes" vote would indicate
a vote against the Bixby Old Town Center Project. She announced that monetary
and volunteer help was needed to promote Measure M. She provided the address
for the storefront for the "Yes On M Committee," as 12393 Seal Beach Boulevard,
Seal Beach, Telephone No. (562) 596-7520. She said that donations could be
mailed to this address. Ms. Corbin stated that flyers were delivered in College Park
East on Sunday and Monday. She said that the committee was fighting against the
very wealthy Bixby Family who has hired a very expensive consultant, Mr. Adler, to
promote the Bixby Project. She displayed samples of the signs being used to
campaign against Bixby and stated that they could be picked up at the headquarters
office. She stated that in brochures produced by Adler and distributed in Leisure
World stated that the trees on the development site would be saved. She said that it
was not possible to widen the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing and at the same
time preserve the trees.
Mr. Stan Anderson thanked the Commissioners for giving of their time in
participating on the Planning Commission and commended them for their work in
dealing with the proposal for the Bixby Project. He stated that this was a difficult
situation with many factors to be taken under consideration. Mr. Anderson stated
that he was concerned with the current traffic situation and stated that if the Bixby
Old Town Center is constructed and the Rossmoor Center is enlarged, there will be
more traffic. He said that although Measure M does include provisions for alleviating
the bottleneck of traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and these funds along with $1
Million contributed by Bixby will be used to widen the overcrossing, CalTrans has
already designated the 22 Freeway for widening at that overcrossing. He stated that
he did not understand why money would be spent to support something that is going
to be rebuilt when the freeway is widened. He stated that it was important that
information be provided to the people so that they can make the right decision when
they go to the polls. He said that he wanted to be informed, and he hoped that
information is distributed in a fair and timely manner. He stated that he believed the
Planning Commission has attempted to do this. Mr. Anderson stated that he wanted
to be supportive of the Commission and the City Council, but questioned how
citizens could be supportive when they did not receive information to help keep them
informed as voters. He stated that the traffic bottleneck must be rectified before any
further development is approved. He said that the Commission should be more
concerned with the people and less concerned with sales tax revenues or
developments in other cities.
Mr. Gordon Shanks spoke regarding the EI Toro Airport. He stated that a vote on
this issue was imminent and that it would affect the citizens of Seal Beach as there
were several sites under consideration for an international airport. He stated that the
sites under consideration were one near the Los Angeles Harbor and another off of
Long Beach Harbor. He noted that another site under consideration is the Los
Alamitos Armed Force Reserve Center. He encouraged citizens to get out to vote if
they did not want to see an airport constructed near Seal Beach.
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
Mr. Reg Clewley spoke regarding the importance of Measure M. He said that the
Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing is a substandard structure. He stated that
widening the overpass would not bring the bridge into conformance with current
standards. He said that the widening of the 22 Freeway would require the removal
of the overcrossing and that this was a project that the City is proposing to
"squander millions of our taxpayers dollars upon." Mr. Clewley stated that this would
be a disastrous waste of taxpayers' money to allow this to be done. He said that this
would greatly affect the residents of Leisure World who currently enjoy a greatly
reduced utility tax, which he believes would not continue should this project be
completed. He stated that a Target Store may be built, and it would be at the
expense of all of the eucalyptus trees, most of which were already dead. He said
that the people of Seal Beach preserved these trees on paper, but these trees are
now dead.
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he believed Lines 11 and 12 on Page 11 of the Minutes
to be "terribly wrong." He objected to the use of the word "glad," and argued that
there was a distinction between the words "glad" and "grateful." He said that the
applicant at no time stated that she was glad that the City had approved Ordinance
1419, but had stated that she was "grateful." Mr. Clewley stated that a person is
"glad" when they have seen justice served, and a person is "grateful" when they
have received something they do not deserve. He stated that this must be corrected
in the minutes and entered into the record for all to understand that at no time was
the applicant ever glad, but was grateful for the "special privilege" that the City
Council had granted in passing this Ordinance especially for the applicant. He said
that this was very significant and needed to be corrected in the Minutes, otherwise
the public would be misled at the hearing on March 22, 2000. He also referred to
the section of the minutes reflecting Mr. Clewley's comments in disputing several
items in the Staff Report. He stated that the items he had mentioned were not listed
individually in the minutes. He said that the minutes were misleading and did not
reflect what was said, and this has a bearing on what will be voted on.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the Commission directed, the actual words would be
'corrected in the minutes of January 19, 2000. Chairperson Hood responded that
this would not be necessary, as the minutes were not meant to be a verbatim
transcript of the comments but were meant to provide a summary of the attitude and
comments made at the minutes.
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Brown to approve the Minutes of January 19,
2000 as presented.
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Zone Text Amendment 99-4 (Continued from Jan. 19, 2000)
Citywide
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To allow the construction of 2nd story decks on the "A" Row
of Surfside 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
on the 1 st or 2nd floor, but not both; and in no case would a
10-foot deck be permitted on the 3rd floor.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 99-36.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that currently, decks are only permitted on the first floor of homes in SUrfside,
with glass enclosures up to 8 feet. He stated that Surfside Colony had gone through
a fairly rigorous procedure to change their lease to allow decks to extend 10-feet on
either the 1 st or 2nd floor of homes along the A-Row in Surfside. At that time,
representative of Surfside approached the City regarding changing City Code to
allow these decks. He continued that during the October 20, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting, comments were made that 10-foot decks on the 2nd floor
would look "weird." He stated that in many of the Surfside properties the 2nd floor is
the primary floor of living space, with the 1 st floor essentially being a patio. He said
that because many properties sit below the grade of sand, many of these properties
cannot fully take advantage of their beach frontage in the same manner as those in
other portions of the colony. This Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) would allow these
residents to have the same square footage of deck space by allowing 10-foot decks
on the second floor.
Page 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
Mr. Cummins said that the other issue discussed at the October meeting was the
possibility of residents enclosing these structures and converting them to habitable
space. To prevent this, Staff is recommending reducing the height of the enclosure
from 8 feet to 5 feet.
He then addressed Commission concerns regarding view blockage. He stated that
in the past the City has taken the policy of considering only the "primary view,"
directly out from the property, and has not actively considered the angled view. He
presented several photographs of Surfs ide Colony decks along Row A. He noted
that there were many Surfside properties built several years a~o with 1 st floors sitting
on poles. He stated that this would be considered to be the 15 floor of these homes.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Larson asked if a 5-foot deck could be constructed on all three floors.
Mr. Cummins responded that they could but that only the decks on the 151 and 2nd
floors could be enclosed.
Mr. Dave Evans spoke on behalf of Surfside Colony. He recommended approval of
ZTA 99-4, and stated that he was present to answer any questions regarding this
proposal. He stated that representatives of Surfs ide held many discussions on this
issue and the lease was modified and a copy signed by all residents of A-Row. He
stated that currently there are 15 A-Row residences with 2nd story decks, and 20 with
elevated decks.
Public Hearino
Mr. Reg Clewley referred to the Paragraph 2 on Page 2 of the Staff Report and
questioned how Staff would be able to enforce unpermitted enclosing of the first floor
deck area. He stated that the citizens of Seal Beach did not have much regard for
the Building Code. He stated that the other issue of concern is whether or not decks
will create view blockage. He said that this issue was addressed by the Surfside
Colony during the October 20, 1999 meeting, by writing a clause protecting the
lateral view into their bylaws. He stated that in the rewrite this protection has been
eliminated. He stated that the same thing had occurred with homes along Ocean
Avenue. He said that the sunlight coming onto a 151 floor decks was obstructed by
neighboring 2nd story decks. He stated that the people of Surfside wanted the lateral
view protected and this has been eliminated as Staff has determined that this view is
unimportant. Mr. Clewley then referred to Paragraph 5, Page 2 noting that it was
ironic that a few paragraphs before it is stated that Staff had no concerns over
unpermitted enclosure of decks, yet in Paragraph 5 it notes that "a few" of the
proposed 10-foot, 2nd story decks have already been constructed, prior to having
approved this ZT A. He stated that Staff was now asking the Commission to approve
these illegally constructed decks. He said that a 10-foot patio on the first floor was
the same as a 10-foot deck. He said that referring to this as a patio simply means
that residents can have 10-foot decks on both the 151 and 2nd floor. He stated that
Page 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
what Staff was asking the Commission to do was to "pollute the Building Code." He
said that this was poorly written legislation and provides no protection for residents
as enforcement of the construction of the decks would not be done.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked for clarification of the wording "otherwise 5 feet" found
in Article 5, Paragraph 6, Section (b) of Zone Text Amendment 99-4. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that if the resident wanted to construct a 5-foot wide, on-
grade patio slab, a 5-foot high wind screen enclosure could be constructed around
the patio. He said that for a 10-foot wide, on-grade patio, no enclosure would be
allowed. Commissioner Brown questioned whether the phrase "otherwise 5 feet"
was clear enough. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if the Commission was in agreement
with the concept, Staff could change the wording of this phrase to make it clearer.
Commissioner Brown stated that he had no objection to the concept, but was simply
questioning the language.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he had lived in Surfside for approximately 11 years
and he felt that the 2nd story extended decks were not very attractive; however, he
said he did not feel that it was up to him or the Commission to impose rules based
upon another person's concept of how a house should look. He said he felt that if
there were any chance that 1 st floor decks could be built into a habitable unit below
the 2nd floor10-foot extension, then he would definitely be inclined to vote against
ZTA 99-4. He said that he spoke with Mr. Evans and also with Judy, the secretary at
Surfside, and it is universally felt that this would be a good option to have and that
they would be very stringent about not allowing any enclosed structures below the
10-foot 2nd story extension. Commissioner Cutuli noted that another factor that
must be considered is that for the A-Row properties behind the berm that runs along
the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) property, if they were to construct a 10-foot deck
on the 1 st floor, it would be like a cave. He said that in view of the information
presented to him during the past two weeks, he would vote to approve ZT A 99-4, as
he believes that this is something that should be allowed as long as there is the
guarantee that no enclosed structures would be built under the 10-foot extension of
a 2nd story deck.
Commissioner Lyon asked if there were any limitation as to the east-west location of
the decks, and with the berm in front of a property, would there be any reason to
construct a 10-foot deck on the 2nd floor. He asked if this would be controlled by the
Surfside Colony. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the lease arrangements within
Surfside would allow a maximum of a 10-foot deck anywhere. He stated that Staff
was proposing to change City Code to conform with the change that Surfside has
made to its lease agreements. He said that Staff felt that the standards that Surfside
had adopted with the new lease were reasonable. He stated that regarding the
lateral view issue, the City has never taken a position of enforcing construction
standards to preserve a lateral view up coast or down coast. He said that since he
has been with the City he has never seen this done. Mr. Whittenberg continued by
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
stating that although the issue has been raised on several occasions, the Planning
Commission has always taken the position that a view is a direct view from the front
of the property, not across someone else's property. He stated that this change
would allow property owners to decide where they wish to have a 10-foot deck. He
stated that for those properties further away from the berm, the decks would
probably be built on the ground floor, as this was usually the level for the primary
living area. He said that for those properties closer to the NWS berm, there is no
direct view of the ocean from the 1 st floor, and so the decks would most likely be
constructed on the 2nd floor. Commissioner Lyon asked if the residents of Surfside
had approved the ZT A as written. Mr. Whittenberg responded that although it was
not up to Surfside Colony to approve ZT A 99-4, Staff had written the text to conform
to the new lease agreement provisions. He explained that Surfside has the
requirement that before a project can come before the City for a building permit, it
has to acquire approval from the Board of Directors of Surfside Colony. He stated
that those decks constructed prior to the Code change were built because Surfside
had already made the change in the lease agreement provisions to allow them. He
said that when the plans for these decks were brought in for plan check, Staff did not
note that the plans were for a 2nd story deck. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was
now attempting to coordinate City standards and Surfside's standards so that they
are the same. Commissioner Lyon clarified his previous questions by asking if after
having viewed the text for ZTA 99-4, representatives of Surfside were in agreement.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct.
Commissioner Brown stated that although aesthetically it would look better to have a
deck on the 1 st floor as opposed to the 2nd floor, he had no objection to approving
ZTA 99-4. He agreed with Commissioner Cutuli's observation that the Planning
Commission was not the arbitrator of taste within the City, and he also agreed with
Mr. Whittenberg regarding the lateral view. He said that the Commission has only
been concerned with the primary view of residents. He stated that once you get into
this issue, it raises a hornet's nest that many Commissions have chosen not to
approach. He said that he was satisfied with Staff's limitations to prevent the 1 st
floor being built into a habitable space. He asked if Staff had corrected the wording
previously discussed. Mr. Whittenberg recommended that in Article 5, Section (b),
2nd line after the word "OR" that a small numeral"i" be inserted to read "1st floor is an
on-grade patio to a maximum of 1 O-feet with no enclosure," then below that a small
numeral "ii" be inserted to read "or a 5-foot on-grade patio with a 5-foot high glass
enclosure." Commissioner Cutuli asked if this means that a 10-foot on-grade patio
and a 10-foot 2nd floor deck would not be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it
would depend upon what you were calling a patio. He said that a 10-foot on-grade
cement slab, with a 10-foot deck above would be allowed, but not a 10-foot enclosed
deck on both the 1 st and 2nd floor. Commissioner Cutuli stated that this was
prejudicial to those property owners that have their homes built to specification with
the 15t floor on the slab, or on grade. He said this wording would allow some people
to have two 10-foot decks, while not allowing a lot of people to have two 10-foot
decks. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if you were dealing with a property with an
elevated, 15t floor deck, a first floor stairway could be constructed going down to a
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
new at grade patio area, or the standard could be changed and not allow the 10-foot
deck on the 1 sl floor in any case if there is a 2nd floor 10-foot deck. He stated that
Staff did not believe it would be a problem with an on-grade, 10-foot paved area as
opposed to a 1 a-foot area that is 5-foot paved and 5-foot sand. He said that this
was a change that could be incorporated into the ZT A. Commissioner Cutuli stated
that he would rather see this change made in order to address the issue of fairness
and also to prevent the enclosing of 1 sl floor patios in any way. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that if it was the preference of the Commission, Paragraph (b) of Article 5
could be amended to eliminate the text after the word "OR" to have Paragraph (b)
read, "Second Floor - Ten feet provided that the first floor deck is then restricted to
five feet in depth with a glass enclosure." Chairperson Hood confirmed that the
Commission was in agreement with this change.
Commissioner Larson stated that he felt the people that live in Surfside are capable
of watching out for their own interests. He stated that they had unanimously agreed
with the language of ZT A 99-4, and probably have a good system of enforcement,
which he referred to as the "snitch system." He said that he did not see any reason
to change the language if it had already been approved by Surfside Colony. He said
that he had no objection to changing the wording, but did not see the need for
making changes.
Chairperson Hood re-opened the public hearing so that the representative from
Surfside could speak. Mr. Dave Evans stated that the issue of two 1 a-foot decks
was discussed quite a bit by Surfside Colony. He said that currently there are 4 or 5
homes with this situation. He stated that with an on-grade patio on the sand, there is
a lot of sand that gets blown into the homes on a daily basis. He said that having
the 1 sl floor patio provides an extra barrier for keeping the area clean of sand and
provides extra space underneath the 2nd floor deck. He stated that the Board of
Directors for Surfside would prefer to keep the wordin~ as written. He commented
that there is one recently constructed home with a 2n floor deck, with the 1 sl floor
being elevated 18 inches. He said that this deck had to be cut back by 5 feet. He
stated that the intent was not to have two elevated 1 a-foot decks, but one deck and
an on-grade slab. Mr. Evans stated that as far as enclosures go, there is a very
good "snitch system" in Surfside, so he felt that there would not be a problem with
non-permitted enclosures of deck structures on the 1 sl floor. He emphasized that the
Architectural Committee reviews all plans carefully and he said that the City has
done an excellent job in never allowing plans to go through plan check without first
having been approved by Surfside.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Mr. Whittenberg proposed changing the wording to read that a 10-foot on-grade
patio could be constructed on the 1 sl floor with a 10-foot deck on the 2nd floor.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Whittenberg to read the changes as they had been
made previously. Mr. Whittenberg read Paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Page 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
"Second Floor - Ten feet provided that the first floor deck is then
restricted to 5-feet in depth with a 5-foot high glass enclosure, OR
(i) First floor is an on-grade patio to a maximum of 10-feet with no
enclosure.
MOTION by 8rown; SECOND by Larson to approve Zone Text Amendment 99-4
and adopt Resolution 99-36 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg announced that ZT A 99-4 would require another public hearing at
the City Council level and the date of the hearing would be duly noticed.
3. Zone Text Amendment 00-1 (Continued from Jan. 5,2000)
Old Town
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
City of Seal 8each
To amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish the
"Residential Conservation Overlay Zone" permitting bed
and breakfast facilities within this zone subject to certain
conditions and terms.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-1.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg announced that the only item under consideration tonight was Zone
Text Amendment (ZTA) 00-1. He stated that Zone Change 00-1 and Conditional
Use Permit 00-1 would not be considered, as the applicant has requested that these
items be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in
the Planning Department.) He provided a brief overview of the proposal to establish
a definition within the Zoning Ordinance for a Residential Conservation Overlay
Zone (RC-O Zone) which would permit only bed and breakfast (8&8) facilities within
that particular zoning classification. Staff would then attempt to establish standards
for the conversion of two historically significant structures from residential uses to a
8&8 use. He stated that procedural standards for making specific application to the
City to apply the RC-O Zone to a specific property within the City were also to be
established. He explained that the City had been contacted by the applicant with a
Page 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
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
request to save two locally significant residential structures and relocate them to the
property on 7th Street. Mr. Whittenberg noted that as property values continue to
increase within Old Town, pressure will continue to increase to demolish some of the
remaining older structures and replace them with new residential structures. He
stated that Staff felt it was important to provide the Planning Commission and to the
City Council an alternative mechanism for conserving historically significant homes.
He reported that this ZT A had been considered at the January 5, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting and had been scheduled for the January 10, 2000 City Council
meeting, assuming an action would be taken by the Commission. This did not occur
and the matter was continued for consideration before the Planning Commission
tonight. When City Council was informed that no action had been taken on this item,
they instructed the City Manager to conduct a Community Information Meeting to
acquire input from the public on this ZT A. These meetings were held on January 20
and February 1, 2000. He stated that those in attendance at the January 20 meeting
had requested that a second meeting be held to continue discussion on this issue.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that a copy of the meeting notes was included with the
Commissioners agenda packets. He stated that the Council took additional action
and asked the City Attorney's office to investigate the procedure and policies that the
City would need to adopt to develop a Historic Preservation component of the City's
development standards. He stated that a number of cities throughout California and
nationwide have historic preservation commissions or committees who deal with the
issue of preserving locally significant historic structures.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the major changes proposed to ZT A 00-1 are as follows:
1. That RC-O Zone could not be applied to any property located adjacent to an
existing single-family residential use.
2. The property proposed for the RC-O Zone would have to be on a lot that has at
least 50 feet of street frontage.
3. The proposed property would have to be located within 500 feet of the
centerline of Pacific Coast Highway.
4. The proposed property would have to be located within 300 feet of an existing
hotel/motel facility.
He displayed an area map of the location for the proposed project to demonstrate
that it does meet the above criteria. He also described the surrounding properties
and demonstrated the area covered by the proposed RC-O Zone. He stated that the
City felt that an option should be provided for individuals wishing to restore locally
significant buildings, as the cost of restoration can sometimes be very high. He
stated that Staff felt that the B&B use would be less detrimental than converting
these locally significant structures to a professional office or a local museum due to
the trip generation characteristics of these types of uses. He suggested maintaining
the focus on restoration and conservation of structures and not opening this
classification to allow for the new construction of B&B facilities within this area. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that although initially the Minor Plan Review process was
recommended, Staff is now suggesting that a B&B use be subject to a Conditional
Page 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
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
Use Permit (CUP). He said that upon further evaluation by Staff and the City
Attorney, it was determined that the CUP process provides greater capabilities to
condition the operation of the use and to ensure that these conditions are met.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that another revision to the proposal is that the maximum
stay for guests of the B&B has been changed from 14 days to 10 days. Staff has
also clarified that the use of the 1997 Building Conservation Code applies to the
exterior of the structure, and the exemptions to the height, bulk, and setback
requirements are only applied to relocated rehabilitations. He stated that currently
there are no structures located in the proposed area that would meet the criteria of
being built before 1930.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that as far as the procedure for applying this Zone
Change to a particular property, Staff was still recommending the Zone Change
Process, which requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission or City
Council. He said that at this level of review the City has wide discretion on whether
or not to make a change. He stated that because this would involve a legislative
action of the Council, there would be much wider latitude to determine whether or
not the use is an acceptable one. He stated that for the Site Plan Review Staff was
recommending a CUP Process, because this would provide greater control over the
long-term operational aspects of the B&B that might not be available in as strong a
manner under the Minor Plan Review process.
He noted a change to the definition previously presented from having this ZT A apply
to structures that were at least 75 years old, to having only structures built prior to
1930 qualify for this process. He said that Staff believes that the primary purpose is
to allow that this function as a conservation/preservation effort for older structures
within the City. He stated that the primary purpose should be the conversion of an
existing older structure in town, and not allow new construction of a B&B facility in
this area. The limitation of 6 guestrooms in any separate B&B structure remains the
same. Mr. Whittenberg summarized by stating that the desire was to convert
existing structures that have local significance to another use if there is the potential
for them to be demolished otherwise. He reiterated that a B&B facility would be the
only use permitted under the RC-Q Zone. Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the
General Provisions for the B&B facility within the RC-Q Zone. He stated that these
provisions were designed to allow preservation of older structures in a manner that
would not be detrimental to adjoining properties. He emphasized that the
designated standards would only apply to a relocated structure. He stated that the
criteria were designed to tightly limit the area designated for the B&B use. He said
that when an older structure is relocated onto a new piece of property and the
objective is to preserve the central characteristics of the structure, it might be
necessary to vary from some of the City Code requirements. He stated that Staff
had available for reference a number of samples of ordinances from cities
throughout the country that deal with making alterations to. existing locally
designated historic structures.
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg explained that adoption of the ZT A would require a future public
hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council to apply the provisions of
the RC-Q Zone to a specific property. He stated that this would give City Council
and the community the widest possible leeway for input and provides Council with
the ultimate authority as to whether or not to apply this standard to a specific
property in town. He stated that the Zone Change Process gives the City the
greatest leeway in making a determination as to whether or not a particular
application of a particular lot in that area would be acceptable. He stated that Staff
recommends approval of Zone Text Amendment 00-1 and that it be forwarded to
City Council.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked if hotels are allowed in a C-2 Zone. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that they were allowed upon approval of a CUP. He said that he would
have to check, but he believed they were also allowed in a C-1 Zone by CUP.
Commissioner Brown asked if the definition of a hotel includes a B&B facility. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that it would not. Commissioner Brown asked if an
application were made to build a hotel in a C-2 Zone, and the City approved a CUP
for this use, could the hotel be converted to a B&B at a later time. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that there were differences in the definition of a hotel and a B&B facility.. He
gave the example of the Radisson Inn wanting to convert to a B&B. He stated that
they would have to apply for a CUP and receive approval before making a change in
the use of the property. Commissioner Brown clarified that what he wanted to know
was whether a B&B was inclusive within the definition of a hotel. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that they were two mutually exclusive definitions. Commissioner Brown
asked why this was so. Mr. Whittenberg responded that currently a B&B was not
allowed in the City at all. Commissioner Brown asked if he called a B&B a hotel,
then that would be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that as the Code is written
nothing in the definition of a B&B would fall within the definition of a hotel.
Commissioner Brown referred to the area map of the proposed RC-Q Zone. He
asked if a hotel could be built within the C-2 Zone for the shopping center. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that with approval of a CUP, this would be possible.
Commissioner Brown asked if this would widen the circle for the RC-Q Zone. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that this was a possibility. He stated that, as had been
indicated at the last meeting, if in the future the City were to allow an additional hotel
within 500 feet of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, this would open up
another area within the City for a potential B&B use. He stated that approval of the
hotel would have to be acquired before this could happen. Commissioner Brown
indicated that currently there were 7 properties that would be eligible for this
designation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the two 25-foot lots designated for this
project would be combined into one 50-foot lot. Commissioner Brown asked how
this would not be spot zoning. He stated that this was why the Zone Change was
very limiting in the way it has been drafted. Mr. Boga interjected that typically spot
zoning is considered to be when a few parcels have been singled out for
discriminatory treatment in terms of getting fewer benefits than surrounding
Page 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
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
properties. He stated that what was being discussed here was giving particular
properties more rights in terms of uses that can be allowed. He stated that once the
Planning Commission and City Council approve the application for the RC-O Zone,
this parcel would be allowed all the use of the lot in addition, it would have a B&B
use. Commissioner Brown asked if this didn't translate into giving the adjacent
properties less. Mr. Boga stated that the reality is that in zoning lines are always
drawn that may seem arbitrary to the parcels that are outside the circle and are
given less. Commissioner Brown stated that he wasn't referring to properties
outside the circle, but to the adjacent properties that might consider this to be a
detrimental zoning change. Mr. Boga stated that this was a choice that would be up
to the Commission. He stated that if Council were to approve the RC-O Zone, he
would not consider this to be typically what is considered to be spot zoning. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that the church located at 6th and Marina has been zoned as
commercial, while the surrounding homes are zoned as high density residential. He
stated that it would not be spot zoning if the residents down the street could not
develop their property for commercial use. He stated that the issue goes back the
fact that cities make decisions to zone properties for certain uses and not everyone
will have an equal right to put everything on their property that exists on some other
property. He said that the City does have very small areas of commercial zoning
along Pacific Coast Highway. He said some properties go 150 feet in depth, others
go 50 feet in depth, and these are decisions that are made based on overall impact
to the City and as Mr. Boga has said, this is not spot zoning.
Commissioner Lyon asked regarding the maximum number of allowable B&B
facilities. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the maximum number would be
determined on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the City. He noted that
within the proposed RC-O Zone there were a number of lots that were combined to
create 50-foot lots. He said that the apartment units on one of these lots could
conceivably be torn down and a historic structure moved to that location, but he
indicated that this would not be a rational economic decision, as rents for apartments
within the City are quite high. He stated that the proposed area would allow 4-5 lots
that would qualify for B&B use. He reiterated that these decision would be made on
a case-by-case basis, and simply because the lot qualifies does not mean that the
City has to approve the use for which the application has been submitted.
Commissioner Cutuli requested clarification on the extent of modifications that could
be made to locally significant structures, before it would be considered a remodel
rather than a restoration. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was a separate issue from
the issue before the Commission tonight. He said that if the RC-O Zone were
approved, then when a CUP application is received, the issue of the extent of
modifications would be addressed. He said that Staff has reviewed a number of
national, state, and local standards on rehabilitation, alteration, and expansion of
historic structures and there is a wide range of what is allowed depending upon the
level of historic significance to the structure. He stated that if a structure is part of
the national registry of historic structures, it must be preserved as it exists on the
outside. He said that there are provisions that allow changes to the interior area of
Page 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
the structure, but the outside must be maintained as is. He continued by stating that
if a structure is on the California registry of historic structures, it is subject to the
same standards. He stated that for structures on a local list of historic buildings that
do not qualify under the national or state historic registry, there is more leeway for
making changes to the structures. He stated that some city ordinances allow up to
50% expansion in the existing size of the building if it is somehow in general
conformity with the existing structure. Commissioner Cutuli asked why one of the
provisions was that the B&B must be within 300 feet of another hotel as opposed to
any other commercial structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the reason for this was
that existing hotels usually are in an area where people have become used to
visitors coming in and out of the area. He stated that the other criteria of having to
be within 500 feet of the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway was because this would
prevent transient traffic from coming down into the 100 or 200 block of the Old Town
area. He commented that if the Commission wished to recommend another criteria
that makes more sense, that was certainly acceptable.
Chairperson Hood stated that the Commission was not dealing with a specific
application but with a Zone Text Amendment in general. He stated that whether the
public chose to accuse any particular party with maligned intent by withdrawing
applications, that would be their choice. He noted that there were 38 people in the
audience and if they all wished to speak for 5 minutes, the meeting would be quite
lengthy. He requested that speakers be concise and to the point.
Mr. Whittenberg asked that Attachment 5 with copies of letters received regarding
ZTA 00-1 be entered into the record. Chairperson Hood noted that he had also
received a letter from Lauriette Burton and Jim Caviola and asked that they be
entered into the record.
Public Hearina
Mr. Dave Bartlett stated that the reason that the applicant chose to continue the
CUP 00-1 for this site to the next Planning Commission meeting was a result of the
response to the Commission discussion on this item. He stated that the point was
made that the applicant was moving too fast and that the enabling legislation needed
to be in place first. He said that he felt that it was appropriate for everyone here
tonight to focus the discussion on ZTA 00-1 and the appropriateness of the land use.
Mr. Bartlett began his presentation by stating that after conducting research on the
Internet and surveying several innkeepers he had compiled some general
characteristics of inns and B&Bs. He stated that inns are good neighbors and are
primarily located in residential neighborhoods. He said that inns strengthen the
economic base by providing a bed tax to the City and are good for the tourist
industry as an alternative to hotels and motels. He stated that guests at inns spend
on an average $110 more per person on meals, shopping, and incidentals than on
the actual cost of the room. This is triple the national average for hotels. He stated
that guests at .inns are usually nice, upper middle class married couples that are well
Page 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 February 9, 2000
educated. He said that complaints about guest noise and traffic are rare, and drive-
by traffic is very low because of the reservation system. Inns and B&Bs revitalize
older neighborhoods and raise the quality standard. He stated that conversion to
B&Bs offers the opportunity to preserve older historic homes. He provided
photographic examples of B&Bs within Southern California. He described the Seal
Beach Inn as a quaint and attractive facility surrounded by single-family homes and
said that it is an asset to the community. He stated that the surrounding residences
that have not been negatively impacted by having the inn located nearby.
Chairperson Hood asked Mr. Bartlett if he was addressing the ZT A or if he was
addressing the postponed issue. Mr. Bartlett responded that he was addressing the
fact that the proposed RC-O Zone is primarily residential along with commercial
uses. He again outlined the area on which the B&Bs would be permitted. He ended
by stating that the applicant feels this to be an appropriate land use for the proposed
location. Mr. Bartlett announced that he would be happy to respond to any questions
regarding the project.
Mr. Gordon Shanks, president of the Seal Beach Historical Society, spoke in favor of
approving ZTA 00-1 and stated that the proposed project could not be separated
from efforts to save the Krenwinkel House. He noted that cities throughout the
country have difficulty in attempting to preserve older historical structures because of
problems with parking and other issues. He said that many times citizens will
complain that members of City government do not respond to the will of the public,
but he commended the City for the major effort that has been made to attempt to
save the Krenwinkel House. He stated that although the Historical Society would
love to see the Krenwinkel House and the Proctor House remain at their current
locations, the economics of Old Town properties do not allow for this. Mr. Shanks
provided a brief background history of the Krenwinkel House. He said that the
choices were to demolish the two houses or to move them to the ih Street location.
He encouraged the public to support the City's efforts to preserve the history of Seal
Beach.
Mr. Ken Hall stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Bartlett's comments on B&Bs
and he felt that ZTA 00-1 would be a good plan for preserving the two homes.
Mr. Jim Caviola stated that the issue was one of integrity. He said that zoning
should not be changed. He commented that the City Manager had stated at the
community meetings that as everyone knew, this zone amendment was being
proposed specifically for this one project. Mr. Caviola stated that this project lacks
integrity, as it is not about restoration or preservation. He emphasized that zoning
should not be changed whenever someone wants to come into town with a
commercial project. He stated that the City goes out of its way and spends large
amounts of taxpayer money on issues like this when there are many other public
works issues that need to be addressed. He stated that he was adamantly opposed
to zone changes of any kind. He indicated that ZT A 00-1 would affect the whole
length of Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that construction of a hotel at the end of
town is under consideration and to add B&Bs would not be good for the City. He
Page 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
said that the proposed area was being changed from a residential zone to a
commercial zone. He ended by again stating that the entire project lacks integrity.
Mr. Lance Greer stated that this is a flawed zoning plan with arbitrary standards. He
stated that his home is located Within the proposed RC-O zone and he is the one
that would suffer from this plan. He said that no one seems to understand that this
is a unique part of town with many visitors to the library, many of whom park in front
of his home. He stated that all this change would do is to make things worse. He
reported that the attorney whose law office is adjacent to the proposed lot is
planning to retire soon and this could mean more B&Bs going in. He said he liked
B&Bs as they are isolated and unique and are not bunched together in what he
called "a bed and breakfast mall." He stated that he would become better informed
on this proposed ZT A and again stated his opposition to it.
Ms. Reva Olson spoke in opposition to ZT A 00-1. She stated that she had nothing
against B&Bs or preserving old homes, but she feels that this looks very much like a
special privilege situation. She said that if the public allows the City to go out and
arbitrarily draw circles to accommodate one person to do a development job, this
was setting a very bad precedent.
Mr. David Rosenman spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. He stated that he would be
letting the press know that he would present the City Manager with a freedom of
information request asking how much money has been spent on this project. He
stated that this was a special interest piece of legislation. He said that he had
shared information on this project with a lawyer friend of his and was told that the
City was setting itself up for trouble if this proposal is approved. Mr. Rosenman
stated that this was not a historic preservation project. He stated that the only place
in town where a B&B might be appropriate would be where the Shore Shop was
formerly located. He stated his objection to the City going through this process
simply to "grant favors."
Mr. Reg Clewley spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 stating that it was arbitrary and
capricious. He stated that the Commission could not pass a ZT A that is either. He
indicated that several members of the public had pointed out that it is arbitrary and
without evidence of support. He asked what would happen to the B&B should the
Radisson Inn close down, nullifying the requirement for the B&B to be within 300 feet
from a hotel. He said that this was special privilege as it was only applicable to that
specific property. He stated that the other 50-foot lot within the proposed RC-O
Zone was an apartment building and that no one would build a B&B where there are
already apartments. He said that this was not about preserving the homes, as there
is no integrity of restoration proposed. He recommended denial of ZTA 00-1.
The applicant, Mr. Chris Verhulst,. stated that after learning of the possible
destruction of the Krenwinkel House he approached the City about the possibility of
relocating the home and converting it to a B&B. He said that he was concerned
about the original ZT A that was presented at the last meeting because of the
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
possibilities it provided for B&Bs within Old Town. He stated that after the City
Council meeting the directive was given to hold public forums to allow the public to
comment and the current rewrite of ZTA 00-1 is the result of these discussions. Mr.
,
Verhulst noted that the proposed lot with its surrounding uses lends itself well to the
B&B use. He referred to the information presented by Mr. Bartlett regarding the
nature of the B&B guest. Because the basic reaction to the initial proposal was U I
don't want a B&B next to my house," Staff had refocused the ZTA to narrow down
the requirements for a B&B use. He emphasized that if a place could not be found
for these homes they will be "taken to the dump." He ended by stating that along
with being an asset to the City, conversion to a B&B was a good way to preserve
these historic homes. He said that there were not many homes within the City that
would meet the criteria for conversion to a B&B, so the public should not worry about
having B&Bs pop up throughout Old Town. He encouraged approval of ZTA 00-1 so
that this project could move forward.
Mr. Jim Cook spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1 and stated that he lives within 300 feet of
the proposed project. He stated that most of his neighbors are in favor of the project
and that their absence tonight confirms that they have no concerns about it. He
stated that his motivation was that he had spent approximately $600,000
constructing a single-family home on 8th Street and he wants his neighborhood's
property values to go up. He said that the developers would not be able to build two
single-family homes on the proposed lot and make a profit. He said that if the B&B
is not allowed it would be possible that a "six pack home" could be built on that lot.
He explained that this is a single-family residence that can be converted to
accommodate up to 6 unrelated persons to reside, for example, within an assisted
living facility or drug rehab setting. He stated that he would not want this happening
in his community. He said he would rather every apartment complex within the
proposed RC-O Zone be converted to a B&B. He said that guests of B&Bs are
generally quiet and usually spend a lot of money in town. He stated that guest
would park in the designated spaces to avoid the hassle of finding parking on the
street. Mr. Cook stated that the reason he goes to a B&B is because he want to be
within walking distance of everything he wants to visit within the community. He said
that he would rather see a B&B near Jack-In-the-Box than what is currently there.
He said that this was not a single-family residence neighborhood as almost all of the
units on one side of 8th Street are multiple family units. He stated that it was not
good to have people from outside his neighborhood say that this would not be good
for Seal Beach when they don't know what is in that neighborhood. He ended by
stated that he was very much in favor of this zone amendment.
Ms. Fanny Bollen spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She stated that she owns the
apartment complex adjacent to the proposed lot. She objects to the zone change
and stated that it means nothing as it could be changed again later to accommodate
another project. She said that the ZT A should apply citywide and not only to special
people. She stated that she believes apartment buildings to be residential and not
commercial. Ms. Bollen said that she was very concerned about the proposed
height of one of the buildings, as it would block the sunlight and the view for the
Page 17
.~
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 February 9, 2000
residents of her apartment building. She stated that she did not understand why the
applicant was getting "special treatment." She said that the project was being
allowed to exceed height limits and to disregard setback requirements, and she
considers this to be discriminatory against other property owners.
Mr. Richard Harlan, a former planning director, spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. He
stated that it was not unusual to expand the permitted uses in a base zoning district
based on specific criteria and subject to a CUP. He said that this was an accepted
way of doing business and is done throughout the state. He noted that the proposed
RC-Q Zone area is a mixed-use area. He explained that the minimum size lot for a
B&B is 50-feet, which would permit two single-family residences or apartments. Mr.
Harlan stated that it would appear that a B&B would be an excellent transitional use
and would fit very well into the neighborhood. He said that this was a good
opportunity for the City to preserve historic structures and that the B&B would bring
added income into the City as well as the bed tax and would increase property
values. He stated that a B&B would provide a nice alternative for visitors who do not
wish to stay at a hotel or motel as a B&B would provide a quiet atmosphere along
with a residential character. He stated that the ordinance provides sufficient
guarantees to restrict the use to its intended use.
Ms. Joyce Parkay spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She reminded the Commission
of the effort by the City of Huntington Beach to take over properties along Main
Street in that city to accommodate redevelopment. She added that every piece of
land in Huntington Beach was being developed. She stated that she lives on 6th
Street and had never received the Notice of Public Hearing for ZTA 00-1. Mr.
Whittenberg explained that the notice is only sent out to properties that are within
300 feet of the property in question. Ms. Parkay said that she believed the whole
town should be made aware of this type of a zone change and that the whole town
should be able to speak on a matter of this kind. She said that she has a 50-foot lot
with a home that predates 1930. She remarked that the homes on the hill and in
College Park East have 50-foot lots and they should have been notified also. She
said that simply because she did not live within 300 feet of the proposed project, she
still should have been notified.
Mr. Randall Baez spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. He stated that he has lived in Seal
Beach a long time and has seen a lot of bars and restaurants that do well, but he
believes that a B&B would be a good business to bring into the City. He said that
the City has done a good job in attempting to designate the location for the proposed
project.
Mr. George Hisek, an 8th Street resident, spoke in favor of ZT A 00-1. He stated that
he lives across the alley from the proposed lot and said that he was glad to see the
auto repair garage go. He said that he would hate to see two 4-bedroom homes
constructed on that lot, because this would mean that there would be eight cars
needing parking and there was not enough room. He said that he was in favor of
approving ZT A 00-1.
Page 18
.~
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 February 9, 2000
Mr. Kurt Staeple spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 and asked which option a property
owner would choose if having to make the choice between a single-family residence
and a B&B. He said that the lot needs to be developed, but changing zoning should
require the approval of the citizens. He stated that it appeared that the City was
attempting to impose their will upon the people. He said that all residents of Old
Town should be able to come and voice their opinion. Mr. Staeple stated that it was
obvious that this was an "inside deal", as it appeared that the zone text has been
written specifically to accommodate this project.
Ms. Maureen Pekar spoke in favor of ZTA 00-1. She said that the B&B would be a
great improvement to 7th Street. She stated that although there was a lot of negative
response, she knows that there are a lot of residents who believe this would be an
improvement to the City.
Mr. Ron Bennett spoke in opposition to ZT A 00-1 stating that the premise of the
zone change was to save significant older homes within the City. He asked if the
City had researched other alternatives for accomplishing this. He stated that
Councilman Boyd had directed City Staff and the City Attorney to look into tax
breaks, etc., to encourage residents to keep and restore these older homes. He
said that both he and Mr. James Caviola had restored the older homes in which they
lived in Seal Beach. He stated that his major concern was with the parking issue.
He referred to the Staff Report and read the provisions for parking on Pages 7 and
14. He said that he had spoken with the applicant and expressed his objection to
the proposal for triple tandem parking. Mr. Bennett said that the applicant
responded that he had arranged for parking with the operator of a garage across the
street from the proposed project. When Mr. Bennett inquired whether this individual
was the owner of the garage or a lessee, he discovered that he is a lessee. He said
that this arrangement was fine as long as the current lessee was leasing this garage.
This could change in the future and the parking issue should be looked into more
thoroughly. Mr. Bennett continued that he did not believe the height and setback
requirements should be different for this project than what is required by City Code.
Ms. Sue Corbin spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1. She stated that she has lived in
this neighborhood and it is an unusual one. She commented that the owner of the
apartment house could have a problem with keeping tenants if there is too much
noise from guests arriving and leaving the B&B. She commented that originally the
City Attorney had stated that the zone amendment needed to apply citywide
otherwise this would be considered spot zoning. She said that when opposition to
this change arose, this zone text was no longer viewed as spot zoning. She stated
that the City Manager has stated many times that this ZTA 00-1 applies to the 7th
Street property only. She said that this is spot zoning and special privilege. She
said that this is wrong, as the applicant can make millions of dollars off of this
property. She stated that this is not historical preservation, as the proposed
changes to the houses would change them completely. She said that if the B&B
were not successful, the City would be left with these abandoned structures. She
stated that Mr. Whittenberg had said that the homes could serve as museums for
Page 19
.~
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 February 9, 2000
public viewing, but she asked whether there would be enough parking for guests,
museum visitors, and employees of the B&B. She said the City was creating a zone
for a monstrosity. She stated that she is for preservation, but until now the City had
not shown an interest in preserving older structures within Old Town.
Mr. Bruce Bennett spoke in opposition to ZTA 00-1 and stated that this issue is a
major one for Seal Beach. He said that over the years there has been a trend
starting with reducing high density residential, and almost every issue that comes
before the Commission comes with the element of the parking problem in Old Town.
He said that recently evening functions and activities at the library now create more
parking problems within the general area. He said that the trend has not been to
increase business uses but to maintain the residential status of the City. He referred
to Pages 7, 22, and 23 of the Staff Report and read those sections related to
parking. Mr. Bennett stated that the zone along Pacific Coast Highway is a sliding
zone where there could be a motel. He noted that Staff had demonstrated how lots
could be combined to qualify other B&Bs in the area. He said that this ZT A is very
narrow and has been accelerated very quickly. He commented that no other place
in town allows tandem parking and described the difficulties in maneuvering a car to
park in or exit from this parking configuration. He emphasized that someone will
have to attend to this parking long after the City approves this change. Mr. Bennett
stated that he was concerned with possible broadening of the use for this project.
He referred to Page 18 of the Staff Report, which describes other possible uses for
the B&B facility followed by the term etc., which he believes should be removed as it
allows for too many possible uses. He inquired as to the kind of exit strategy the
City has if this project does not succeed. Mr. Bennett encouraged denial of ZT A
00-1.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that he believes the purpose of the Planning
Commission is to help increase property values and improve the quality of life in
Seal Beach. He said that he did not believe a B&B lowers the quality of life. He
stated that he has surveyed many local residents regarding a B&B in Seal Beach
and the general response has been that "they are great, but not next door to my
home." He said he also had previously expressed this sentiment, but upon reflection
he feels that if some of the apartment buildings behind his home were cleared and a
B&B put it their place, he would be very happy, as this would be an improvement.
Commissioner Brown said that his concern with ZT A 00-1 is that it combines two
objectives: historic preservation and whether or not to allow B&Bs in the City. He
said that if B&Bs are to be allowed, he believes that the community should be
involved in the decision. He said that he did not like the idea of a Zone Overlay, and
he agrees that the proposed RC-O Zone is arbitrary and has been written to
accommodate a few properties. He stated that if the community wants to allow
B&Bs in Seal Beach, this could be accomplished by allowing B&Bs in Residential
Page 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
High Density Zones by CUP with specific criteria created for this. He stated that he
would vote against ZTA 00-1 because he does not feel that this is the right way to
approach this issue. He said that creating a zone change for a specific property is
not the right way to go. He believes that this is the type of thing that "will turn around
and bite us several years on down the road." Commissioner Brown referred to a
comment made earlier about the people approving the zone change, and noted that
the Planning Commission and the City Council as elected representatives are lithe
people," and the people speak through these two governing bodies. He said that the
issue of historic preservation and the issue of allowing B&Bs should not be mixed
together.
Commissioner Larson commented that although the speaker stated that the
Commission should support the will of the people, the problem is determining the will
of the people. He said that all of the speakers presented valid points. He said in his
experience in working as legal counsel, he found that if the judge didn't like the
zoning it was called spot zoning, and if he did like it, he called it a legitimate exercise
of legislative power. He stated that he was having a problem with the definition. He
said that when he thinks of historic preservation, he.thinks of the former homes of
U.S. presidents, which have historical significance because of the former occupants.
He noted that the only definition Seal Beach has for a locally significant house is that
it is old. He said that if it were not for the preservation of the Krenwinkel and Proctor
homes, he did not believe that there would be any consideration given to allowing
B&Bs in Seal Beach. Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to see an
exploration of what City Council is asking to determine if there is another vehicle for
preserving these homes. He said he would vote to deny ZTA 00-1.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Larson.
He said that moving the homes to the lot and renovating their interior would involve
tremendous expense. He said that he did not believe this to be a smart move. He
stated that if the City wanted to restore the homes, they should find a way to raise
the money to do that, but he was not in agreement with moving the homes simply to
create a B&B.
Commissioner Cutuli commented that he had recently stayed at a B&B in Santa
Barbara and had taken note of what a B&B did to a neighborhood. He stated that
B&Bs were generally very well kept and are attractive and upgrade the
neighborhood and always look better than apartments. He said that generally they
were not near individual homes but were in residential high-density (RHO) zones
and he believes that B&Bs should be kept in a RHO area as opposed to a
neighborhood with single-family dwellings. He stated that this would mean that a
B&B would never go up next to a single-family home, but next to an apartment or
business. Commissioner Cutuli stated that although he does like B&Bs he did not
like the way this ZT A was presented. He said that he was in agreement with
Commissioner Brown and that more thought must go into the individual segments of
this zone change. He said that the zoning and historic preservation issues must be
separated. He stated that although he did want to see these homes preserved, he
Page 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000
did not believe it was right to approve ZTZ 00-1 simply to facilitate one developer's
plans.
Chairperson Hood stated that it was important that the Commissioners listen to the
people as they work for the people. He said that those who spoke in favor of and
against ZTA 00-1 were speaking for the City. He stated that the historical heritage of
the City should be preserved by some means. He said that the City has a lot of
originality and creativity and surely should be able to find a way to do this.
Chairperson Hood noted that the City needed to take advantage of the talents of its
residents to discover a way to preserve its past without imperiling its future or
impacting its people.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to deny Zone Text Amendment 00-1.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg announced that Staff would return with a Resolution for adoption
reflecting the recommendation to deny Zone Text Amendment 00-1.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg referred to two letters from Ms. Michele Brendel and he wanted to
state for the record that the letters had been received by the City and copies
provided to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Brown asked if the project at 209 13th Street referred to in Ms.
Brendel's letter was a project that was brought before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that this matter came before the Planning Commission
in October 1999. Commissioner Brown asked what the procedure is when a letter is
received indicating that a project is varying from what was approved. He stated that
it was important to look into the matter. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would be
happy to address the issues referred to in Ms. Brendel's letter and report to the
Commission at the next meeting.
Chairperson Hood asked if it would be possible for Staff to make a recommendation
regarding letters addressed to the Commission. He asked if Staff could establish a
procedure that would be fair to all concerned for entering these letters into the
record. Commissioner Larson commented that because each Commissioner is
provided a copy of letters received, he did not believe it was necessary to read them
Page 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 February 9, 2000
aloud. Commissioner Brown stated that if the public took the time to write a letter
expressing their views, he was in favor of reading the letters out loud.
Commissioner Larson stated that the public could write a letter to the Commission
and then sit back and have crullers and coffee without having to come out to attend
the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Brown said that he realized that
because the Planning Commission does receive an inordinate amount of letters from
a few people, the inclination might be not to read these letters because this has
been done so many times before. He said that it was difficult to make a judgement
to determine which letters get read and which ones don't. He said that the
procedure would have to be to read them all or to read none. Chairperson Hood
stated that if this was to be the case, then a procedure must be set down so that the
Planning Commission will know how to proceed on this issue. Commissioner Larson
stated that the Chairperson should be able to decide whether or not to read any
exhibits for any meeting.
Mr. Whittenberg asked for clarification regarding the above discussion.
Commissioner Brown stated that during the past seven years, three different
Chairpersons have done things differently and maybe it was best that this be left to
the discretion of the Chair. He does believe that however the Chair chooses to
handle the matter, it should be consistent during the term of that Chair. Chairperson
Hood said that this could lead to capricious behavior on the part of the Chair.
Commissioner Brown responded that the Chairperson would decide whether or not
to read all letters or to not read them and simply enter them into the record. He said
that he would support the decision of the Chair. Commissioner Larson commented
that if one Chairperson decides to read all letters and the next Chairperson decides
not to, then he has to explain why and this could be very uncomfortable.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
C' -^. ~ "''''~Q..~'' \J..~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on February 23, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, February 9, 2000.~ .
Page 23