HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-02-23
, I
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for February 23,2000
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
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Q
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.
Q
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) 431-25~7.
Q
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
Q
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
Q
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.
I i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of February 23, 2000
';
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following 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
I,
l.
.
.
.
city of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of February 23, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
February 23, 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 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 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 February 9, 2000.
2. Receive and File: -Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments - Air Quality Technical
Assistance Program."
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Resolution 00-1 - Recommending to the City Council Denial of Zoning Text Amendment 00-1
4. Study Session: Retaining Walls
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Zone Change 00-1 (Continued from Feb. 9, 2000)
308 - 7'h Street
ApplicanVOwner:
Request:
Chris Verhulst
To establish the -Residential Conservation Over1ay Zone- on the subject
property, permitting bed and breakfast facilities subject to certain
conditions and terms as set forth in the -Residential Conservation Over1ay
Zone."
Recommendation: Recommend denial of Zone Change 00-1 and adoption of Resolution 00-2.
3
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission' Agenda of February 23, 2000
6. Conditional Use Pennit 00-1 (Continued from Feb. 9,2000 - Fonnerly Minor Plan Review 00-1)
308 - ih 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 denial of Conditional Use Pennit 00-1 and adoption of
Resolution 00-3.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
-
4
fi
;~
.
.
.
i ,
i ,
.
.
.
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
2000 AQenda Forecast
Minor P!an Review 00-2
Conditional Use Permit 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:
Cl
a
a
a
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10/7/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10/7/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Grill) Review (April 2001)
ADA Handicapped-accessible Restrooms (April 2001)
" t'
.~
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
. PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of February 23, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23,2000. 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 recommended that Item 4, Study Session - Retaining Walls, be moved
to be the last item on the Agenda after the Public Hearing. Commissioner Brown asked
if a "Straw Poll" could be taken to make sure that the majority of those in attendance
were present to speak on the public hearing items rather than on the study session
items. Mr. Whittenberg polled of the audience to determine whether Item 4 could be
moved as recommended.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to move Item 4 after Item 6 and approve the
Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Hood opened oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
?, t'"
.~
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 23, 2000
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he was bewildered regarding Zone Text Amendment (ZTA)
00-1, which had previously been denied by the Planning Commission. He stated that
although no appeal had been filed ZTA 00-1 has been scheduled for a public hearing
before the City Council. He asked if this would be a Consent Calendar item or a Public
Hearing item. He referred to ZTA 96-1, which had been denied by the Planning
Commission with a subsequent appeal filed. He stated that it then took 6 months for
ZTA 96-1 to come before the City Council. Mr. Terence Boga explained that amending
the Zoning Ordinance is a two-step process. He stated that this would entail a public
hearing before the Planning Commission and then making a recommendation to City
Council to approve or deny the ZT A. He continued that after the last meeting the
Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of ZTA 00-1, but there was not a
resolution prepared at that point. Mr. 80ga noted that this is why the completed
Resolution 00-1 recommending denial of ZTA 00-1 is on the agenda tonight. He stated
that regardless of the recommendation, the next step would always be to bring the item
before City Council for another public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg added that City Council
had continued the hearing for this item to March 13, 2000. Chairperson Hood noted
that this item was a Scheduled Matter and not a Public Hearing item on tonight's
agenda, as the public hearing has already taken place.
Mr. Clewley noted that in the Planning Commission minutes of February 21, 1996, the
Chairperson at that time, Patty Campbell, had inquired of the City Attomey regarding
what the City was doing to find the Brown Act unconstitutional. He stated that there had
been little done about this matter. He commented that he believed that having the
Brown Act suspended in the City of Seal Beach was an item that was high on Ms.
Campbell's agenda. He said that although he did not like to endorse the opponent of a
sitting Council member, he believes anyone would be better than someone who wants
to have the Brown Act overtumed. He encouraged voters to vote for Commissioner
Larson and stated that in the past year he had observed a good performance on the
part of Commissioner Larson with well thought out decisions. He also encouraged a
"Yes" vote on Measure M.
Ms. Sue Corbin stated that she believed Mr. Clewley was confused about the issue of
the Brown Act, and stated that what the issue really entailed was the City Manager
attempting to have Martial Law privileges for his secretary. She stated that at the last
City Council meeting Mr. Till had stated that citizens could contact the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) who would confirm that they would later lengthen the
Seal Beach Boulevard 11-405 overcrossing. She said that CalTrans has stated that this
is a substandard overpass and it cannot be lengthened. She stated that after the
election when the 22 Freeway is widened, CalTrans will be building a new overpass and
the current overpass is slated for demolition. She said that the City would not be
allowed to widen the overpass because it is in the 6-8 year area from the time that
CalTrans will widen the overpass. She stated that voting "No" on Measure M would not
increase the ability to more easily drive through the overpass. She again announced
the location of the "Yes on M" headquarters and provided the website address as
www.Seal-Beach.org.Ms. Corbin stated that there was a lot of misinformation going
around regarding Measure M, such as the public now being told that revenues from the
2
Ii i~
.~
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 23, 2000
Bixby development will be used to repair the alleyways and sewer lines in Old Town.
She said that 25% of City revenues come from sales taxes from Rossmoor Center. She
noted that with the Bixby Old Towne Center development no left turn lanes into the
Rossmoor Center are provided and this will decrease customer access. She noted that
fewer sales equal fewer sales taxes. She also stated that Rossmoor Center will sue the
City, creating more of a financial burden. She encouraged voters to vote "Yes" on
Measure M.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2000.
2. Receive and File: "Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments - Air
Quality Technical Assistance Program."
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Brown to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Resolution 00-1 - Recommending to the City Council Denial of Zoning Text
Amendment 00-1
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Resolution 00-1 had been prepared based on the
Commission's determination to recommend that the City Council deny ZTA 00-1. He
asked whether the Commissioners had any additional findings to add or changes to
make to the text. Chairperson Hood inquired about the last sentence in Section 5, (a).
Commissioner Brown interjected that he had some corrections to this section also, and
proposed the following wording:
"Zoning Text Amendment 00-1 is not consistent with the provision of the
various elements of the City's General Plan. The proposed amendment is
inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan."
Mr. Boga confirmed that these changes would be appropriate. Chairperson Hood
confirmed that there were no other changes or comments to be made.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Resolution 00-1 as amended.
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
47
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Zone Change 00-1 (Continued from Feb. 9, 2000)
308 - 7th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Chris Verhulst
To establish the "Residential Conservation Overlay Zone" on
the subject property, permitting bed and breakfast facilities
subject to certain conditions and terms as set forth in the
"Residential Conservation Overlay Zone."
Recommendation:
Recommend denial of Zone Change 00-1 and adoption of
Resolution 00-2.
6. Conditional Use Permit 00-1 (Continued from Feb. 9, 2000 - Formerly Minor Plan
Review 00-1 )
308 - 7th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Chris Verhulst
To approve a Site Development Plan on the subject
property, permitting bed and breakfast facilities subject to
certain conditions and terms as set forth in the "Residential
Conservation Overlay Zone. U
Recommendation:
Recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit 00-1 and
adoption of Resolution 00-3.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the Commissioners had been provided with a short Staff
Report along with two proposed resolutions in anticipation of the adoption of Resolution
00-1. He stated that Staff felt it was appropriate to prepare Resolution 00-2 and
Resolution 00-3 recommending to the City Council denial of Zone Change 00-1 and
Conditional Use Permit 00-1, since no action can now be taken on these requests as
the Planning Commission had recommended denial of ZTA 00-1. He explained that for
matters that involve amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map,
and Zone Changes by State law, the Planning Commission functions as an advisory
agency to the City Council. He stated that the Planning Commission served as the final
decision-making body for conditional use permits, variances, and minor plan reviews,
unless there is an appeal filed. Mr. Whittenberg noted that with the action tonight on
4
i.
.~
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 February 23, 2000
ZTA 00-1, Zone Change 00-1 would automatically be scheduled for a future public
hearing at the City Council level. There will be no public hearing set for Conditional Use
Permit 00-1, unless an appeal is filed on the denial of the Planning Commission.
Co'mmissioner Brown said that he felt it was inappropriate to have a public hearing on
this item at this time, stating that although the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of ZTA 00-1, it was still up to the City Council to approve or deny it. He stated
that should the Council approve ZTA 00-1 and should the Planning Commission deny
Zone Change (ZC) 00-1, it would automatically go before City Council without a full
public hearing before the Commission. He noted that as a result members of the public
might assume that because the Commission denied approval of ZTA 00-1 that ZC 00-1
could not, therefore, be approved, and the public might not bother to come out to voice
their opinions. He stated that because the Commission had never received a complete
Staff Report on ZC 00-1 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-1, he would prefer to
continue the items until City Council makes a decision on ZT A 00-1. He said that based
upon the decision of the Council, the Planning Commission could then fully address
these issues, with the possibility of approval of the zone changes, with modifications.
Mr. Boga noted that before a motion was made to continue this item, Chairperson Hood
could open the public hearing to allow members of the audience to speak.
Commissioner Brown stated that his concern in continuing a public hearing is that it
might not get re-noticed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Commission could request
that the item be continued with instructions to Staff to re-notice.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood asked if the public hearing for both ZC 00-1 and CUP 00-1 could be
done at the same time. Mr. Boga responded that this could be done. Commissioner
Larson commented that the Commission was at a loss currently as they did not yet
know whether City Council would adopt ZTA 00-1. If they adopt nothing, then
discussion of these items would be irrelevant. He noted that if they do adopt ZT A 00-1
it mayor may not be the same as what the Planning Commission recommends.
Chairperson Hood clarified that what Commissioner Larson was stating was why have a
public hearing when the Commission cannot take any action on these items to begin
with. He inquired of Mr. Boga as to the necessity for a public hearing. Mr. Boga
responded that technically, members of the audience have the right to speak on the
item, and he is merely suggesting that anyone wishing to speak should be allowed to do
so before continuing the matter.
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Bartlett stated that he was disappointed by the action that the Planning
Commission had taken on this application.' He said that when a project involves a
General Plan amendment, zone change, and conditional use permit, all three get heard
at the same time, and are passed onto the City Council. He stated that this application
was purposefully divided based upon Commissioner Larson's comments, that the ZTA
must be considered first, Mr. Verhulst had requested that the rest of the application be
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
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 23, 2000
continued. He said that now that the Commission had taken final action on ZTA 00-1,
the applicant is requesting that the Commission send the whole package to City
Council, just as had been done previously with several applications for other projects.
He stated that if this application were to be treated differently, then there should be
some good reasons for this. Mr. Bartlett stated that this was a project that was
conceived in conjunction with Staff. He said that he and the applicant had worked hard
with Staff to determine if this was an appropriate land use. He stated that the Planning
Commissioners had not attended the community forums where much positive feedback
in favor of the project was provided. He stated that the opportunity to save two
historical struct~res and increase property values was being dismissed. He noted that it
has been proven that Bed and Breakfast (B&B) facilities do increase property values.
He indicated that this project reflected a decrease in density, as it involved less f1.oor
area ratio and less lot coverage. He stated that building a B&B on the proposed lot was
compatible with the surrounding land uses. He pointed out that the Seal Beach Inn was
currently a great asset to the City, using only % parking space per room. He asked that
the decision on this project not be further politicized and that the application be sent to
Council as a package. .
Mr. David Rosenman stated that the matter has been given sufficient consideration and
should be laid to rest. He stated that he was in agreement with the decision to deny
ZTA 00-1.
Ms. Sue Corbin commented on the prospective problems with parking for this project
and stated .that this was not a historical preservation project and the Commission had
made a wise decision in denying ZTA 00-1. She stated that making comparison with
the Seal Beach Inn was not appropriate, as that inn currently occupies 5 or 6 lots, not
two. She disputed the statement that the B.&B would help increase property values.
Ms. Corbin noted that if two single-family residences were built on the proposed lots,
there would be a maximum of 3 cars for each lot. She stated that, contrary to what Mr.
Bartlett had stated, the project had not been politicized by the Commission but by the
consultant, City Staff, and the City Manager. .
Mr. Reg Clewley spoke in support of Commissioner Brown's position on this matter. He
said he opposed forwarding this project to City Council as a package, as there were
many issues to consider in addition to ZC 00-1, and CUP 00-1. He said there was no
information on the Staff report to make an argument against these issues, and that it
would be inappropriate to push this along as a package. He stated that the public
needs to understand what a historical structure actually is, and what the definition of
restoration involves. He said that the only appropriate way to address this at present
was to table the matter and bring it back at the appropriate time, after City Council has
acted upon ZTA 00-1. Mr. Clewley expressed his opinion that sometimes Council
decides to do capricious actions and passes special laws for special people.
Ms. Fanny Bollen stated that although preservation was a good thing, the two homes
proposed for this project would not look good crowded together on a 50-foot lot. She
said that the Proctor House would be ideal ~s a B&B at its present location. Ms. Bollen
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 23, 2000
noted that with the rear house located above the garages, the structure would be over
30 feet high, and this would block the sunlight for residents of her apartment complex
and would interfere with their privacy. She stated that she did not believe having the
B&B located next to her property would help increase the value of it. She said that she
did not understand why the applicant was being allowed so many things that would not
have been allowed to other applicants.
Chairperson Hood asked if the applicant wished to rebut any of the comments made.
Mr. Bartlett stated that with all due respect to Commissioner Brown's concerns, there
had been two community meetings regarding this issue, a staff report, and a lot of
discussion on ZTA 00-1, and many individuals have spoken in favor of and against the
project. He said that the information has been adequately presented to the community
through the public hearing and public forum process and various staff reports and public
notifications, and the applicant is requesting that the process be allowed to continue as
normally would be done with other projects within the City.
Commissioner Brown stated that he wished to correct Mr. Bartlett regarding other
projects that had come before the Commission. He stated that all the items for the
Hellman Project and the Bixby Project were heard before full public hearings at the
same time. He stated that in this case, the public had specifically been instructed that
the items were. to be heard separately, and speakers had been interrupted to ask that
they restrict comments to ZTA 00-1 only. He noted that as long as he had been a
Commissioner, this is the way things have been done in Seal Beach. Commissioner
Brown then responded, to Mr. Clewley's comments regarding City Council making
arbitrary decisions, he stated that as the City Council it was their right to make the laws,
and the Planning Commission interprets these laws.
Commissioner Larson stated that things had certainly gotten out of hand. He stated that
the Planning Commissioners "are not privy" to public meetings held within the City, but
must make decisions based on information presented before them. He noted that he
did not believe it was legal for Commissioners to be attending quasi-judicial matters that
are coming before them. He also noted that the Commission was not looking at the
B&B as to the conditions of its operation, as it was not legally the law of the City. He
remarked that there were many things about the project that he did not like and would
want to look at should the City Council determine that a B&B is a legal use of property.
He said that this did not mean that he does not like B&Bs, he simply does not like what
has been presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Lyon stated that until the City Council makes a decision on ZTA 00-1, the
Planning Commission had no further determinations to make on this matter.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to table Zone Change 00-1 and Conditional Use
Permit 00-1, and instruct Staff to re-notice the public hearing after City Council makes a
final determination on Zone Text Amendment 00-1.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
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 23, 2000
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg announced that ZT A 00-1 is tentatively scheduled for a hearing before
the City Council on March 13, 2000. He stated that the public hearing would be
advertised in the newspaper and notice would be mailed to residents and business
owners within 300 feet of the property in accordance with the required noticing
provisions of the City.
4. Study Session: Retaining Walls
Staff ReDort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He announced that this would be a study session to discuss
retaining walls continued from the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. He
noted that at the November 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting there were a
number of issues that were brought up by the Commissioners and Staff was requested
to look into the following:
1. Preparation of proposal for one standard height limit of 1 O-feet for a public side
measurement from the sidewalk to the top of a retaining wall.
2. Preparation of ordinance language for review by the Commission. (Mr. Whittenberg
noted that this was what was before the Commissioners this evening.)
3. Preparation of photographic samples of existing retaining walls throughout the City.
Mr. Whittenberg referred to the definition for retaining walls as it appears in the City
Building Code. He stated that after review by Staff and conferring with the City
Attorney, the determination was that this section of the Code does not limit the height of
retaining walls, but limits the height of any fence constructed on top of the retaining wall.
He said that the Building Code does not refer to height but refers to accepted
engineering practice for retaining walls. He stated that there were a number of different
standards utilized by the City's Engineering Department, which are basically the
standard plans from the Califomia Department of Transportation (CaITrans) and Public
Works Construction, American Public Works Association (APWA), Southern Califomia
Chapter. He said that these standards did not reflect the issues that apply to private
development properties within the City. He reported that standard plans approved by
CalTrans and APWA allow retaining walls up to 30 feet high. He stated that subject to
certain design standards Staff did not feel that this would be an appropriate height
standard, and recommends the standard height limitation of 4 feet to approximately 10
feet for retaining walls. He said that for the retaining walls within the Gold Coast area
that are visible from the stub streets along Ocean Avenue, there is a fairly steep drop
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 23, 2000
off. Staff is recommending at least a 2-foot wide landscape planter that does not extend
into the rear 96 feet of the property. He noted that in the rear 96 feet of the properties
there are utility easements, and it would not be appropriate to build into this area. This
is at the beach level of the properties. Mr. Whittenberg continued that Staff had
determined that the idea of trying to terrace the wall from the side property line back
onto the interior of the lot for the entire length of the property did not make sense.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that for those properties adjoining Gum Grove Park, Staff is
recommending that any section of a retaining wall cannot exceed 6 feet. If a property
owner wanted to build multiple 6-foot retaining wall sections, there would have to be a
3-foot wide planter area between each 6-foot section, creating a terraced effect along
the rear of the property. He commented that as some of the Commissioners may have
noted in walking through this area, some of the existing retaining walls are quite
imposing. He noted that under today's standards, these are the types of walls that
could still be constructed, and under the new Staff proposal, they could no longer be
constructed.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that there were some great differences in wall height in The Hill
area of the City, but they were not as significant as for those properties along the Gold
Coast and along Gum Grove Park. Staff is recommending that for all areas the
maximum height for retaining walls in the front setback area should be 30 inches. For
those areas with a front setback area greater than 12 feet in Old Town or 18 feet on The
Hill, a 30-inch high retaining wall would be permitted without approval by the Planning
Commission. The applicant may simply submit the retaining wall plans for review by the
City Engineering Department to ensure structural soundness. Any fence constructed on
the retaining wall cannot exceed a maximum height of 6 feet for a fence in that zone. In
some areas that are adjacent to a side or a back public street area, the combination wall
and fence may be higher to a maximum of 10 feet. Mr. Whittenberg noted that as
required by the Building Code, non-front setback areas with retaining walls 30 inches in
height from the top of the wall to finished. grade would require a 42-inch guardrail. He
stated that Staff would prefer to see a low fence constructed to prevent injuries rather
than just a guardrail.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that for non-front setback areas retaining walls up to a
maximum of 4 feet would be permitted with a maximum 6-foot fence above the wall
permitted for a total height of 10 feet,. subject to a Minor Plan Review before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this type of wall configuration
would be seen primarily on corner lots that front on two different streets and across the
back of properties. He noted that sometimes for the property above it, a retaining wall
higher than 30 inches may be required because of the grade separation. He noted that
most of these types of walls have already been constructed over the years, but there
might still be some cases where this would apply. He clarified that currently the Building
Code allows a 10-foot high fence on top of a non-defined height for retaining walls. He
said that Staff is attempting to limit the visual appearance of this type of wall within the
community. He stated that if the height of a retaining wall/fence combination within a
street side or rear yard area exceeds 6 feet, the base of the fence must be stepped
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 23, 2000
back 2 feet and landscaping would be required to attempt to screen the view of the high
wall. He stated ~hat this would apply in particul,ar to those properties along the north
side of Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that in non-front setback areas retaining walls
could be stepped to create a terraced effect, but that this would primarily be on a rear
yard or side yard area 'fronting a public street. In this case Staff is recommending a 4-
foot height for the retaining wall portion, while a. 6-foot retaining wall height is
recommended for the Gum Grove properties. He stated that the reason for the
difference was because Staff determined that for the properties along the park area, it
would not hurt to go to a 6-foot height for retaining walls and to include landscaping.
However, on a public street with more pedestrian activity, Staff felt that keeping the wall
height lower would be less detrimental to the area. Landscaping would also be required
along these walls to help screen the view, Mr. Whittenberg stated that for corner lots in
particular with existing retaining walls higher than 30 inches, Staff recommends that
landscaping be added between the private property line and the retaining wall to help
screen the view of the walls.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that once any amendments to the City Code for retaining walls
are approved, Staff is recommending that all existing non-conforming retaining walls be
placed into a legal non-conforming status, which means the walls can be kept as they
are. For any new construction or changes to existing retaining walls, the property owner
would be required to meet the new standards. He stated that if the Commission was in
agreement with the amendments, Staff would prepare a formal public hearing packet,
and advertise and notice the item and bring it back before the Planning Commission for
consideration. Mr. Whittenberg then presented examples of existing retaining walls
within the City while entertaining questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Cutuli asked for clarification of how the walls in the photographs were in
violation of the proposed requirements. Mr. Whittenberg provided clarification.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if there was a maximum recommended height for retaining
walls along the stub streets of the Gold Coast. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a 6-foot high
fence from the natural grade at Ocean Avenue was allowed, and whatever is necessary
on the ocean side of the property to match the existing street level. He said that there
was no maximum height limit other than the 6-foot high measure from Ocean Avenue.
He stated that with an existing street at the bottom and top of the properties, the wall
height for the ocean side of the properties couldn't be required to match the Ocean
Avenue wall height. Commissioner Cutuli asked if Staff was recommending installation
of sprinkler/irrigation systems for the stepped back sections of the terraced walls. He
asked if this would also be required for the Gold Coast area. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that for landscaped sections, it would be a standard condition to have an
automatic sprinkler/irrigation system and the City would have to approve the plans.
Commissioner Brown asked if, for example, a retaining wall were 2-feet high with an
8-foot fence on top of it, could the fence be built higher. Mr. Whittenberg responded
that if the height of the fence/retaining wall in total were more than 10-feet, then there
would have to be a break in the fence. He also stated that if a retaining wall were
higher than 4 feet, a break would be required. Commissioner Brown questioned
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 Se81 Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000
whether a disparity might be created if the maximum recommendation height for a
retaining wall plus fence is 10 feet. He asked if this was the same as having a 10-foot
fence. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct. Commissioner Brown noted
that when any part of the fence was retaining wall, the City would be imposing additional
landscaping requirements. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct.
Commissioner Brown asked if it were possible to build a 10-foot fence without a
retaining wall. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was acceptable. Commissioner
Brown asked if it was acceptable to have a 2-foot retaining wall With an 8-foot fence on
top of it. Mr. ,Whittenberg responded that as Staff proposes, this would be acceptable.
Commissioner Brown asked if a 4-foot retaining wall was constructed with a 6-foot fence
on top of it, must the wall be set back with landscaping in front of the wall. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that this was correct. He stated that technically under law today
all of the properties with the block wall along the north side of Pacific Coast Highway
could have a retaining wall of undetermined height, and then have a 10-foot high fence
on top of it. He said that he didn't believe there were many properties with this situation,
and that most of them had 10-foot high walls.
Commissioner Brown asked to verify that the height of a wall within the City is 8 feet,
and 10 feet along Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there are
some areas within the City where a 10-foot wall is allowed and others where walls are
limited to 8 or 6 feet. He cited an example by stating that for a standard lot in the middle
of a block the side yard walls could not be higher than 6 feet from the highest grade .of
the two adjoining properties. He stated that 10-foot walls are allowed in areas where
lots back up to fairly heavy traffic streets such as Pacific Coast Highway and Seal
Beach Boulevard to help block out traffic noise. Chairperson Brown asked if for the rest
of the City, the standard wall height was 6 feet. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was
correct.
Mr. Whittenberg ended his presentation by stating that if the Commissioners were in
agreement with the recommendation made, Staff could begin preparation for a public
hearLng on retaining walls.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Lyon asked whether Staff did not believe that the scenario for a lot of
controversy was being created if a property owner wants to duplicate a non-conforming
retaining wall that is already in existence on another property. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that Staff believed that this would create no more controversy than that
experienced when the setback standards were changed on residential properties within
the City. He stated that Staff simply has to explain that the standards had changed and
new applications must comply with the current standard. He provided an example by
stating that there were many apartment buildings located within Old Town, but with the
changes regarding Residential High Density, currently the Code does not allow
construction of apartment buildings on a single lot. He said that laws change and
people will acknowledge this. Commissioner Lyon remarked that this issue would have
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 23, 2000
to be heard by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Whittenberg
confirmed that this would be the case.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if the ordinance text provided a definition of how the
determination would be made to differentiate between the side yard and the front yard
on corner lots. Mr. Whittenberg responded that along with the formal language,
graphics would also be included to demonstrate what the text is stating.
Commissioner Brown stated that he liked the concept overall, but that he would suggest
that drawings be included within the ordinance to clearly demonstrate what the
standards will be. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was proposing to include
drawings to help the public clearly understand the interpretation of the Code.
Commissioner Cutuli added, that this would be very helpful, particularly with the concept
of terracing of retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff would be
incorporating more drawings with ordinance text in the future because this makes the
information easier for the public to understand.
Chairperson Hood asked how the Commission should proceed at this point. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that because this was a Study Session, the public was also
welcome to comment on the information presented. He suggested that the Study
Session be opened for public comments.
Public Comments
Chairperson Hood opened for public comments.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he disagreed with the definition of a retaining wall as
presented by Staff. He said that according to Building Code Section 221-W, this
definition was not correct. He noted that the Building Code states "A retaining wall is a
wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials."
Commissioner Brown asked if this definition had been taken from the most current
Building Code text. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was the text from the current
zoning ordinance that discusses retaining walls as far as any height requirement is
concerned. Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Clewley was reading the Building Code
definition. Mr. Clewley responded that this was not ~xactly the same section number
that he was referring to. He stated that he was reading from Zoning Ordinance, Section
28-2316, which discusses fences" walls, hedges, and screen plantings. He referred to
Item No.2, General Fence Provision, Item (d). He used one of the presentation
photographs and related that for retaining walls located on the property line or within the
lot the Building Code reads: lithe height of such fence, wall, or screen planting shall be
6 feet or less in height as measured from ,the highest elevation of land contiguous to the
fence, particularly wall, or screen planting. This wall shall in no case be greater than 8
feet, as measured from either side of the fence." Mr. Clewley stated that a 2-foot
retaining wall could have ~ fence of up t06 feet on top, but he questioned the Code
allowance of 8 feet for walls. He stated that it was not necessary to hold a study
session for "trying to write more laws on top of laws that were written just fine to begin
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 23, 2000
with." He referred to Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 92-6, which he stated had
changed all the rules on The Hill and allowed 10-foot retaining walls. He said that if the
City were going to allow a 6-foot- retaining wall and a 10-foot fence on top of it along the
Gum Grove Park properties, this would create a 16-foot wall or fence. He said that
even with terraced walls with 2 fe~t of landscaped area between the walls, the foliage
on the walls still has to be considered as well as the 42-inch high guardrail.
Commissioner Brown interrupted to clarify that Mr. Clewley was stating that a retaining
wall could be 10 feet high. He pointed out that the Commission was attempting to
determine whether Mr. Clewley was referring to the current text for the Building Code.
Mr. Clewley responded by stating that the current Building Code was quite specific in
stating that in no case could a retaining wall be higher than 8 feet as measured from
either side of the fence on top of the retaining wall, except on the properties abutting
Gum Grove Park where a 10-foot retaining was is allowed due to the grade differential.
He stated that the fact that the current City Code did not have any height requirements
for retaining walls was "ludicrous." He said that there has always been a height limit for
retaining walls. He referred to the Planning Commission minutes from a 1990 meeting
in which he noted then Assistant Planner Barry Curtis' statements clarifying for the
Commission that for properties along Gum Grove Park a 6 foot 6 inch retaining wall was
permissible with a guardrail, but in no case could this wall be greater than 10 feet. Mr.
Clewley stated that this was confirmed by ZTA 92-6. He stated that the proposed text
for the new ordinancewas more confusing and more unenforceable than ZTA 92-6. He
commented that much of the supporting documents included with the Staff Report were
illegible and difficult to read. Chairperson Hood and Commissioner Brown asked Mr.
Clewley to specify what he found unclear. Mr. Clewley responded that the text for the
drawings in the section titled "Standard Plans for Public Works Construction, 1997
Edition" was very minute and difficult to read. He stated that having 10-foot walls along
Gum Grove Park would not be appropriate for this "nature park." He stated that there
was nothing unclear about the current laws pertaining to retaining walls and there is no
need to rewrite them.
There being no other speakers, Chairperson Hood closed the public comments time.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see Staff return with this item with
more specific text and diagrams for this ordinance. He asked to clarify that if a retaining
wall were 30 inches or less, no landscaping would be required. Mr. Whittenberg
confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Brown then asked if a retaining wall was
42 inches high, would a guardrail be required? Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the
retaining wall itself is higher than 30 inches, then a 42-inch guardrail is requireq.
Commissioner Lyon asked what the problem was with the Building Code the way it is
currently written. Mr. Whittenberg responded that although there was a difference of
opinion, as it currently reads the Code allows a 6-foot high fence on top of a retaining
wall, and there is no height limit for the retaining wall. Commissioner Brown interjected
that his interpretation was that a 6-foot high fence was permitted on top of a retaining
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
I '
, .
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000
wall, but in any case the structure could be no higher than 8 feet from the ground, which
would mean a 2-foot retaining wall. He stated that it was his understanding that the
purpose of this study session was to clear up any misunderstandings or differences in
opinion. Mr.. Whittenberg confirmed that this was what Staff was attempting to
accomplish. He stated that some of the existing wall installations that are currently
allowed could be pretty intrusive along the sidewalk areas, and are not ideal examples
of what would most enhance the appearance of City walkways or properties. He noted
that Staff was attempting to soften the effect for retaining walls that exist along the
public right of ways, particularly along Pacific Coast Highway. He said that currently the
Code states that retaining walls can be built straight up without any landscaping.
Chairperson Hood asked if a motion was necessary to request that Staff return with a
final draft for this item. Mr. Whittenberg responded that all that was necessary was the
general consensus of the Commission. Commissioner Larson asked if this item would
be advertised and noticed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the Commission wanted
Staff to return with formal draft language and illustrations before scheduling a public
hearing, Staff could accommodate this request. Commissioner Brown stated that
unless Staff felt it was needed, he did not feel that another study session was
necessary. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believed Staff had a pretty good idea of the
concerns and would attempt to address those in the final draft of the text.
Commissioner Larson said that he did not want to have the same circumstance occur
as had for the bed and breakfast application. He requested that this item not be
advertised unless City Council directs Staff to do so.
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Cutuli inquired about the status of the proposed project for the Shore
Shop property. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the project was held up due to
groundwater contamination coming from the. property at the corner of Pacific Coast
Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, which is not under the ownership of the Musso
Family. He stated that as mentioned in recent newspaper articles, investigation is
currently under way to locate what were thought to be buried gasoline tanks from a
former gas station located at this location from the mid-1940's to mid1960's. He noted
that unfortunately the tanks were accidentally discovered when one of the tanks was
unknowingly broken. Since there was still gasoline in the tanks, this has created a
major problem. Consequently, plans for further development have been placed on hold
until new approvals are received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). Commissioner Larson noted that he believed there were 8 tanks buried at
this location. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there were several. He stated that the
location of the tanks had been determined by using Ground Penetrating Radar. He
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
.
, t
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000
explained that usuCJlly when gasoline tanks are abandoned, they are filled with sand or
water, but in this instance the tank that was accidentally broken still contained gasoline.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the State Regional Water Quality Control Board must
approve the clean-up program for these tanks, and until permits are received from this
agency, the project cannot proceed. He also reported that until the clean up is
complete, the Musso project cannot acquire financing because the groundwater
contamination has affected the Shore Shop property also. Commissioner Cutuli asked
how the clean up was being funded. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the cost for the
clean up would be billed to the oil company that had the gas station there. He noted
that this was a time consuming process and it could be quite a while before work on the
Musso project can proceed. Commissioner Cutuli asked if Staff could project a time
frame for beginning work on the project. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff could not
even project when the RWQCB would be issuing a new permit for the property. He
indicated that he would be meeting this week with representatives of RWQCB to
discuss another matter, and he would inquire as to the status of this project.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
0!)..,,^"~ ^^ ffi~)..~/
. 6
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on March 22, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, February 23, 2000. ~ .
-
15