HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-03-22
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for March 22, 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
o
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.
o
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.
o
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
o
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
o
Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
.
.
'.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of March 22, 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 MA TIERS: 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 March 22, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2000 Agenda
I.
II.
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
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 23, 2000.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. Determination of General Plan Conformity - Bolsa Chica Channel Improvements, County of
Orange.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00-9.
3. Determination of Proper Zoning
Citywide
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services
Recommend determination be made that identifies whether or not
trapezoidal shaped lots that are 37.5 feet wide on one side and less than
37.5 feet wide on the other should be considered to be 37.5 feet wide for
the purposes of height restrictions.
Recommendation: Provide direction to Staff as to how to proceed with requests of this nature.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Minor Plan Review 00-2 (Continued from January 19, 2000.)
1733 Crestview
Applicant/Owner: Gary and Terri Myers
3
'.
'.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of March 22, 2000
Request:
To receive approval for a previously non-pennitted deck extending into the
rear yard setback.
Recommendation: Recommend item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
May 3, 2000.
5. CUP 99-6 (Indefinite Extension)
1013 Pacific Coast Highway
ApplicanVOwner:
Request:
Sook & Tae Sung
To approve an indefinite extension of a previously approved pennit for the
sale of beer and wine for on premises consumption only.
Recommendation: Recommend item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
April 5, 2000.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
"\
4
I
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of March 22, 2000
2000 Aaenda Forecast
APR 05
Conditional Use Pennit 98-12 (Indefinite Extension)
Conditional Use Pennit 99-6 (Indefinite Extension)
APR 19
MAY 03
CUP 99-5 Sav-On Drugs - 12-Month Review
Minor Plan Review 00-2
MAY 17
JUN 07
JUN 21
JUL 05
JUL 19
AUG 09
AUG 23
SEP 06
SEP 20
CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly -12-Month Review
OCT 04
OCT 18
NOV 08
NOV 22
DEC 06
DEC 20
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o
o
o
o
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 /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)
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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of March 22, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 22, 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. 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.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he was outraged at the deceptive practices of Staff in
placing Minor Plan Review (MPR) 00-2 on tonight's agenda as a public hearing item.
He stated that this should be a Consent Calendar item, as public hearings must be
noticed. He stated that no notice of a public hearing for this item has ever been
given. Mr. Clewley recommended that should the Planning Commission decide to
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
"
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
( 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000
continue MPR 00-2 beyond this evening that a notice of public hearing for the
variance it actually is be distributed. He stated that this notice should be published
at the applicant's expense. He referred to Page 9, Lines 3, 4, and 5, of the Planning
Commission minutes of January 19, 2000, in which he notes Mr. Lee Whitenberg's
statement that when an application comes before the City, there are permit
streamlining requirements that apply. Mr. Clewley stated that these streamlining
requirements apply to everyone but the applicant for MPR 00-2. He asked what of
the "victim's rights", and where was the consideration for the opposition to what he
referred to as "this travesty, that has brought me to these chambers to fight the
same battle over and over again through the years." He said that his letters and
comments on this subject have been "altered, sanitized and neutered for posterity in
the various minutes." He asked why he should have to be required to appear again
in May to speak in opposition to this item. Mr. Clewley wondered when the applicant
would stand to respond to the allegations he has presented. He stated that the
Planning Commission should allow no continuation of this matter beyond this
evening.
Ms. Sue Corbin referred to the letter from the applicant requesting continuation of
MPR 00-2 and she stated that the Director of Development Services was not
authorized to approve a continuation without the approval of the Planning
Commission.
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that the act of the Planning Commission of approving the
minutes of February 23, 2000 was an exercise in futility. He said that it did not
matter what the Planning Commission approved, since Staff has already presented
before the City Council what they purported to be excerpts from the minutes of
February 23, 2000. He stated that because these were entered into evidence at that
time, it does not matter what the Planning Commission says as Staff has overridden
their approval. He said that the Planning Commission minutes have been written,
subscribed to, and sent on and considered by the City Council weeks before the
Planning Commission has ever approved them. He described this as wholesale
fraud.
2
;.
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
47
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Brown to approve the minutes of February 23,
2000 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
2. Determination of General Plan Conformity - Bolsa Chica Channel
Improvements, County of Orange.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 00-9.
Chairperson Hood stated that this project was within one foot of his property and he
must recuse himself from the proceedings for this item. He asked Vice-Chairperson
Cutuli to serve as Chair for this portion of the meeting. Commissioner Brown
clarified with the City Attorney that this was a general nature item that affects all
residents within the City of Seal Beach. He noted that in such cases it did not matter
if a Commissioner lives within the zone or adjacent to the property since this was a
public health and welfare issue. Mr. Boga stated that recusal was probably not
legally required, but if Chairperson Hood desired to abstain, he could. Chairperson
Hood stated that he did not want there to be any suspicion and in order to address
the item honestly and cleanly he felt it was best to recuse himself from the
proceedings. Commissioner Brown noted that he simply did not wish Chairperson
Hood to establish a precedent. Chairperson Hood responded that he felt it was a
good precedent as appointed members of City government should not ask of others
what they would not ask of themselves.
Vice-Chairperson Cutuli asked if Staff had a presentation on this item.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in
the Planning Department.) He stated that this matter had been brought before the
Planning Commission at the request of the County of Orange to determine if the
proposed improvements to the Bolsa Chica Channel are in conformity with the
General Plan for the City of Seal Beach. He noted that under provisions of state
law, when an agency undertakes public works improvement projects within a
community, the planning agency for that comml,mity is required to make a finding as
to whether or not the proposed public improvement project is consistent with the
city's general plan. He stated that Staff has evaluated the project and had included
as background information to the Commission comment letters from the City Council
that were forwarded to both the County of Orange and to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers back in 1998, the time when the environmental reviews were conducted
for this proposed drainage channel improvement project. He noted that the site of
the project was on the easterly side of College Park East, going from the north side
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000
of the 405 Freeway across the back side of College Park East, then north into the
City of Garden Grove. He said that the project was proposed by the County of
Orange to improve the existing storm drain channel to provide 1 DO-year storm flow
protection in that area of the City. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this area had
experienced flooding in 1992, 1993, and 1995. He stated that this was a portion of
the project to improve several segments of the storm drain channels in this area, not
only in Seal Beach, but also in Garden Grove and Westminster. He said that in the
City's General Plan, the Safety Element has a number of goals and policies in
relation to flood protection issues. He noted that Policy 5(d) of this Safety Element
states "plan capacity for the 1 DO-year flood and provide short-term reasonable
protection for locations that would benefit from 10, 25, or 50-year storm drainage
facilities." He stated that this case, as proposed, would meet 1 DO-year storm
protection, which is the highest level of storm water protection normally designed for
in the Southern California region. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as part of the 1998
Environmental Review there were several issues raised by residents of College Park
East and the adjoining communities of Garden Grove and Westminster regarding the
loss of the bird habitat that exists in that channel. He stated that currently the
channel is a sloped, riprap-sided channel with plants that have grown up in it, and
there have been substantial colonies of different types of birds that have located in
this area. He said that at the time of Council consideration for the matter, the
Council considered these issues and still determined to favor the improvement of the
channel for providing long-term flood protection to residents of Seal Beach. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that based on both the policy and Safety Element of the General
Plan and the previous Council determinations regarding the Environmental Review
of the proposed project, Staff has prepared Resolution 00-9 stating that the finding
for this project is consistent with the Safety Element of the General Plan Policy 50.
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 00-9. Mr. Whittenberg stated that upon
approval a copy of the resolution would be submitted to the County of Orange. He
stated that the County of Orange would also need to receive resolutions from the
cities of Garden Grove and Westminster for those portions of the project that affect
these communities. He said that his understanding was that construction was to
begin at the end of April or early May of this year.
Commissioner Questions
Vice-Chairperson Cutuli asked if the item had to go before City Council. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that it did not.
Commissioner Brown commented that it appeared that the channel was not to be
widened but that the walls would simply be made straight vertically. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that the top of the channel as it currently exists would be the straight-walled
portion of it, so the actual capacity of the channel is increased in size because of
this. He said that the bottom of the channel would be widened to become a vertical
wall in line with the top of the channel.
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 March 22, 2000
Commissioner Larson inquired whether a response to the concerns of the City and
the Mayor's letter had been received. Mr. Whittenberg responded that they had
been addressed.
Public Comment
Vice-Chairperson Cutuli opened for public comment.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he did not feel that this determination should be made.
He said it appeared that this is less 1 DO-year flood protection, than it is enabling the
Bixby Ranch Company and the Boeing Company to proceed with their unfettered
construction desires. He said that the paving over that is proposed between these
two projects in conjunction with the large acreage of the Hellman project will create a
lot of runoff. He stated that the citizens of Seal Beach were being asked to foot the
bill to allow these companies to pour more wastewater into the city sewer system.
Mr. Clewley stated that he did not see the City sewer systems as being in such dire
straits at this point to require this kind of expansion, but for the desires of these
major corporations to pave over any remaining acres available for groundwater
seepage. He said that this was a completely inappropriate determination to make,
and unfair and not in the best interest of the City, and should be declined by the
Commission.
Mr. David Hood spoke regarding the quality of life in Seal Beach, and stated that it
was important to preserve this. He stated that the eucalyptus trees had been
sacrificed to the Bixby project and that the development of malls with the objective of
receiving revenues from sales taxes have contributed to a decrease in the quality of
life here. He stated he had moved to Seal Beach because of the quality of life, and
he encouraged the Planning Commission to not destroy what was left of that.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this project was not a sewer improvement project or
storm drain project, but is designed primarily for serving the areas of Garden Grove
and Westminster and the easterly half of the College Park East Community. . He
stated that the channel would drain along the entire eastern edge of the Naval
Weapons Station and enter the ocean at Huntington Harbour and Sunset Marina
and empty into Anaheim Bay. He said that the Bixby Project, the Hellman Property,
and the Boeing Property all drain into the San Gabriel River and do not drain to this
particular channel.
Vice-Chairperson Cutuli closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Larson asked if the City of Seal Beach was contributing in any way to
the cost of these improvements. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the City was not
contributing any funds. Commissioner Larson clarified that there was no request
pending for authorization to build the channel wall, but that the County is simply
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 March 22, 2000
requesting a determination of whether or not the project is consistent with the
General Plan. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct.
Commissioner Lyon asked why the Planning Commission was even considering this
item if the Commission had no say in whether or not the project is completed. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that by state law, whenever an agency is proposing a public
works improvement project in a city, the city must make a finding that the project is
consistent with the city's general plan. He stated that the County of Orange is
proposing this public works improvement project within the City, so by law the
Planning Commission needs to make that finding in order for the County to be able
to construct the project. .
Commissioner Lyon stated that he agreed that this project should be completed
because the channel was largely full of mud and sand, and that with the
improvements this would all wash out. He stated that he was in favor of the project.
Vice-Chairperson Cutuli asked how much damage related to inadequate flood
control has occurred. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he could not respond for any
damage in Westminster or Garden Grove. He stated that Mr. Hood might be better
able to answer the question as his property abuts the channel. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that he believed the problem involved flooding in back yards of homes in the
area. He said that he did not believe water had seeped into the homes, but it has
been more of a surface flooding issue in the yard areas. Vice-Chairperson Cutuli
asked if the channel had overflowed at any time. Mr. Whittenberg responded that
the water in the channel had overflowed. This was why the County wants to improve
the channel. Vice-Chairperson Cutuli asked if Mr. Hood cared to comment.
Mr. David Hood stated that the floodwaters of 1976 had reached to the top of the
channel in the area where he lives. He said that although the water did back up at
the end of the street a little bit, it never seeped into the houses. He said that he can
see the front end of the channel from his upstairs bedroom window, and the water
reached about two-thirds to three-quarters of the way up to the top. He said that the
water did back up the drains a little bit into the street. Commissioner Larson asked if
the residents of this area are required to have flood insurance. Mr. Hood responded
that they were not required to have this coverage. He stated that residents do enjoy
the rip rap, the plant growth, and that there is a flyway coming directly from the
wildlife refuge, which brings a lot of interesting birds into the area. Commissioner
Larson noted that the federal government sponsors a flood insurance program and
will sometimes place neighborhoods that have no history of flooding into the flood
program. Mr. Hood responded that as he understood the matter, residents had to be
in a flood zone to be required or able to purchase flood insurance. He noted that
residents of his neighborhood are not able to buy flood insurance, which indicates
that this is not a flood zone. Commissioner Larson stated that he believes just the
opposite-that this is a flood zone and insurance companies will not write flood
insurance for this region.
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
47
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to approve the Determination of General
Plan Conformity - Bolsa Chica Channel Improvements, County of Orange and adopt
of Resolution 00-9.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
3-1-1
Brown, Larson, and Lyon
Cutuli
None
Hood
3. Determination of Proper Zoning
Citywide
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services
Recommend determination be made that identifies
whether or not trapezoidal shaped lots that are 37.5 feet
wide on one side and less than 37.5 feet wide on the
other should be considered to be 37.5 feet wide for the
purposes of height restrictions.
Provide direction to Staff as to how to proceed with
requests of this nature.
Recommendation:
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated that this matter had been brought before the
Planning Commission for a determination on how to classify certain lots within the
City. He said that currently the City Code allows third story, 35-foot construction on
lots in Old Town that are greater than 37.5 feet wide. He noted that there are
several lots in Old Town that are rectangular that meet this criteria, however, an
inquiry was recently made on how to classify lots that run along the Electric Avenue
greenbelt. Mr. Cummins stated that many of these lots are quite narrow on one end
arid very wide on the other. He said that some lots can be 50 to 55 feet on the wide
side and 22 to 27 feet on the narrow side. He said that there is some historical
precedent for averaging the two widths to generate a width for the lot. He stated that
this is how Staff has calculated the width when computing the side yard setback
abutting a street, which is 15% of the lot width. Mr. Cummins stated that whether or
not third story construction would be allowed is not at issue. He said that the real
issue is whether or not the Planning Commission feels it would be appropriate to
count lots that have a 37.5 foot width on one side to be 37.5 feet wide for the
purposes of the height restriction. He presented several options as proposed by
Staff as follows:
1. Both sides of the lot must be 37.5 feet wide in order for the lot to be considered
37.5 feet wide and allow third story construction up to 35 feet on the rear of the
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 March 22, 2000
lot. This would be a standard rectangular lot, or in the case of a trapezoidal lot,
two 37.5-foot lots could be assembled together.
2. The street side of the lot is 37.5 feet wide, and the average of the two widths
would have to be 37.5 feet wide. Staff included this as an option since one lot
along Electric Avenue can be wider on the street side while the next lot may be
wider on the alley side. This is a result of the way Electric Avenue cuts through
the lots. Because the 35-foot height limit is allowed only on the rear half of a
lot, those lots that have the wider side on the street side would have less third
story construction.
3. To allow more third-story construction on the rear half of the lot for those lots
that would be wider in the rear than in the front.
4. If either side of the lot is 37.5 feet wide, the lot would be considered to be 37.5
feet wide, regardless of the average of the two widths.
5. To average the two lot widths to calculate lot width. If the average were 37.5
feet or greater, the lot would be considered to be 37.5 feet wide, regardless of
where the larger side is located (Le., street or alley side).
Staff is recommending approval of Option No.1, which proposes that only lots that
are 37.5 feet wide on both sides be considered eligible for third story construction.
Mr. Cummins stated that in the past the City has taken the position of discouraging
third story development. Staff recommends maintaining this objective. He noted
that developers could assemble two lots contiguously, which would create a lot that
is 37.5 feet wide on both sides.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Lyon asked how many lots were involved. Mr. Cummins responded
that approximately 15-20 lots were affected. He stated that some of the lots that run
perpendicular to Electric Avenue measure 25 feet.
Commissioner Larson asked if under Option 1, a lot with a 50-foot frontage and
measuring 35 feet on the alley could not have a third story 35-foot construction since
the rear of the lot measures less than 37.5 feet. Mr. Cummins responded that this
was correct.
Public Comment
Chairperson Hood opened for public comment.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he was not a big fan of how the City height limits are
written. He said that the 35-foot height limit was actually a 42-foot height limit, and
25-foot height limits are actually 32 feet. He stated that there was a lot of deception
about what the height limits actually are. Mr. Clewley stated that while it may be true
.in Old Town and in Surfside that if you have a 37.5-foot lot, you can have a 42-foot
height limit, on The Hill the height limit is 32 feet. He said that this was patently
unfair and that the same height limit should be applicable to all City properties. He
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000
said that until the City corrects the inequities in this law, the best way to interpret
what is allowable would be to follow the recommendation of Staff to approve Option
NO.1. Mr. Clewley stated that if the height limit was to be increased for anyone, it
should be increased across the board for everyone, without making exceptions for
odd shaped lots.
Chairperson Hood closed the public comment period.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Larson asked why Staff was specifying 37.5 feet. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that his best guess would be that most of the lots in Old Town are 25 feet
wide. He said that for many of these lots, property owners have acquired half of an
adjoining parcel creating a 37.5-foot lot. He stated that he assumed that in the
1960's when the City Code was developed, in order to accommodate existing
construction on the wider lots, the City made a conscious decision to limit the lots to
37.5 feet. He said that the City has remained very strict on this. He noted that when
applications were brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council for
. third story construction on lots measuring 37.48 feet along Ocean Avenue, they were
denied. He said that this was the first time that Staff can recall application being
made on this issue for the trapezoidal lots along the Electric Avenue greenbelt or
anyplace else within the City. As such, Staff felt that the issue should be presented
to the Planning Commission for final determination.
Commissioner Brown stated that this was one of the easier issues presented to the
Planning Commission. He noted that in the 7 years that he has served on the
Planning Commission, there has been a consistent movement to lower the density of
Old Town, and the determination was made to limit lot size to 37.495 feet. He said
that there had also been a plan proposed by then Mayor Hastings to eliminate third
stories altogether. Commissioner Brown stated that this proposal was never
approved because for some residents it would have meant taking away something
that they already had. He said that the general consensus was that it was a good
idea to not have third stories in the back of lots because they looked awkward and
there was concern that this would impact the light, airflow, and view for neighboring
properties. He said he was strongly in favor of Staff's recommendation of
maintaining that only those lots measuring 37.5 feet for front and back of lot widths
be allowed third story construction. He noted that he had not seen any mention of
the actual Code within the Staff Report, and stated that he felt it was important to
include this. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be corrected. Commissioner
Brown stated that should a property owner wish to build a third story structure, this
could be done by acquiring two lots.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with Staff's recommendation.
He stated that if a lot is not 37.5 feet on both sides, it is not a 37.5-foot lot.
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 March 22, 2000
Chairperson Hood noted that it appeared that the Commission was in favor of Option
1.
MOTION by Lyon; SECOND by Brown to approve Option No. 1 as recommended by
Staff, and direct Staff to clarify language and compose Zoning Text Amendment to
present to Planning Commission at a future meeting.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Minor Plan Review 00-2 (Continued from January 19, 2000.)
1733 Crestview
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Gary and Terri Myers
To receive approval for a previously non-permitted deck
extending into the rear yard setback.
Recommendation:
Recommend item be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of May 3, 2000.
...
Mr. Whittenberg noted that a letter from the applicant requesting a continuation was
included with the Agenda packet. He stated that the letter was not exactly correct,
as Staff had never determined a date that would be appropriate for continuation. He
said that this would be the decision of the Commission. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
his comment to the applicant had been that he did not believe the Commission
would be willing to grant an extension of more than 30 days. He said that the Myers'
have retained a structural engineer who due to a full schedule has not been able to
visit their home to evaluate the structure. Mr. Whittenberg recommended this item
be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 2000.
Chairperson Hood asked if the matter required a public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that he would research this, but that as he recalled the .Commission did
not authorize Staff to present this item as a Public Hearing item. Commissioner
Brown stated that he believed City Council wanted this to be a Public Hearing Item.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would look into the matter. Commissioner Brown
stated that if the item were to be continued, it should be re-noticed as a public
hearing item. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would not be a problem.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he wished to comment on Minor Plan Review 00-2.
Chairperson Hood noted that because this was to be continued, there would be no
public hearing at this time. He inquired of the City Attorney as to the protocol. Mr.
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 March 22, 2000
Boga stated that the decision to continue was at the discretion of the Commission.
He said that it might be appropriate to ask Mr. Clewley if he would be available to
return on May 3, 2000, and if so to withhold his comments until that time, if not, the
Commission could hear his comments now. Mr. Clewley stated that he wished to
speak tonight. Commissioner Brown interjected that because no action would be
taken on this item tonight, Mr. Clewley's comments would not be remembered on
May 3, 2000. He said that if Mr. Clewley wished to speak again on May 3, this
would allow him the privilege of speaking twice on the same issue, and
Commissioner Brown felt that this was not necessary. Chairperson Hood stated that
it would be best that Mr. Clewley hold his comments until May 3, 2000.
Commissioner Larson declared that the Commission must be fair to the applicant.
He said that they expect fair treatment and had not attended tonight's meeting under
the assumption that the item was to be continued to May 3. He said that the
applicants should have the opportunity to be present to hear all comments and and
to rebut if they chose to do so.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to continue Minor Plan Review 00-2 to the
Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 2000 and re-notice for Public Hearing.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
5. CUP 99-6 (Indefinite Extension)
1013 Pacific Coast Highway
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Sook & Tae Sung
To approve an indefinite extension of a previously
approved permit for the sale of beer and wine for on
premises consumption only.
Recommendation:
Recommend item be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of April 5, 2000.
Mr. Cummins stated that because the list of addresses provided to Staff by the
applicant was not complete, there had been a problem noticing this item. He said
that it had to be re-noticed, and Staff was, therefore, requesting that the item be
continued to the meeting of April 5, 2000.
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Brown to continue Conditional Use Permit 99-6
(Indefinite Extension) to the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2000.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
NOES: None
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 March 22. 2000
ABSENT:
None
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that at the last City Council meeting a News Rack
Ordinance was introduced that will control the location and design, etc., for all news
rack locations within the City. He stated that this would involve an amendment to
the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Design Criteria and Standards regarding
location of news racks within the Main Street area. He said that this amendment to
the MSSP would be noticed for public hearing at the April 5, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting. He stated that once the Commission makes a decision on the
amendment to the MSSP both the MSSP and the News Rack Ordinance will go
before City Council for final consideration.
Mr. Whittenberg also stated that Staff anticipates that both the Ayres Country Inn
Suites project and the Islands Restaurant project for the Bixby Old Town Center will
also be presented at the April 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. He said that
neither of these parties have yet submitted their materials, but they are waiting to
have these items scheduled for the May 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Brown expressed his concern that there appear to be a greater
number of items being continued and not heard on the first go around. He said that
this is not fair to the public, if items are noticed for a certain date, then continued,
and generally not re-noticed. He stated that he did not want it to appear that the
Commission is running a "shell game" where items are put on then shifted around on
the schedule until the public does not show up or is confused or does not know
when to show up to comment on items. Commissioner Brown stated that he felt that
the Commission and Staff should not expect people to keep track of when items are
continued. He said that he would like to make it a policy that when items are
continued that they be re-noticed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would not be
difficult to do. Commissioner Brown noted that he realized it was expensive to
notice items. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the expense for noticing comes out of
the application fees. He said that CUP 99-6 was not noticed by mail because the'
addresses were not received, so it was not mailed out. He stated that usually when
an item is continued it is because the applicant has not provided a complete or
correct set of mailing labels. He stated that for public hearing items a notice is
published in the newspaper. He said that within 6 to 9 months the City will no longer
require the applicant to provide the mailing labels, as Staff will have a Geographic
Information System (GIS) program up and running. Commissioner Brown interjected
that he had been hearing this for over 4 years. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the
City had made an agreement with the County of Orange Tax Assessor's Office to
provide mailing labels at a specific cost. He said that all of the cities within the
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000
county were agreeable to the fees quoted. He stated that then the County
Assessor's office decided that they would double the fees and consequently cities
opted to not avail themselves of this service. He said that currently there is a system
for acquiring the labels and that eventually the City can also print them without
having to request them from an outside source. He stated that once the GIS system
is in place and Staff does not have to rely on the applicant to provide the labels, this
will solve a lot of problems that have arisen in the past. Commissioner Brown stated
that his comments were not so much about items not being noticed, but about items
that are continued because the applicant is not prepared. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that in these cases the Commission has requested that Staff re-notice
the item, and this can continue to be the policy. \
Chairperson Hood asked when the Planning Commission Agendas appear on the
City web page. Mr. Whittenberg reported that a copy of the Agenda is forwarded to
the City Manager's Office and he was not sure when it is placed on the web page.
He said that normally the Planning Commission Agenda is forwarded the Thursday
before the Planning Commission meeting. Chairperson Hood asked when the
minutes were placed on the web page. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the
Planning Commission Minutes were not placed on the web page. Chairperson Hood
inquired about the e-mail addresses for the Planning Commissioners being placed
on the web page. He said that the last time he checked Commissioner Cutuli's e-
mail was not on the web page. Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff would check with
the web page administrator. Chairperson Hood commented that nothing looks
worse than a web page that is not kept current, particularly for a public entity.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on April 19, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, March 22, 2000. ~.
13