No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-05-17 .' .' . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for May 17,2000 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. 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. . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 17, 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 May 17, 2000 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Agenda I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. III. 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. Receive and File "Approval of Administrative Revisions Re: Increase in Area of Gum Grove Nature Park (Conservation Planning Area 3) and Residential Development Area (Development Area 8) - Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. 2. Minor Plan Review 00-3 241 - 1 ih Street Applicant/Owner: Request: Brennan & Stacie Hill Expansion of a bedroom to a non-conforming structure. Specifically, the applicant proposes to add approximately 209 square feet. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution No. 00-16. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Determination of General Plan Conformity - Marina Drive Bridge Replacement Project 4. Resolution No. 99-22 - Denying Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-2 (Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project) 3 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 17,2000 . 5. Variance 00-3 220 - ih Street Applicant/Owner: Request: Meg Littlefield, Michael and Deborah Harding To add approximately 237 square feet to a legal, non-conforming residence. The applicant is requesting to add to a building on a property that has three units and two off-street parking spaces. A Variance is also requested to allow the addition to follow an existing 3-foot, non-conforming side yard setback on the south property line. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution No. 00-14. 6. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 770 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant/Owner: Request: Tom Lao, TI Planning To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in restaurant currently resides. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions and as further revised by the Planning Commission after considering public testimony. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-18. 7. Height Variation 00-2 A-59 Surfside . Applicant/Owner: Request: Tony Ursino To construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the 35-foot height limit at A-59 Surfside. Specifically, the proposed structure would exceed the height limit by approximately 5 feet. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution No. 00-17. 8. Site Plan Review 00-2 Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center, Area B (8.5-Acre Commercial Shopping Center Site) - East side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between Northbound 405 Freeway off-ramp and Lampson Avenue Applicant/Owner: Request: Bixby Ranch Company To approve a Site Plan Review for construction of a 10,000 square foot retail/office/commercial building. Recommendation: Open public hearing, do not receive Staff Report or public testimony, and continue the public hearing to an adjourned meeting on June 14, 2000. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS . X. ADJOURNMENT 4 . . . JUN 07 JUN 21 JUL 05 JUL 19 AUG 09 AUG 23 SEP 06 SEP 20 OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEC 06 DEC 20 TO BE SCHEDULED: o o a o Study Session: Study Session: Study Session: Staff Report: city of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 17,2000 2000 Aaenda Forecast CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly -12-Month Review Pennitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98) Seal Beach Boulevard (10nI98) Anaheim Bay Villas (10n/98) Undergrounding of Utilities And Beyond Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrilQ 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 ~~ 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 May 17, 2000 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 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, and Lyon Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner Absent: None AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Whittenberg noted that Conditional Use Permit 98-12 (Indefinite Extension) Vons Market, which appeared on the Agenda Forecast for May 17, 2000, would not be presented tonight. After having mailed out the Notice of Public Hearing, Staff received notification from Vons Markets that they wished to withdraw their application for approval for 24-hour operation of the Vons Market in Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff had received 2 letters stating opposition to Vons 24- hour operation. Mr. Reg Clewley requested that Items 1 and 2 be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon None None 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 .~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. Mr. Reg Clewley stated that the Planning Commission meeting was not properly noticed. He stated that there was no Agenda posted outside Council Chambers. He stated that he has complained several times about this issue, but nothing has been done. He stated that Variance 00-3 had not been noticed to all residents within 300 feet. He said that this meeting was completely out of order and items that had not been properly noticed and posted should not be presented tonight. Chairperson Hood closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 1. Receive and File "Approval of Administrative Revisions Re: Increase in Area of Gum Grove Nature Park (Conservation Planning Area 3) and Residential Development Area (Development Area 8) - Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. Mr. Whittenberg reported that this was an information item to make the Planning Commission aware of administrative amendments approved by the Director of Development Services to the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan based on the provisions of that plan. The amendments allow for an increase in the acreage for the area designated for Gum Grove Nature Park from 12.8 acres to approximately 14 acres. It also allows for an increase in the overall area for the 70-home residential development along Seal Beach Boulevard from 14.7 acres to 18.4 acres. He stated that this change would not increase the number of home to be built in the residential development, but simply allows for larger lots for the residences. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Brown asked who made the changes to the Specific Plan. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a lawsuit was filed against the Coastal Commission approval of the Hellman Ranch Project challenging the filling of wetlands for the construction of the golf course portion of the project. He stated that in a similar court case for the Bolsa Chica area in Huntington Beach, the State of California Supreme Court ruled that the Coastal Commission could not allow the fill of wetlands for other than certain specific uses. Fill for residential purposes in Bolsa Chica was not allowed, and for the Hellman Ranch, fill for a golf course was found to be unlawful under the provisions of the Coastal Act. The Hellman Family reached a settlement with the litigators for the Coastal Commission to set aside approximately 100 acres of the property for a future wetland restoration project, and as a part of this 2 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 agreement, an increase in the acreage for the residential area was approved. This agreement was presented to the City for approval. Commissioner Brown asked if this agreement included the increase in acreage for Gum Grove Park. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he was not certain that this was a part of the settlement agreement, but was an additional bonus to the City. Commissioner Cutuli asked on which side of Gum Grove Park the increased acreage would be. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it would be along the entire area, but primarily along the area near Seal Beach Boulevard and closer to the residential homes located along "The Hill." Commissioner Cutuli asked how far the increased acreage for Gum Grove Park would extend. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the park would extend out to Seal Beach Boulevard, but the back of the new homes on the Hellman Property would extend 50-75 feet from the existing homes on "The Hill". He stated that this approval increases the width of the Gum Grove Park setback area. Commissioner Cutuli asked if another entrance to the park would be constructed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Coastal Commission wants a public parking lot to accommodate at least 10 cars to be constructed off of Seal Beach Boulevard. He stated that the City has opposed this particular condition, and will continue to do so. Commissioner Lyon asked if what the Commission had before them was a recent copy of the plans. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this was the revised plan. Commissioner Cutuli asked what the status of animal shelter along Adolfo Lopez Drive would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that under the current plan, he did not believe there would be any kind of impact on the anir)lal shelter. Commissioner Cutuli asked about the possibility of the residents of the new housing development wanting to remove the shelter as a result of disturbances from barking dogs. He asked if some type of amendment needed to be presented to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the animal shelter had been evaluated in the EIR and it was determined that after meeting specific mitigation measures the animal shelter should be allowed to continue to operate. He noted that the shelter is currently located on property leased by the City. He said that he was not aware of any decision to close the facility. Commissioner Cutuli asked what these mitigation measures were. Mr. Whittenberg responded that because the EIR was completed approximately 2 years ago, he could not recall what the measures were, but he could review the document to provide this information. Public Comment Session Chairperson Hood opened the public comment session. Mr. Reg Clewley stated that Staff has exceeded its authority in making these changes. He stated that under Section 8.4.1 under Administrative Revisions to the Hellman Specific Plan, Staff could make changes only if conservation acreage is not reduced. He said as far as Gum Grove Park is concerned, conservation acreage was reduced when the City agreed to allow dogs in the park. He stated that dogs in the park have eliminated conservation acreage and the park is a mess and will not be approved by Coastal Commission. He said that Staff has no authority to increase this mess by 25%. He referred to the City Council Resolution, which stated that 3 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 Gum Grove Park was to be preserved as a nature park in perpetuity. Mr. Clewley noted that this is now a public park. He said that based on a letter from Dave Bartlett, Staff has made a change to simply create a larger residential neighborhood and to increase the acreage for a golf course, and not to create conservation acreage. He stated that he demanded that this matter be returned to Staff for revision or rescission. He emphasized that he would do everything possible to prevent having a golf course in this area. Mr. Dave Bartlett explained that the reason the golf course and the clubhouse still appear on the plans was due to the zoning of the property, which was determined when the Specific Plan was approved. He noted that the settlement agreement included the Hellman Ranch Company, the City of Seal Beach, Coastal Commission, Southern California Edison, and the State Lands Commission, and designated acreage for the residential development, oil production, and Gum Grove Park. He said that the settlement agreement does not change the zoning, which allows minor adjustments to be made as long as certain criteria are met. He said the Hellmans requested changes and Staff has approved them subject to the Specific Plan. He emphasized that even though Coastal Commission had not approved the golf course, the plan still shows zoning for a golf course as originally approved in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Brown asked if a copy of the settlement agreement had been provided for the Commissioners. Mr. Bartlett responded that he did have a copy that he could make available to the Commission. Commissioner Brown asked why a copy of the agreement had not been included with the agenda packet. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was an information item on which action had already been taken. Commissioner Brown stated that if the Commission was expected to receive and file this item, they should be able to view it before approving it. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this item was not being presented to the Commission for approval but simply as an information matter. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see a copy of the settlement if the residential acreage was to be increased by 25%. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a copy of the settlement could be provided, but the language for this document is not found in the settlement but was taken from the Hellman Specific Plan, which authorizes Staff to make changes regardless of what the settlement agreement states. Commissioner Brown asked if the reason the change was being made was because of the settlement. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct. Commissioner Brown then asked if the Director of Development Services simply woke up one day and decided to make these changes simply because he was allowed to do so. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he had made the changes based on the applicant's request. He noted that he does not make changes of his own volition. Commissioner Brown stated that if the applicant has requested changes based on the settlement agreement, he would like to see a copy of the agreement. He said that he would not vote on this item until he has seen all of the related information. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a copy of the agreement would be provided to the Commissioners. 4 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 Mr. Dave Bartlett stated that this was simply a City Code housekeeping item that will ultimately make for a better project as well as increase the size of Gum Grove Park. Chairperson Hood stated that although the park acreage is being increased, so is the acreage for the residential project. He asked if this translates into larger lots for the homes proposed for the residential project. Mr. Bartlett confirmed that this was correct. Chairperson Hood noted that this means that the cost of the lots would be more creating more money for the developer. Mr. Bartlett stated that he was not a homebuilder. Chairperson Hood stated that the City was providing 4 more acres to build on, and larger lots do mean more money. Mr. Bartlett responded that what the City was providing was what was agreed to in the settlement agreement. Chairperson Hood asked why the plans show a clubhouse if there were no plans to include a golf course: Mr. Bartlett again explained that this was a zoning issue and that the plans as approved would always reflect a clubhouse and a golf course as zoned and approved. Chairperson Hood closed the public comment session. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting for further review and discussion. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon None None Commissioner Brown asked why the Minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting were not included with the agenda packet. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the Executive Secretary had not completed the Minutes in time for distribution with the agenda. 2. Minor Plan Review 00-3 241 - 1 yth Street ApplicanUOwner: Request: Brennan & Stacie Hill Expansion of a bedroom to a non-conforming structure. Specifically, the applicant proposes to add approximately 209 square feet. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution No. 00-16. Staff Report Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 5 .; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 stated that this ;s a legally non-conforming property due to inadequate side yard setbacks and inadequate on-site parking. He stated that currently there are 2 units on the property, a 2-bedroom main house and a granny unit attached to the garage in the back. He said that the applicant is proposing to expand the master bedroom of the main house and add another bathroom by adding approximately 209 square feet. He noted that the property is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone of Old Town with the surrounding land uses as follows: SOUTH: Residential housing in Residential High Density (RHO) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) Zones. NORTH & WEST Residential housing in a Residential Medium Density (RMD) Zone. EAST: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach in a Public Land Use (PLU) Zone. Mr. Cummins reported that the property measures approximately 3666 square feet. He noted that Section 28-2407 of the City Code provides for minor structural expansions to buildings on nonconforming properties with two or fewer units from 288 square feet per unit provided that one parking space per unit is provided. He stated that this property meets that criteria and Staff recommends approval of Minor Plan Review (MPR) 00-3. He said that MPR 00-3 is consistent with the provision of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the use is consistent with the surrounding land uses. He noted that there were several conditions of approval derived from an inspection provided by the City Building Inspector. Commissioner Questions None. Public Comment Chairperson Hood opened the public comment session. Mr. Reg Clewley stated his opposition to MPR 00-3. He indicated that the rationale for requesting approval of this MPR was that the applicant was in reality adding a new bedroom and a new bath. He demonstrated how large 200 square feet was and stated that the general rule for builders in this city is "don't put the closet in until after the final inspection is completed." He said that parking is inadequate for a 3-bedroom, 2-bath house, which is what the Commission would be approving tonight. He referred to a similar application previously presented to the Commission by the owner of 235 Eighth Street. He stated that that applicant had disregarded the conditions placed by Staff on the proposed construction and basically built whatever he wanted. Mr. Clewley stated that this was not a MPR but a Variance. He stated that Staff does not effectively handle code violations by property owners, creating a 6 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 situation where the property is sold and the new owner then inherits the non- conformance issues related to the property. He recommended denial of MPR 00-3. Mr. Terry Wallace, architect for the applicant, stated the he had extensively researched this project and noted that it is approximately 80 feet under the allowed maximum square footage and includes a laundry room and a covered porch within the 209 square feet. He noted that the completed bedroom would measure 10 by approximately18 feet, including the closet. He reported that the house has slightly over 800 square feet, which by today's standards would be called substandard. He said that he has worked very closely with Staff to ensure that the plans meet all City requirements. He thanked Staff for their assistance in preparing the project for presentation to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Hood closed the public comment session. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brown asked how many bedrooms and baths the home currently had. Mr. Cummins reported that it currently had 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. Commissioner Brown asked about what the expansion would include. Mr. Cummins responded that after the expansion there would be 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. He referred the Commission to the plans included with their agenda packets. Commissioner Brown confirmed that this was in conformance with City Code. Mr. Cummins responded that it was. Chairperson Hood inquired about the granny unit. Mr. Cummins responded that it was legal non-conforming and the proposed addition does not impact the granny unit in any way. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the existing granny structure, which was built many years ago, would not meet today's building requirements. He said that City Code does allow for this type of expansion if it meets certain criteria, which this project does. Commissioner Brown asked if after completion of the project there would be 2 units on the property. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that there would be the main house and the granny unit only. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Minor Plan Review 00-3 and adopt Resolution No. 00-16. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon None None Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-16 begins a ~ O-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 7 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Determination of General Plan Conformity - Marina Drive Bridge Replacement Project Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered 'the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that this project will be completed in partnership with the City of Long Beach and has been in the planning phase for approximately one year. He reported that the bridge is currently in substandard condition and replacement would prevent collapse of the bridge in the event of an earthquake. He noted that the bridge has been listed on the State Mandated Retrofit Program that allows the project to receive 90% of the funding for replacement through federal highway funds administrated by Caltrans. He reported that the cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach have assessed rehabilitation of the bridge versus replacement and have determined that replacement would be the better option, as this would be more cost effective and provide for a longer life span for the bridge. Cost analysis reflected that partial replacement of the bridge would cost approximately $400,000 less than total replacement. He stated that the objective is to replace the deficient bridge, which will reduce noise vibration on the bridge. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the bridge would be slightly reconfigured with one traffic lane going in each direction. He stated that the arc of the bridge will be reduced slightly and will improve sight visibility for pedestrians, bicycle riders, and vehicles crossing the bridge. Realignment on both the First Street and the Long Beach side of the bridge will be completed to allow for better road alignment. Mr. Whittenberg stated that during the project any inconvenience to the nearby businesses would be minimized by having a section of the bridge open at all times to allow vehicle access. He said that the new bridge would provide for bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and will help lower maintenance costs. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the estimated cost of the bridge replacement would be approximately $5.7 million. He said that the cost to the City would be 10% of this amount, which would be split between the City of Long Beach and the City of Seal Beach. He stated that the total cost to the City would be $285,000. He noted that funding for the bridge replacement is predicated upon beginning the project by a specific deadline, and that is why the City would like to complete all approvals to meet that cutoff date to maintain the 90% funding. He then presented photographs of the Marina Bridge and reviewed the proposed improvements. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Phase 1 of the project is expected to run from July 2000 through October 2001. Phase 2 would begin in November 2001 and continue through December 2002. He said that the long construction period was due to federal regulations prohibiting work in the San Gabriel River area between October and the end of April of each year due to breeding species that occupy the river 8 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 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 May 17, 2000 channels. He indicated that the project improvements are in conformance with the General Plan. He reported that the current capacity for a 100-year flood would remain the same after completion of the project. He said that the project had been approved by the City Council for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, and is currently under review for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and by the California Coastal Commission. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 00-21. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Lyon asked if these were estimated costs. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that they were. Commissioner Lyon asked if costs exceed the estimate, would the state still fund 90% of the project. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the state would provide the 90% funding regardless of the cost of the project. He stated that the actual costs would not be known until after the bidding process was completed. Commissioner Brown asked if the bridge would be replaced one-half portion at a time. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there would be one driving lane open at all times. Commissioner Brown asked if the work could be completed faster by closing the bridge to traffic. Mr. Whittenberg responded that due to the restrictions on when the work could be done, the time frame for completion would be about the same, give or take 2 or 3 months, so the decision was made to keep one lane of traffic open during construction. Public Comment Chairperson Hood opened the public comment session. Mr. Reg Clewley stated that this project is not consistent with the Conservation Element of the General Plan, and is not exempt from CEQA. He stated that the taxpayers' money would be wasted in sending this project to the Coastal Commission for review, as the agency will not grant its approval. He said that this project would affect the environment and increase traffic and pollution and noise. Mr. Clewley noted that the General Plan does not provide for policing of Seal Beach. He noted that the same thing was going to happen with the replacement of the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing. Mr. Walt Stein, a 31-year resident of Bridgeport, stated that he uses the bridge frequently. He noted that today the Long Beach side of the bridge has 2 traffic lanes in each direction and has no traffic control island between the lanes. He said that with the improvements there would only be 1 traffic lane in each direction with the center made into an island to control traffic. ~r. Stein stated that although he is in favor of the improvements, there is a lot of traffic on Marina Drive and he does not want to lose 1 of the traffic lanes. He said he would prefer to see 2 lanes in each 9 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 direction. He questioned why the Long Beach side gets 2 lanes and Seal Beach only has use of one lane. Chairperson Hood closed the public comment session. Commissioner Comments Chairperson Hood asked is Staff would respond to Mr. Stein's question. Mr. Whittenberg stated 1hat both the City of Seal Beach and the City of Long Beach have studied the situation and have determined that there is not enough traffic on the bridge to warrant having 2 lanes in each direction. He said that going from 2 lanes to 1 would have no significant impact on traffic. He explained that at the West Marina Drive intersection there would be a right-turn-only lane onto Pacific Coast Highway and another lane heading straight into the shopping center or to make a left turn. On the Seal Beach side, there would be a right-turn-only lane to First Street. MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to adopt Resolution No. 00-21. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon None None 4. Resolution No. 99-20 - Denying Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-2 (Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Eucalyptus Tree Permit (ETP)) 99-2 was presented at a public hearing at the May 3, 2000 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission determined by a 2-2 vote to deny approval. He said that Staff is now presenting Resolution 99-20 recommending denial of ETP 99-2. Commissioner Brown stated that the reasons for denial were not listed in Resolution 99-20. Mr. Boga stated that the Commission's vote to deny was sufficient to prepare the resolution requesting denial of this application. Mr. Whittenberg referred the Commissioners to Page 4, Section 6, of Resolution 99-20. Commissioner Brown noted that this section lists only that ETP 99-2 was denied, but does not list the reasons why. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff does usually list the reasons for denial on resolutions, but will only reflect what the vote was, since there was no prevailing vote. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to re-poll the Commissioners to make sure that all members had voted as intended and to hear their reasons for casting the vote as they had. Commissioner Lyon stated that he had voted against the permit because too many trees had been removed and no irrigation was being provided to the remaining trees, which were also dying. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he wished to clarify that 10 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 approval of ETP 99-2 was to grant a permit to the Bixby Ranch Company to remove 30% of the eucalyptus trees in order to construct the driveway approaches for the commercial development. He noted that there were separate mitigation measures required by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which required the preparation of a eucalyptus preservation plan. He stated that this document would be submitted to the City and reviewed by a third party landscape architect to ensure that it meets all of the EIR standards to attempt to bring the eucalyptus grove back to a healthy status. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would include installation of an appropriate irrigation system within the grove. He said that the approval or denial of ETP 99-2 would not impact completion of the irrigation requirements unless none of the trees are removed, eliminating the need to meet this mitigation requirement. Commissioner Brown clarified that the irrigation system was a separate issue from the eucalyptus tree permit. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was the case. Commissioner Brown asked if this included the requirement to replace trees removed by a 4: 1 ratio. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was true. Chairperson Hood asked if the new trees would be planted within the existing group. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was not necessarily the case as the trees there were already too close together. He reported that the areas for new tree plantings would be along the perimeter of the shopping center, in the golf course area, and some areas along the far northern end of the eucalyptus grove. He indicated that the area south St. Cloud Drive would require fewer trees to be planted. Commissioner Brown asked if Commissioner Lyon would like to reconsider his vote. Commissioner Lyon stated that he would like to do so. Commissioner Brown inquired as to the motion to be made to amend Resolution 99-20 to indicate approval of ETP 99-2. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff has the original Resolution 99-20 recommending approval and listing the conditions of approval. He said that Staff could provide a copy for the Commission's review. Commissioner Brown asked if this could be substituted for Resolution 99-20. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the resolution number would remain the same. He noted that Condition No.4, under the Conditions of Approval does include the mitigation measures for preservation and maintenance of the eucalyptus grove. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Resolution 99-20 recommending approval of Eucalyptus Tree Permit 99-2 and adopt Resolution 99-20. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-1-0 Brown, Cutuli, and Lyon Hood None Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 99-20 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 11 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 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 May 17, 2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance 00-3 220 - 7th Street ApplicanUOwner: Request: Meg Littlefield, Michael and Deborah Harding To add approximately 237 square feet to a legal, non- conforming residence. The applicant is requesting to add to a building on a property that has three units and two off- street parking spaces. A Variance is also requested to allow the addition to follow an existing 3-foot, non- conforming side yard setback on the south property line. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution No. 00-14. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that the house was non-conforming due to side yard setbacks and the property itself was non-conforming because there are three units on the property, which is zoned for only one unit. He stated that due to the age of the current development, the construction standards are not in compliance with City Code. He noted that because this application does not conform to the criteria for a Minor Plan Review, application for a Variance was submitted. He explained that the applicant is requesting that the new construction be located within the existing non-conforming side yard setback along the southerly side of the structure. He described the locations of the three units on the property and noted that there were only two parking spaced provided with no space available to add a third parking space. He explained that Section 28-502 of the City Code states that in order for a variance to be granted the following must apply: o The variance will not adversely affect the General Plan o Special circumstances applicable to the property somehow deprive the property owner from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the same vicinity and zone o The granting of such variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges Mr. Whittenberg explained that there would be physically challenged individuals residing in the home and under the Fair Housing Act there are accommodations that will be required under federal law. He stated that Staff was seeking approval based upon these requirements. He stated that the aim in approving this Variance was to prevent discrimination against physically challenged individuals, and he referred the Commissioners to the section of the Staff Report containing descriptions of federal 12 .; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~~ 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 May 17, 2000 court decisions regarding "reasonable accommodation." He stated that the request is in conformance with the Fair Housing Act and also noted the following: D the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. D the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the City, and D the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of the City's land use controls. He presented photographs of the property and described the proposed construction. He stated that Staff recommends approval of Variance 00-3 based on the following. · Additional living space is requested within the existing single-story structure for the accommodation of a family with a member that is physically handicapped. · Approval of the request would not constitute a special privilege to the property owner, but would constitute "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. · There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which if approved, would not deprive the applicant of privileges that are available to other property owners in the same vicinity and zone. · The future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. · The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose 'administrative or financial costs on the City. · The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of the City's land use controls. He also noted the following: 1. The request for this Variance is consistent with the General Plan. 2. There are special or unique characteristics to this property that are not seen elsewhere in the city. 3. There would be no special privilege. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on building into the side yard setback. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the variance was approximately 9 inches along the 9-foot length of the bedroom. Commissioner Brown asked if a handicapped accessible bathroom was to be added. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a handicapped accessible bathroom was to be added that would comply and even exceed state requirements. Commissioner Brown asked if approval or denial of this 13 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 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 May 17, 2000 Variance would affect the construction of the bathroom. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it would not. Commissioner Brown stated that in seven years serving on the Planning Commission he had never seen Staff take this position. He asked what the benefit would be in the living situation for a handicapped person as opposed to someone who is not handicapped. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was recommending approval based on the court case Trovato v. City of Manchester cited in the Staff Report. Commissioner Brown stated that the court case Staff referred to clearly showed that the situation would benefit the applicant. He stated that he still had not heard anything that addresses how these changes would benefit the applicant. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the larger bedroom would allow the family member to move about more easily. Commissioner Brown noted that the physically challenged family member would only occupy the house on weekends. He asked what the Fair Housing Act had to say about occupants being permanent or temporary. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the family member would be moving in permanently after approximately a 2 or 3-year period. Mr. Boga interjected that the law does require that cities make reasonable accommodation. He said that in this case the Variance would still apply if the property were sold. He noted that many cities make reasonable accommodation on a case by case basis, but it would be more appropriate to establish standards for granting reasonable accommodation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff believes the application meets the criteria for reasonable accommodation and that the Commission should respond in as positive a manner as possible. He stated that after the Planning Commission takes action on this request, the matter could then be forwarded to City Council for proposal of standards of what will or will not be accepted in the future. Commissioner Cutuli asked if it was necessary to be legally disabled, and if so, is the applicant, in this case, legally disabled. Mr. Whittenberg reported that it is not necessary to make this declaration in order to apply for a handicapped placard, but there are other physical disabilities that are covered under the Fair Housing Act. He noted that there is a difference between being physically handicapped and physically disabled. Commissioner Brown stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed at least 20 similar applications, and all of them had been denied. He asked if what was being proposed was that due to the handicap access, the applicants do not want to comply with any setback requirements. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was suggesting that the City Council define what the policy for "reasonable access" for future applications would be. Commissioner Brown stated that this is not a question of whether it is "reasonable," but he wants to know what the positive benefit to the handicapped person would be. Public Hearino Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. 14 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 Ms. Meg Littlefield, daughter of the handicapped family member, stated that her mother currently uses a walker as she suffers from severe arthritis and has recently been diagnosed with cancer. She reported that she and her family have been residents of Seal Beach for 35 years. She stated that one of the bedrooms currently measures 5 x 5 feet and both the bedroom and the bathroom are too small for her mother to be able to easily maneuver around with her walker and later a wheelchair. She stated that the new construction would not encroach onto anyone's property nor would it obstruct anyone's view. Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he opposes Variance 00-3. He said that he is a champion of rights of the handicapped, but a walker does not require an additional 237 square feet encroaching into side yard setbacks. He stated that this was simply an excuse to add more square footage to the house. He noted that he has a fully equipped handicapped bathroom in his home and no additional footage was required to modify the bathroom to make it handicapped accessible. Mr. Clewley stated that there were no more side yard setbacks in this city. He said that approval of Variance 00-3 will adversely affect the General Plan and constitutes special privilege. He also stated that the variance had not been property noticed. He recommends denial of Variance 00-3. Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brown stated that by allowing the Variance within the setback, he does not see how this will improve handicapped access in that part of the house. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the plans, it may approve the addition without approving the variance on the side yard setback. Commissioner Brown asked if in order to meet the requirements for reasonable accommodation, does the Planning Commission need to approve the Variance. Mr. Whittenberg referred the Commission to Page 7 of the Staff Report to review the suggested findings related to reasonable accommodation. He noted that this application was different from a standard Variance as the requirements of the Fair Housing Act do impinge upon the standard requirements for a Variance. Commissioner Brown asked if the City had ever granted a variance based on this type of situation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that during his time with the City he could not recall where a request of this type had been granted. He stated that this could have the potential for a discrimination case if this type of variance is denied. Commissioner Brown stated that he had no problem in denying a side yard setback variance, and that the overall expansion is not a problem. He said he is simply concerned about opening the City up to future problems. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was why Staff was suggesting that a recommendation be made to City Council to come up with standard criteria to help address this issue as it arises. He also noted for the record that the Variance had been properly noticed and referred to the Proof of Service document found in the case file. 15 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 Commissioner Brown stated that he would not vote for a Variance on the side yard setback. He also noted that these issues should not be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but should be looked at on a citywide basis. He recommended that this item be continued for further study. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the item could be continued to a future meeting, but that Staff does feel that the accommodation request is a reasonable one. Chairperson Hood stated that he would reopen the public hearing as he noted that a member of the public was wishing to speak. Public Hearinq Ms. Deborah Harding, mother of Meg Littlefield, stated that all she and her husband want to do is to live in this town again, near their children and grandchildren. She stated that they and their children had spent a lot of money on the property and she and her husband cannot live in a two-story house. She stated that they just want the cottage in the back to be made a little larger to accommodate their needs. Ms. Harding noted that they are not asking the City to spend any money and that the neighbors are aware of this proposal and have no objections to the project. Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Cutuli stated that the City should be concerned with people who are handicapped, but part of the project plan does not address the handicapped issue. He stated that this issue needs to be discussed further, and standards must be created to deal with future applications of this kind. He said that he would like to continue this item and have Staff gather more information regarding how to address variances for the handicapped, and provide related data from the American Disabilities Act to see how it applies to this situation. Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff does have some examples of reasonable accommodation ordinances from other cities, but not many cities have established ordinances on this issue. He stated that Staff could return with more information on what is being done in other cities. Chairperson Hood stated that people are afraid that if this variance were passed it would open the door to other applications perhaps with not good reasons claiming the same extenuating circumstances. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in looking at the materials from the City of Long Beach, it appears that there are a number of certain types of accommodations that can be done administratively without having to come before the Planning Commission. He noted that for other types of requests they might have to be presented before their Zoning Board of Adjustment. He stated that the City might attempt to do something similar to the Minor Plan Review process without the need for a public hearing. He confirmed that this item could be continued and he suggested that the Commission adjourn to a meeting on June 14, 16 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 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 May 17, 2000 2000 to review more information. Commissioner Brown requested that the City Attorney draft a position paper on "reasonable accommodation" to be provided to the Commission to help in making their determination. Chairperson Hood stated that the Planning Commission had no objection to making reasonable accommodation available for individuals with physical limitations, but the Commission would like to make sure that the City is consistent with how this policy is applied. He said that in the long run this would make for a better policy. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting was on June 7, 2000. He stated that he would be out of town the week of June 7 and he would like to be present to address some of the issues to be discussed. He recommended that the Planning Commission adjourn to a meeting for June 14, 2000. He stated that no additional public notice of this hearing would be provided. MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue Variance 00-3 to the adjourned meeting of June 14, 2000. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon None None 6. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 770 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant/Owner: Request: Tom Lao, TI Planning To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in restaurant currently resides. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions and as further revised by the Planning Commission after considering public testimony. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-18. Staff Report Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that the drive-through coffeehouse was being proposed for the current location of the Burger King fast food restaurant at the corner of 8th Street and Pacific Coast Highway. He presented photographs of the proposed location and provided a description of the property. He stated that the property measures over 12,000 square feet and the proposed hours of operation were from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., which are the current operating hours for Burger King. He described the surrounding land uses as follows: SOUTH: Residential housing in Residential High Density (RHO) Zone. 17 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 EAST & WEST Various commercial zones in C1 and C2 Zones. NORTH: Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone. He reported that the structure on the property was originally a bank building. In 1994 this building was converted for the Burger King restaurant. He stated that the current application for a drive-through coffeehouse requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in a General Commercial (C2) Zone. He reported that a landscaped atrium area, which will not be used for seating for patrons, will replace the play area currently in use. He stated that in 1994 a Variance was granted allowing 24 on-site parking spaces and a CUP was also granted to allow for a drive-through window. Mr. Cummins noted that the required parking was 1 parking space for every 100 square feet to equal 24 parking spaces for the building, which measures 2316 square feet. The 24 parking spaces also include 1 handicapped parking stall. He noted that generally the Planning Commission is concerned with noise from use of a drive-through window, but Staff has no major concerns since Burger King has used the drive-through for approximately 6 years. He stated that Staff recommends approval of CUP 00-2 subject to conditions, including a twelve-month review based on the following: 1. CUP 00-2 is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. The proposed outdoor use is consistent with surrounding uses. 3. The building and property are adequate in shape, size, and topography to meet the needs of the proposed use. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brown asked if the 2316 feet excludes the atrium area. Mr. Cummins confirmed this and stated that the actual square footage for the building is approximately 3200 square feet. Public Hearinq Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Lao of TI Planning stated that he was present as a representative of the applicant for this CUP. He introduced Ms. Cindi Farrel, a representative of Starbucks Coffee. Ms. Cindi Farrell stated that Starbucks would like to provide their quality product to the community of Seal Beach. She said that this would provide a safe and comfortable place for the Seal Beach community. She stated that the addition of Starbucks to this area would provide an alternative to the current present fast food presence. She described the modifications and improvements to be made to prepare the site for business and stated that Starbucks would be an asset to the Seal Beach community. She reported that on a national level Starbucks donates 18 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 over $4 million annually to charities and volunteers thousands of hours in community events. She described some of Starbucks' volunteer and community involvement. Ms. Jane McCloud stated her opposition to having Starbucks located anywhere near Main Street or the Seal Beach Center. She said that she did not think Starbucks should be allowed on Pacific Coast Highway as people drive into or out of Seal Beach via Main Street. She noted that the public had opposed having a Starbucks coffeehouse on Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. She said there were three coffeehouses on Main Street and the Daily Grind in the Seal Beach Center, which adequately serve the citizens of Seal Beach. She said she feared Starbucks coming to town, as it is predatory to existing "mom and pop" businesses. She stated that approval of CUP 00-2 could put the existing coffeehouses out of business, as it would be very convenient for visitors to drive-through on Pacific Coast Highway to buy coffee. She said that small business in Seal Beach must be protected and recommends denial of CUP 00-2. Mr. Rick Edwards stated that he was concerned with the amount of traffic the morning coffee crowd would generate. He reported from data he had reflecting that the second largest chain of coffeehouses generates 200 cars per hour in traffic, as opposed to Burger King, which generates 20 cars per hour. He stated that Pacific Coast Highway is the largest artery in and out of Seal Beach and he did not believe that this amount of traffic could be accommodated within a residential area. He questioned the scale measurements for the 9 vehicles drawn on the site plan and stated that if there were 9 vehicles lined up in the drive-through driveway, the last car would be hanging out into 8th Street, as has been observed before. He said that the increased traffic makes for a very dangerous intersection and recommends denial of CUP 00-2. Mr. Whittenberg noted that although the site plan accurately shows the scale of 1/8 of an inch to equal 1 foot, this reduced copy of the plans makes the scale inaccurate. Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he is in favor of allowing the Starbucks drive-through, because it is a good project and would provide increased tax revenues for the city. Regarding the comment made about Starbucks being predatory, he noted that the coffeehouse business is a tough business. He stated that there could also be "mom and pop" burger places on Main Street that could call for elimination of any other hamburger chains within the city. He said there is enough room to accommodate the coffeehouse and there is adequate parking. He said he does not see a problem with having Starbucks in Seal Beach. Ms. Debbie Edwards described the problems with driving in and out of the current drive-through due to the 180-degree turn. She also noted that if there are more than 8 cars waiting in queue, the parking lot is blocked and cars cannot exit. She said that the Daily Grind in the Seal Beach Center has two drive-through windows and there can be in excess of 8-12 cars lined up during rush hour. She stated that with only one drive-through window at Starbucks, the line of cars would be out onto the 19 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 street and blocking the parking stalls making it difficult for other cars wanting to park in or exit these stalls. She also noted that for eastbound travelers there were two ways of entering the parking lot: Through the front driveway or via one driveway on the alley side of the building. She commented that the residents accessing their garages from this alley would have a problem with cars coming through the alley to access the drive-through in the mornings or even parking in the alley, blocking access to Pacific Coast Highway. She explained that eastbound cars entering from Pacific Coast Highway could create congestion by blocking the cars attempting to turn right onto Pacific Coast from Marina Drive. Westbound traffic would have to turn left on Main Street, right on Electric and right on 8th Street to access the coffeehouse, or they could attempt to turn left at 8th Street from Pacific Coast Highway where there is no signal or stop sign. She noted that currently no left turns into the alley are allowed and she speculated as to whether patrons of Starbucks would honor this. She described the various routes available for exiting the parking lot to continue eastbound or westbound along Pacific Coast Highway and stated that this would contribute to traffic congestion within the residential areas along 8th Street, 5th Street, and Electric Avenue. She noted that this would also create increased congestion along Pacific Coast Highway during the peak morning hours and expressed her concern for the school children who cross Pacific Coast Highway in the morning at the 12'h Street crosswalk. She stated that she was concerned that this "morning-driven business" was being placed on the wrong side of Pacific Coast Highway within the busiest business area of Seal Beach. Mr. Darrell Pasch stated that when Burger King opened for business he had concerns regarding noise from the speaker box, traffic, etc. He said that they have been very good neighbors. He said that he was very impressed with the data presented by Ms. Edwards as he lives next to Jack-In-the-Box and has observed many car accidents even with the small amount of traffic at this location. He noted that with the amount of traffic expected at Starbucks, there could be even bigger problems with traffic accidents. He questioned Staff as to whether residents in the neighboring apartment complex had been sent notice of this project. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he would review the file and provide an answer. Mr. . Pasch stated that he was concerned about outdoor seating, and he did not want to be subjected to noise from deliveries prior to 6:00 a.m. or after closing time. He explained that there was currently a problem with delivery trucks for Jack-In-the-Box turning into the Burger King parking lot and creating noise between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. He stated that he would like to see the closing time for Starbucks changed from 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg reported for the record that a Proof of Service document is on file as well as a list of the addresses to which the notice for this public hearing was mailed. The list also includes the adjacent apartment complexes. Ms. Susan Cooper stated that she had noticed how the queue cars lined up in the drive-through lane at Burger King do block cars parked in the stalls. She said that this creates a "traffic nightmare" in the parking lot. She noted that it is very difficult 20 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 for cars to make the sharp U-turn in the drive-through lane. She also noted that cars entering from the alley also create congestion when they are attempting to enter the drive through lane. She also expressed her concern at patrons having to cross the drive-through lane in order to access the entrance to the coffeehouse. She said that although this was a great location for a bank, it is not a good location for a restaurant or coffeehouse. Ms. Farrel stated that she wanted to address the concerns expressed by the public. She stated that she did not believe that the coffeehouse would generate any more traffic than the current use as a fast food restaurant. She stated that Burger King has been in operation for 6 years and the current queuing of cars as they enter the drive-through to make the U-turn has not been an issue. She reported that Starbucks is proposing to move the current drive-through window forward by about 20 feet, which will allow more room for cars in the drive-through lane. Ms. Farrel stated that there was to be no outdoor seating and that there had been a misunderstanding regarding the 200-car per hour statistic. She said that the data Starbucks has compiled reflects approximately 200 cars per business day. Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Cutuli stated that although there were already a number of coffeehouses in Seal Beach, he did not feel that competition from Starbucks should be restricted. He noted that competition in this world is taken for granted and the Planning Commission should not see this as an issue in approving this project. He said he would like to see more data regarding traffic patterns in this area at various times of the day. He suggested that if the queuing lane were moved closer to the planter on the south side of the parking lot, this would make for a larger, wider curve in the drive-through lane making it easier for cars to maneuver the U-turn of this lane. He commented that the design for the building needed to be nicer with more landscaping. He said he would like to see a different design before voting on this issue. Commissioner Brown stated that regarding the issue of competition, he agreed with Commissioner Cutuli. He stated that if the existing coffeehouses continue to provide quality service, there should be no reason to attempt to restrict competition from Starbucks. He said that he did not see how the Planning Commission could deny a business from coming to town. He confirmed with Staff whether if the CUP for the drive-through window were eliminated, Starbucks could still begin business operations in town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was correct. Commissioner Brown also confirmed that there would be no outdoor seating, to which Mr. Whittenberg responded that there would be none. Commissioner Brown stated that the issue was simply whether or not to allow a drive-through window at this location. He said he would prefer to not have the drive-through window, but since Burger King has had a drive-through window for the past 6 years, he did not see that this should 21 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 be a problem. He noted that the wait time at coffeehouse was no longer than the wait at McDonalds. Commissioner Brown stated that it would be difficult to find a reason to deny this CUP. Commissioner Lyon stated that based on all of the comments from the public regarding traffic, he believes that Starbucks may have a difficult time in growing the business if traffic and turn lanes make it difficult to get into and out of the coffeehouse parking lot. He said he was not in favor of the drive-through window. Chairperson Hood asked Staff what types of traffic studies were completed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there was no formal traffic study done. He said the application was reviewed by the City Engineering Department who looked at the circulation issues coming in and out of this location. He referred to the Staff Report under the Conditions of Approval, which state that the City Engineer retains the right to evaluate the traffic circulation system, and if necessary, come back before the Planning Commission with modifications to the traffic circulation system. He noted that Staff can acquire traffic studies from other areas, but until the business can be observed in operation for a period of time, no determination can be made regarding traffic flows. He stated that another of the Conditions of Approval is that the CUP return before the Planning Commission after 12 months of operating, but the Commission has the option of shortening this period if they so wish. Chairperson Hood stated that based upon many of the concerns about traffic expressed by the public, he was wondering if there was a way to approve the CUP without the drive-through window and have a traffic study completed at the same time. He said that he did not believe the Commission was in favor of a 6-month or 12-month review, because if traffic is as bad as presented, then it would be best to deny the CUP. Mr. Whittenberg reported that if the CUP for the drive-through window is denied, Starbucks can still open up for business without the drive-through leaving the City with no mechanism to require that a traffic study be done. He suggested that Staff could modify the review period from 12-months to 6-months and have a report from the Traffic Engineer completed at the City level to see if, in fact, there are concerns that require modification to the terms of the approval of the project. He cautioned that issues of traffic flow on Pacific Coast Highway do fall under the jurisdiction of CalTrans, and although the City may make a request of CalTrans, they may not be in agreement with the request. Commissioner Brown suggested that the Commission could deny the CUP, Starbucks could still operate without the drive-through window, and perhaps, after a period of operation, could re-apply for the CUP. Mr. Whittenberg noted that if the CUP were denied, the applicant could not re-apply until after one year, unless the Commission denied the CUP without prejudice. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would like to have Starbucks return with traffic figures for evaluation by the Commission. Commissioner Brown noted that this would only be helpful if the Commission also had figures from Burger King for comparison. He asked why Burger King would no longer be operating from this location. Mr. Whittenberg 22 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 responded that Staff does not normally inquire as to why a business is closing down. Commissioner Brown stated that it would make a difference in the Commission's decision if Burger King were ceasing operation due to a lack of business. Public Hearinq Chairperson Hood re-opened the public hearing to allow only the representative from Burger King to respond. Mr. David Steinberg stated that the idea of changing the use for the property was due to a transformation process for the Burger King system. He stated that his company was attempting to consolidate the Burger King locations for more efficient operation and to increase marketing opportunities. He noted that this location was in one of the outlying areas and the company is attempting to relocate it to a more operationally beneficial locale. Commissioner Brown asked if the Seal Beach Burger King was as busy as the company would like it to be. Mr. Steinberg responded that the reason for closing this Burger King was that their district manager had spread the stores out too far and this makes the manager less effective. He reported that in looking for a simi'ar use for the property they found that the transactions in this Burger King are very similar to what you would find at a Starbucks coffeehouse. He noted that transaction numbers were down for all Burger King locations due to a decrease in marketing efforts. He stated that when Burger King was at its busiest at this location, it was busier than the proposed Starbucks is projected to be. Commissioner Brown asked if he had numbers on the drive-through transactions during peak hours. Mr. Steinberg responded that data on transactions is done by business day, not peak hours, so currently they report approximately 400 transactions daily, with drive-through transactions comprising 54% of this amount. Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would still like to see figures from Starbucks and more exact numbers from Burger King to help make a determination on this issue. Chairperson Hood asked if Staff could acquire this information and perhaps have the Traffic Engineer analyze the data. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he was not sure that an actual traffic analysis could be completed on such short notice. MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue Conditional Use Permit 00-2 to the adjourned meeting of June 14, 2000. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon None None 23 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .~ 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 May 17, 2000 7. Height Variation 00-2 A-59 Surfside ApplicanUOwner: Request: Tony Ursino / Mike McCoy To construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the 35-foot height limit at A-59 Surfside. Specifically, the proposed structure would exceed the height limit by approximately 5 feet. Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution No. 00-17. Staff Report Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that the property is located on the A row of the Surfside properties and the proposed covered roof access structure (CRAS) would exceed the height limit by approximately 5 feet. He described the surrounding land uses as follows: NORTH: Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone (Surfside), and open space located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station in the Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone along with Pacific Coast Highway. SOUTH: Pacific Ocean and the beach in a Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone. EAST & WEST Single family dwellings located in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone of Surfside. He stated that Code Section 28-2317 states that non-habitable architectural features and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit by up to 7 feet provided that certain findings are met, such as: 1. Roofing materials are in substantial conformity with the roofing materials of the remainder of the structure. 2. The variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. 3. Whether such variation significantly impacts the primary view from any property located within 300 feet. Mr. Cummins noted that the Planning Commission has recently approved several very similar applications. He stated that the proposed CRAS meets the requirements of the 1991 Policy Guidelines defining the horizontal dimensions for CRAS. Staff recommends approval of Height Variation 00-2 subject to conditions based on the fact that it is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. He stated that the CRAS is architecturally in keeping with the 24 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 remainder of the structure and is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. He reported that no habitable living space would be provided within the structure. Commissioner Questions None. Public Hearino Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. No member of the public elected to speak. Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Lyon left the Council Chambers momentarily. Commissioner Brown stated that because the Height Variation was well within the previously approved guidelines, he would like to move to approve this request. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Height Variation 00-2 and adopt Resolution No. 00-17. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Brown, Cutuli, and Hood None Lyon Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-17 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. . Commissioner Lyon returned to Council Chambers. 8. Site Plan Review 00-2 Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center, Area B (8.5-Acre Commercial Shopping Center Site) - East side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between Northbound 405 Freeway off-ramp and Lampson Avenue Applicant/Owner: Bixby Ranch Company 25 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~~ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 .6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 Request: To approve a Site Plan Review for construction of a 10,000 square foot retail/office/commercial building. Recommendation: Open public hearing, do not receive Staff Report or public testimony, and continue the public hearing to an adjourned meeting on June 14, 2000. Chairperson Hood asked Staff to provide an update on this item. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is recommending that the Commission open the public hearing on this item, do not receive the Staff Report or public testimony, and continue the item to an adjourned meeting of June 14, 2000. He stated that during the preparation of the Staff Report the issue arose regarding evaluation of traffic for a slightly different use than what was considered in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He stated that this issue has been referred to the EIR Consultant for further evaluation, but the results were not received in time to present the Staff Report this evening. Chairperson Hood inquired as to which building this would apply. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the building would be located at the southerly corner of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. He noted that in the EIR this property was envisioned for 7500 square feet of restaurant uses, and the use that is proposed is slightly different. He explained that because of this an additional traffic impact analysis would have to be completed to ensure that the traffic impacts are the same or less than those evaluated for the restaurant use. Commissioner Brown asked why the Public Hearing should be opened if there were no Staff Report to present. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the public hearing is opened tonight, Staff will not have to re-notice this item for the next meeting. Chairperson Hood asked what the problem with re-noticing would be. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the Commission preferred to have the item re-noticed, Staff would do so. Chairperson Hood asked what re-noticing would entail. Mr. Whittenberg reported that on this particular application the notice area would be small because the surrounding uses are primarily the golf course and the Bixby Office Project. He stated that there were no residents that would be noticed. Chairperson Hood polled the Commissioners to determine whether to open the public hearing. The Commission decided that because no residents were to be noticed, the public hearing should be opened. Public HearinQ Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. The applicant elected not to speak tonight. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to continue Site Plan Review 00-2 to an adjourned meeting on June 14, 2000. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon NOES: None 26 .~ 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 May 17, 2000 ABSENT: None STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg reported that for the record, a letter from Bob and Mary Bacon was received by Staff stating their opposition to Height Variation 00-2. Copies were distributed to the Commission. He also noted that for the information of the Commission, a copy of a letter submitted to the City of Long Beach regarding an environmental impact document for some work on Rancho Los Alamitos as well as a copy of a letter from Michele Brendel regarding Minor Plan Review 99-10 had been distributed to member of the Commission. COMMISSION CONCERNS Chairperson Hood stated that he wanted to discuss the potted palms placed in the parking spaces in front of the apartment house located at 120 6th Street. Mr. Cummins interjected that Staff had sent a letter to this address notifying them that the potted palms needed to be moved to the rear of the driveway to open the parking space area. He stated that the palms have been moved only halfway to the rear. He said that he would continue to oversee this enforcement issue. Chairperson Hood inquired about the Mr. K's restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg reported that he had spoken with representatives from Bixby Ranch regarding this project and they reported that they were unsure of the status of Mr. K's. He reported that Bixby would clarify the status and report to Staff. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~O~ \:\...~ ~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secre ary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on July 19, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, May 17, 2000. ~ . 27