HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-06-14
;
.
.
I
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for June 14, 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
a
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
a
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
a
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
a
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
,TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
a
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 June 14, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All proceedings are recorded.
2
,
,
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 14, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
June 14, 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. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2000.
2. Minor Plan Review 00-4
919 Ocean Avenue
Applica nt/Owner:
Request:
Mr. & Mrs. Phil Winkler
Expansion to a non-conforming structure. Specifically, the applicant
proposes to add approximately 209 square feet to the first floor and will be
adding new deck space to the second floor and roof deck.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-22.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Adopt Resolution No. 00-10 for Variance 00-2 (approved at Planning Commission meeting of
May 3, 2000.)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 00-3
615 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Patrick Cronin
To create tandem parking and add 853 square feet to an existing house.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-20.
3
;
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of June 14, 2000
5. Conditional Use Permit 00-4
330 Main Street, Suite F
.
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Mohammed Tabrizi
To expand an existing restaurant (Cafe Lafayette) at 330 Main St. to
include seating area in Suite E.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-23.
6. Conditional Use Permit 00-5
101 Main Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
James R. Watson
To charge for parking for public use not related to use by existing
occupants and their customers.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-24.
7. Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2000)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Tom Lao, TI Planning
To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in restaurant currently
resides.
.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-18.
8. Variance 00-3
220 Seventh St. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2000)
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: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-14.
9. 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 (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2000)
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: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-18
.
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 14, 2000
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
5
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 14, 2000
2000 AQenda Forecast
.
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:
Q
Q
Q
Q
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10/7/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10n/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)
.
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
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of June 14, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 2000. The meeting was
held in the City Council Chambers. Chairperson Hood commented on the
significance of Flag Day and then introduced Boy Scout Troop 671 who presented
the U.S. flag and led the Salute to the Flag. Chairperson Hood introduced the
individual members of the troop and thanked them for their participation.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 reported that the applicant for Conditional Use Permit 00-2 (Item
No.7) had requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of July 5, 2000. The representatives of Starbucks were not able to
complete the traffic analysis in time for tonight's meeting.
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:
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
.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 June 14, 2000
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
Mr. Reg Clewley disputed Mr. Boga's comments as recorded on Page 5, Lines 38-
43 of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2000. He stated that
after April 10, 1999, when the City Council adopted Ordinance 1419, the full force of
the ordinance took effect on May 10, 1999. He said that the City Attorney had
misrepresented the facts regarding Minor Plan Review (MPR) 00-2, which is in fact a
variance and has been "stuffed under the table for more than a decade." He
questioned Mr. Boga's competence in addressing this issue. Mr. Clewley stated that
the Assistant City Attorney had misled the Commission and had allowed them to
believe that there were more applications for non-conforming decks to be considered
at some later time, which Mr. Clewley said is absolutely false. He requested that Mr.
Boga address Mr. Clewley's rights of appeal on this matter. Mr. Clewley noted that
there was no verification of the deck having any footings. He shouted that he
wanted the Assistant City Attorney to come forward and admit that he was wrong.
He stated that he wanted the Commission to reconsider MPR 00-2, which he said
was not a MPR but simply carte blanche to dispose of the City Building Code.
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Brown noted that he would abstain from voting on this item as he
resides within 300 feet of the applicant's property.
1. Minor Plan Review 00-4
919 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Mr. & Mrs. Phil Winkler
Expansion to a non-conforming structure. Specifically, the
applicant proposes to add approximately 209 square feet
to the first floor and will be adding new deck space to the
second floor and roof deck.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-22.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 1
AYES: Cutull, Hood, and Lyon
NOES: None
2
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
None
Brown
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-22 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2000
Mr. Clewley stated that lines 32-43 of the Minutes on Page 5 that he had referred to
during Oral Communications should be underlined and highlighted so that everyone
can see and understand what the Assistant City Attorney has stated. He stated that
because the Minutes were not presented until after the 30-day appeal period had
lapsed, he questioned what had happened to his right of appeal. He shouted that he
was appalled by what the City was doing in passing lie after lie, and he had proof of
this in writing and demanded a response.
Mr. Boga asked if he should respond to Mr. Clewley's statements. Chairperson
Hood stated that this would probably be best. Mr. Boga stated that as he recalled,
he believed his comment regarding the date that Ordinance 1419 went into effect
was correctly stated as May 10, 1999. He said that in terms of the appeal period
referred to by Mr. Clewley, the Director of Development Services did announce at
the conclusion of this item that there would be a 10-day appeal period, as noted on
Page 7 of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 2000. Mr.
Boga stated that this was the standard appeal period for all cities, and Mr. Clewley
was present at the Planning Commission meetings often enough to be familiar with
this policy. Mr. Boga noted that Mr. Clewley had been present throughout the
meeting of May 3, 2000, and was aware of everything that had taken place at that
meeting.
Chairperson Hood confirmed with Mr. Boga that the minutes were accurate as
recorded. Mr. Boga responded that they were.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of May 3, 2000 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Adopt Resolution No. 00-10 for Variance 00-2 (approved at Planning
Commission meeting of May 3, 2000.)
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 .
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Resolution No. 00-10 follows up the action taken by
the Commission at the Meeting of May 3, 2000 approving Variance 00-2 subject to
conditions. Chairperson Hood noted that because the item had already been
discussed, adopting the Resolution would merely be a formality.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to adopt Resolution 00-10 for Variance 00-2
as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 00-3
615 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Patrick Cronin
To create tandem parking and add 853 square feet to an
existing house.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-20.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that currently there are two units and two parking spaces on the property,
which under City Code does allow for a major expansion to the property, provided
adequate parking is created. He stated that the applicant proposes to create two
additional tandem parking spaces where the garage is currently located. He said
that Staff feels that this request is in compliance with City Code and recommends
approval subject to conditions. He stated that Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-3 is
consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan,
which provides a Residential High Density (RHO) designation for the subject
property. The building and property are adequate in size, shape, topography, and
location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown stated that he understood that tandem parking could not be
used to make a property conform to the City Code. Mr. Cummins responded that
the property would still be non-conforming in terms of density because it is currently
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
zoned for 1 unit only. He stated that the additional tandem parking would make the
property conforming, as there are currently 2 units on the property with only 2
parking spaces. He noted that the Commission has in the past allowed tandem
parking in these types of situations in order to create additional parking.
Commissioner Brown stated that City Code does not allow the use of tandem
parking to achieve the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Whittenberg noted
that the City has in a number of cases allowed the use of tandem parking for non-
conforming properties to meet the parking requirements. Commissioner Brown
stated that this still would not make the property conforming. Mr. Whittenberg
confirmed that this was correct, and that because the property has too many units on
it, this still makes it a non-conforming property. He stated that the Commission has
in several cases approved tandem parking to allow for the provision of the required
number of parking spaces on the property to eliminate another existing non-
conforming situation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that under the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) process, the ordinance does allow that the Commission can do this as long
as it can find that all reasonable options for the locations for parking have been
exhausted. He confirmed that if the Commission approves CUP 00-4, 615 Ocean
Avenue will still be a non-conforming because there are too many units on the
property and under current City standards, the lot is not large enough to adequately
accommodate 2 units. Mr. Whittenberg noted that a CUP allows a one-time
expansion, so if approved CUP 00-3 would permit only this one expansion on this
property, unless the current buildings were destroyed and a totally new development
constructed on the property, which would then have to be constructed to comply with
the current City standards.
Commissioner Brown stated that he thought that the square footage on a CUP was
limited to 200 square feet. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 200 square foot limit was
for Minor Plan Review (MPR) applications. He stated that a CUP application sets no
limit for square footage, but gives discretion to the Planning Commission under the
public hearing process to determine whether the request is reasonable as far as the
impact on the neighborhood is concerned. He noted that a CUP would allow for a
major expansion as long as the parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit were met,
and an MPR allows for limited expansions when the 2-space parking requirement
cannot be met.
Commissioner Brown asked if a CUP could be rescinded after the time for approval
had lapsed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a CUP runs with the land and unless
specified by the Commission to return for review of commercial uses, there is no
time limit on a residential CUP as long as the property stays in the configuration
approved by the Commission. The property can continue to be used in that manner
forever until some future time when the existing units are destroyed and a totally
new structure is built on the property. At that point, the new construction would have
to meet the City's development standards in force at that time.
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 June 14, 2000
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Patrick Cronin stated that on the Ocean Avenue block on which he resides, his
property has the fewest units of all other properties. He stated that the changes he
is proposing would improve the property and benefit the City by providing off-street
parking for two more cars.
Mr. Paul Geiser, architect for the applicant stated that in the past 20 years he has
completed numerous projects in Seal Beach. He reported that he was available to
respond to any questions from the public. Commissioner Lyon asked for clarification
of where on the property the new parking spaces were to be located. Mr. Geiser
provided a brief presentation on the proposed additions/changes to the property.
Mr. Reg Clewley referred to Mr. Boga's statement of May 3, 2000, and noted that
Mr. Boga had not spoken directly into the microphone making it difficult to hear his
comments. Mr. Clewley stated he was opposed to the applicant paving over more
land to create non-conforming tandem parking spaces on this property. He noted
the problems with the tandem parking spaces on 6th Street in Old Town, which are
being blocked by planters placed in the way of the parking spaces. He stated that
tandem parking does not work and commented on cars being parked along the curb
cuts for driveways along 6th Street, impeding entry into the driveways. Mr. Clewley
shouted that these drivers are never cited for these violations. In a highly agitated
tone, Mr. Clewley shouted that this was all "crap" and the Planning Commission
could have it.
The Director of Development Services reported that Staff had received a letter from
Jack Mills, 130 6th Street, expressing his opposition to this application. Mr. Mills
recommends that the existing structure at 615 Ocean be demolished and that a
single-family home be built instead.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown referred to several paragraphs in Section 28-2407(2) and
Section 28-2408 of the City Code and noted that the increase in floor area for a
single-family residence should be less than 10%. He asked how Staff was allowing
for the additional 853 square feet. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Section 28-2407,
Section 4, and noted that the allowable floor area is the allowable floor area of the
buildings that can be built on this total lot area. Commissioner Brown stated that if
the lot was only large enough to have a single-family residence, assuming the
square footage of the lot were 5000 square feet, 10% of this area would be 500
square feet. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the calculation would be based upon the
number of stories that can be constructed on the property. Commissioner Brown
6
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
retorted that 5000 square feet is equal to 3 or 4 stories in Old Town. He stated that
he would be happy to approve this request if City Code allows it, but he did not see
where it is allowed. Mr. Whittenberg asked that this item be tabled briefly so that Mr.
Cummins might complete the calculations and report back to the Commission.
Chairperson Hood agreed to this suggestion.
5. Conditional Use Permit 00-4
330 Main Street, Suite F
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Mohammed Tabrizi
To expand an existing restaurant (Cafe Lafayette) at 330
Main St. to include seating area in Suite E.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-23.
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 applicant would like to expand into the adjacent Suite E, which
measures approximately 600 square feet, to provide more seating for customers.
He said that currently the restaurant measures approximately 960 square feet. Mr.
Cummins noted that the proposed operating hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday would not
change. He reported that the restaurant currently holds a valid Alcohol & Beverage
Control license. He described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH:
Retail business in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP)
Zone.
WEST
Commercial businesses in the Main Street Specific Plan
(MSSP) Zone and housing in a Residential High Density
(RHO) Zone and Zoeter Field in a Public Land Use (PLU/R)
Zone.
EAST:
Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHO)
Zone.
Mr. Cummins stated that the City has previously approved Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) 91-15, which allowed the on-site sale of beer and wine. He stated that the
key issue for the application is parking along Main Street. Mr. Cummins noted that
the parking requirement for restaurants is 1 parking space for every 100 square feet,
which would mean that 6 additional parking spaces would be required. He reported
that Suite E was formerly in use as a hair salon employing 4 operators, which
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 June 14,2000
required 8 parking spaces (2 parking spaces per operator). He stated that Staff
analysis demonstrates that this is a deintensification of use, making the parking
situation along Main Street better than it previously was. Staff recommends
approval of CUP 00-4 subject to conditions based on the following:
1. The use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan.
2. The building and property are adequate in size, shape, topography and location
to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property.
Commissioner Questions
None
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
No member of the public wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff had received a letter from Mr. Fred Reidman of
220 Main Street, dated June 3, 2000, expressing his support of this application.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that this was a case of making things better in Seal
Beach since the expansion will not require additional parking spaces. He said this is
a very good restaurant.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-4 and
adopt Resolution 00-23.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None .
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-23 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
Mr. Whittenberg then returned to the issue of the calculations for Item No.4, CUP
00-3, and referred the Commission to page 8710 of the City Code, Section (a),
which reads:
8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
"One-time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions greater
than ten percent (10%) of the allowable floor area."
He noted that this was the section under which the applicant was making request to
expand the floor area. Commissioner Brown retorted that this section referred to a
property that is non-conforming due to tandem parking. He reminded the Director of
Development Services that he had stated that the property was also nonconforming
due to density. Mr. Whittenberg responded that although the Code does mention
non-conformity due to tandem parking, it does not make reference to any other non-
conforming issues on the property. He stated that this section of the Code has
always been interpreted to read that if ,a nonconforming property had insufficient
parking, then through the provision of tandem parking, a property owner can apply to
make an expansion of greater than 10%. He said that this has been Staff's
understanding of this provision since it was established more than 6 years ago.
Commissioner Brown stated that although the Commission has allowed tandem
parking in the past, he did not recall allowing the tandem parking along with other
non-conforming issues.
Commissioner Lyon stated that although Mr. Clewley had stated that the cars would
be parked on the street, he did not see where the tandem parking spaces would
impinge on City property, as there was more than enough room to accommodate
two cars. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Mr. Clewley had been referring to the parking
situation on a different piece of property. The Director of Development Services
stated that Staff recommends approval of CUP 00-3.
Commissioner Brown stated that he would not make a motion to approve this item.
He said that although he did not have any objection to tandem parking at this
location, he would vote against this application until further evaluation of the Code
related to this issue could be completed. Mr. Boga interjected that although this
section of the Code could have been written more clearly, he did believe that the
interpretation provided by Staff.is legitimate, and given that the this interpretation of
the Code had been applied for several years, it would be permissible for the
Commission to continue to do so. Commissioner Brown stated that he disagreed
with the statement that this section of the Code has been applied in this manner for
several years. He stated that he would prefer to not take the time to discuss this
issue at tonight's meeting and he recommended that this item be continued for
further discussion. Chairperson Hood stated that it would be preferable to all
concerned to ''thrash out" this issue now, rather than continuing this item.
Commissioner Brown read from Page 8709, Paragraph 3 of the City Code, and
stated that he was having difficulty finding the interpretation to apply to both density
and parking. Mr. Whittenberg read from Section 4 and reiterated that as Staff
interprets this paragraph, the requirements do exclude density and parking issues.
Commissioner Brown noted that his property is a duplex with only 2 parking spaces,
and that if it had 4 parking spaces it would no longer be nonconforming. Mr.
Whittenberg corrected Commissioner Brown by noting that his property would still be
nonconforming due to density issue of having 2 units on a 1-unit property. He
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 June 14, 2000
referred the Commission to Sub-Paragraph (c) of Chapter 4, which states the
following:
"Such expansions and enlargements shall be. permitted only if the
Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking given the
availability and location of space on the site or the constraints
imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided."
Mr. Whittenberg cited a case that was presented to the Planning Commission
several years previous in which the applicant was requesting a major expansion. He
noted that because of the existing structure on the property, the Commission only
required 3 spaces instead of 4 to prevent tearing into the existing building.
Commissioner Brown requested that the item be continued to another meeting so
that Staff could present further details on this case. .
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Lyon to continue Conditional Use Permit 00-3 to
the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 2000.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
6. Conditional Use Permit 00-5
101 Main Street
ApplicanVOwner:
Request:
James R. Watson
To charge for parking for public use not related to use by
existing occupants and their customers.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-24.
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 applicant was requesting to permit a private parking lot within the
Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. He presented photographs of the property
and noted that it measures 11,000 square feet and the current occupants include
office space, a restaurant, hair salon, medical office, and an ice cream shop. Mr.
Cummins stated that the proposed operating hours for the parking lot are 7:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m., Saturdays and Sundays only. He reported that the property meets all
parking requirements through Variance 8-89. He described the surrounding land
uses as follows:
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 June 14,2000
NORTH:
Commercial businesses along Main Street in the Main Street Specific
Plan (MSSP) Zone.
SOUTH:
EAST
The Pacific Ocean in a Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone.
Commercial businesses along Main Street in the Main Street Specific
Plan (MSSP) Zone and residential housing in a Residential High
Density (RHO) Zone.
Residential housing in Residential High Density (RHO) and Residential
Low Density (RLD) Zones.
He presented photographs of the property and described the entrances and exits to
the parking lot. Mr. Cummins noted that Staff's main concern is that there is enough
on-site parking for the tenants and their customers during weekend hours. He
stated that a parking analysis was completed with the following parking demand
results:
WEST:
Reauirement
Current Use Demands
Ice Cream Parlor
Seaside Grill
One of a Kind Hair
1 space / 500 sq. ft.
1 space / 100 sq. ft.
2 spaces / Operator
3 Parking Spaces
10 Parking Spaces
8 Parking Spaces
He remarked that the office space and medical office do not generate parking over
the weekend, so the owner would like to use these spaces for public parking during
weekends and holidays. Mr. Cummins reported that currently the weekend demand
for parking is 21 spaces. He stated that there are currently 24 parking spaces on the
property. He reported that the applicant proposes to stack an additional 16 cars in
the middle of the private driveway, with an attendant responsible for all car keys at
all times to prevent blockage of visitors wanting to exit the parking lot.
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff has determined that Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
00-5 is compatible with the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). Staff recommends
approval subject to conditions and subject to a 12-month review.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Cutuli questioned the mechanics of moving an automobile out of
Parking Stall No.5, stating that a minimum of 6 cars would have to be moved in
order to allow the driver in Stall No. 5 to exit the parking lot. Mr. Whittenberg
recommended opening the Public Hearing in order to address these questions to the
applicant.
Commissioner Lyon questioned the use of only 1 attendant to monitor the parking
lot.
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 June 14,2000
Commissioner Brown questioned the application to operate a private parking facility
stating that this was already a private parking lot. Mr. Whittenberg responded that
the interpretation of the CUP requirement for a private parking lot is that it is
something different that what is normally permitted by any other use in the City. He
continued that this would identify a lot that is controlled by an individual to restrict
access to his parking area as a private lot, whether parking is paid for or not. Mr.
Boga interjected that a copy of the Code section covering this issue had been
included with the Staff Report. Commissioner Brown noted that this was a public
parking lot, not a private one. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that if the owner is restricting
access to the parking lot by charging for parking, this would be interpreted to be a
private parking lot, which requires a CUP. Chairperson Hood asked if a public
parking lot would be one that does not charge a fee to park. Mr. Whittenberg
clarified that a public parking lot would be one that has no restrictions for parking,
whether in the form of a fee or special permission to park in the lot. Chairperson
Hood asked about whether the owner of the lot would be required to pay a business
tax to the City. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a business license fee would be charged
for operation of the parking lot.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Watson provided some background information on the property and stated
that he constructed the building and moved in sometime in May of 1977. He said
that on summer weekends and holidays he was unable to find parking in his own
parking lot and his tenants also had no parking, as visitors to the City would simply
come and park in the lot. He stated that signs were posted stating that parking was
restricted to customers of the on-site businesses, but this did not prevent visitors
from taking the parking spaces. He said that after this he hired relatives to serve as
attendants to monitor the parking lot and charge a fee to visitors wishing to park in
the lot. He noted that he did have a City business license to operate the parking lot.
Mr. Watson stated that there had never been any complaints until someone stated
that charging for parking was in violation of the City Code. It was this complaint that
led to making application for the CUP. He stated that currently the parking lot gets
filled with people who are simply visiting the beach and are not shopping on Main
Street. He said it was most important to provide parking for the tenants and their
customers, and there is no charge for parking for these customers. He pointed out
that each tenant has an assigned number of parking spaces in the lot. He said the
parking lot provides 300-600 additional parking spaces that are not available for the
16 weeks of summer, averaging a turnover of at least 10 spaces. He emphasized
that the parking fees would be charged on weekends and holidays only, and this has
been incluped as one of the conditions for approval. He stated that he is not making
a profit on these fees, and many times there is not enough parking revenue
generated to pay the attendant at the end of the day. He also stated that he is liable
for any damage to cars parked in the lot. He recommended adding the condition
that the lot would be attended until 4 or 5 in the afternoon on weekends, and after
12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
that time the keys for automobiles parked in the lot will be left with the owner of the
Seaside Grill for pick up. He requested that a 12-month review not be required, as
up until the recent complaint, there has never been a problem related to operation of
the parking lot. In response to Commissioner Cutuli's query regarding accessing a
car parked in Stall No.5, Mr. Watson stated that this stall was a garage space and is
reserved for tenant or employee parking. He said that the same designation is made
for Stall Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 22, 23, and 24. Commissioner Cutuli asked about
parking in Stall No.8. Mr. Watson stated that in all the years that the parking lot has
been in operation, the situation of having to move other parked cars to access the
car in Stall 8 has only happened 2 or 3 times. He stated that this has happened on
extremely busy weekends when it usually takes 3 people-to operate the parking lot.
Mr. Watson specified that the middle aisle is seldom filled with parked cars. He said
that the only time the lot gets filled is when the public parking lot is closed for some
reason. He noted that Seaside Grill will usually do their own stacking of parked cars
within their designated spaces.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he was skeptical of the changes Mr. Watson wanted
to make to the conditions of approval. Mr. Watson replied that he was not
responsible for the changes, but that Staff had recommended the 12-month review
and he was simply requesting that holidays be included with the provision for
weekend only parking.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the applicant had not specified a time of year to
charge for parking. He asked if the applicant were in agreement to specify the dates
of May 15 through September 15 of each year as the time frame for charging for
parking. Mr. Watson stated that he would prefer the dates of May 15 through
October 1 .
Ms. Sue Corbin stated that approval of this CUP would set bad precedent. She said
parking on this property should be for customers only. She said that there were
many lots behind Main Street that were not currently in use, whose owners might
want to put to the same use as Mr. Watson. She noted that there was a lot of
"overlapping" parking within the City. She said that this was a case of special
privilege that many other business owners were also going to want. Ms. Corbin said
that Mr. Watson's operation had worked until the complaint was made, and at that
point operation of the lot as a pay for parking lot should have ceased. She said that
this was not right.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that a copy of a letter dated June 8, 2000, from Joan M.
Storms had been distributed to each of the Commissioners. He explained that she
is the owner of the property immediately to the east of the property at 827 and 829
Ocean Avenue. She has written to express her opposition to this application, citing
concerns regarding noise for her tenants and damage to the wall of her building that
has occurred in the past.
13
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
Mr. Jim Watson emphasized that parking spaces would be added by adding the
valet. He said that up until now, tenants have not been able to get their customers
into the parking lot because other visitors are parking at no charge, instead of
parking in the City public parking lot. He stated that this deprives the City of income
and is unfair to his tenants who depend on having parking available. He said that
now with the valet, at least 300 parking spaces are added during each summer. He
commented that regarding Ms. Storms, his business relationship with her has not
been the friendliest as her tenants use his trash receptacles and his parking lot. Mr.
Watson pointed out that having an attendant on site provides security for the
vehicles parked in the lot.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that although he had no objection to approving this
application, he believes that rather that using the term "private parking facility" the
MSSP should state "paid parking facility." He stated that the only downside to
charging for parking might be a loss of business for his tenants, and flushing people
out onto the City parking lot. He stated that if the City can charge for parking to
access a public beach, he did not see the problem with a businessman charging for
parking on his own lot. He said that this should apply to all businesses along Main
Street.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that parking within the City is needed, and stacking
parking spaces is a good idea, however, he would like to amend the conditions of
approval to state that the center aisle, or possibly the south half of the center aisle
should not be used for parking. He stated that this would create a path to allow cars
parked in this aisle to exit the parking lot. He also stated that he would like to
include a 12-month review on this CUP.
Commissioner Lyon asked if the parking lot is ever totally jammed with cars.. Mr.
Watson stated that this has occurred a couple of times, and he agreed with
Commissioner Cutuli, that it was very difficult moving a car out of the center aisle of
the parking lot. He said he had no objection to Commissioner Cutuli's
recommendation of prohibiting parking in the center aisle.
Chairperson Hood confirmed with Staff that the recommended revisions could be
made to the conditions of approval. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the revisions could
be made at this time, if the Commission chose to do so. The Commissioners agreed
that the following changes to Resolution 00-24 should be made:
1. Change Condition 2 to read "the hours of the paid parking lot shall
be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday, Sunday, and holidays."
14
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
2. Change Condition 3 to read "an attendant will be on site during all
days in which the valet is holding keys for paid parking."
3. Change Condition 5 to read "the maximum number of paid parking
spaces shall be nineteen, of which no more than 3 parking spaces
shall be within the center aisle."
4. Leave Condition 10, which provides for a 12-month review.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-5 and
adopt Resolution 00-24 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-24 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
7. Conditional Use Permit 00-2
770 Pacific Coast Highway (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of
May 17, 2000)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Tom Lao, TI Planning
To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in
restaurant currently resides.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-18.
This item is to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 5,
2000.
8. Variance 00-3
220 Seventh St. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 17,
2000)
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-
15
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
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: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-14.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was a continued item from the Planning Commission
meeting of May 17, 2000. He reported that the Commission had requested
additional information related to "reasonable accommodation" from Staff and from
the City Attorney. He referred to Attachment 3 of the Staff Report, a memorandum
prepared by the City Attorney regarding the FHA reasonable accommodation
requirements, and to Attachment 2, a letter from the applicant indicating that they
would be willing to offset the wall, if necessary to meet the setback requirement. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that the architect measurements on the plans submitted reflect
an incorrect dimension for the side yard setback for the front house. He stated that
the actual side yard setback is 3 feet 9 inches, and this meets the setback
requirements. He reported that Staff had visited the property to verify this. He said
that the only variance under this application would be for the expansion of the
bedroom area and construction of the additional bathroom at the rear of the
property. He stated that the Variance that was advertised for the side yard setback
is no longer necessary. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff was still recommending
approval of Variance 00-3 under the reasonable accommodation standard of the Fair
Housing Act (FHA) and that the Planning Commission forward an additional
recommendation to the City Council to authorize Staff and the City Attorney's office
to further research the issue of reasonable accommodation to attempt to develop
specific standards and guidelines for future applications of this kind.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Cutuli requested confirmation that Staff's was proposing that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council that further research into
reasonable accommodation be completed in order to develop guidelines on this
issue. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that Staff would like to propose that this
recommendation be made to City Council.
Commissioner Lyon asked why this matter had come up. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed
the history of this application and clarified that the need for the Variance was due to
a lack of adequate parking to allow for expansion of the structure to accommodate
the proposed occupants for the second unit on this property.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
The applicant elected not to speak at this time.
16
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
Ms. Sue Corbin read from the FHA, Section 21.25.13110 as follows: "requires that
a finding be analyzed, made, and adopted that the requested accommodation will
not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning or building laws, policies, and/or
procedures of the city." She stated that this Variance is in violation of the FHA and
that Staff has not done enough research on this issue. She said that we all have
certain disabilities and that being elderly is not necessarily a disability. She said that
if they need more parking they can paint a blue strip on the front curb designating
this as handicapped parking. She noted that being allowed to construct larger
accommodations due to being elderly is not the intent of the law that allows
reasonable accommodation for the disabled. Ms. Corbin stated that she did not
understand why an additional 100 square feet was being allowed when there is
nothing unique about the property to require this. She stated that all of the residents
of Leisure World are elderly and no variance is being approved to allow them to
expand their living accommodations. She emphasized that the FHA does not allow
for this. She stated that although the applicant's attorney was a very nice person, he
had not thoroughly researched the matter of reasonable accommodation. Ms.
Corbin commented that Staff was "placing the cart before the horse" by seeking
approval of Variance 00-3 and subsequently encouraging the Planning Commission
to make a recommendation to City Council to establish guidelines for future
applications of this kind.
Commissioner Brown inquired about the document from which Ms. Corbin had read.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this information is referenced in a letter of opposition
from Stephen Reg Clewley received on June 14, 2000 by Staff. He stated that a
copy had been provided to members of the Commission in which Mr. Clewley refers
to Section 21.25.1311 (0) of the FHA.
Ms. Meg Littlefield stated that she was present to speak on behalf of her parents
who were not present tonight as "quite frankly they were very embarrassed by airing
their personal problems the last time." She stated that apparently Ms. Corbin had
not been present at the last meeting and did not see the video. She said that the
variance was not being requested because her parents were "old," but because her
65-year-old mother has severe arthritis and must use a walker most of the time. Ms.
Littlefield reiterated that the request was to add a bathroom to the back of the house
and make the bedroom a little larger for access to that bathroom. She said that they
did not seek to profit from this, but were simply attempting to make it easier for a
disabled person to access the bathroom. She said that she was sorry to hear that
the City did not have a policy regarding reasonable accommodation, as there should
be special accommodations for people with disabilities. She emphasized that the
request was not being made because her parents are elderly, but because they
need special assistance. She said that basically the house is a one bedroom as the
second bedroom is not even big enough to accommodate a closet. Ms. Littlefield
stated that the neighbors on both sides of the property are in favor of this addition.
She said that her parents would be spending approximately $75,000 to upgrade the
property, including landscaping. She said that they have only one car, while the
previous owner had 2 cars. She noted that they would be occupying the house only
17
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
on weekends for approximately 3 years until they retire, at which point they will still
have one car. She stated that this would not impact the parking requirements.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that he would vote against Variance 00-3, because
regardless of what the applicants were adding, there were no findings for this
variance. He stated that the only way that Staff could make these findings was
through the FHA. He said that although the Commission had requested a definition
of reasonable accommodation from the City Attorney's office, all that was provided
were a bunch of cases which go each way. He stated that what he has in mind
when he thinks of reasonable accommodation are the types of things to
accommodate handicapped individuals. He stated that expanding a bathroom to
create an ADA accessible bathroom, or allowing expansion of driveways
encroaching onto setbacks to accommodate a handicapped vehicle or for wheelchair
ramps are the types of things that could be approved. He said that applicants
should know the rules in advance and approval should not be based on the whim of
the Planning Commission or the Director of Development Services. Commissioner
Brown stated that the Commission could create a list of specific things that would be
allowed that would enable a handicapped person to have a more normal lifestyle in
terms of access to their house. He stated that Mr. Clewley's letter was correct in
noting that allowance of this expansion does require a fundamental alteration of the
zoning or building laws of the City. He said that in approving this variance, the
Planning Commission is saying that basically anyone stating that they have a
disability can then expand their home in any way they want.
Commissioner Lyon commented that the proposed changes to the home would not
make it practical should the property be sold and a non-handicapped party should
purchase the property.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that he understood the hesitancy of the Commission to grant
such variances for previously undefined situations. He stated that Staff's reading of
the FHA allowed that the Planning Commission could consider this type of
application. He said that Staff feels that the request is reasonable and conforms to
the FHA provisions. Mr. Whittenberg explained that as the City Attorney's
memorandum indicates, the courts have not been able to come to agreement as to
what mayor may not be a reasonable accommodation in specific situations. He
noted that in many of these cases the City's position had been overturned and the
requirement has been to make the requested reasonable accommodation. Mr.
Whittenberg said that perhaps Staff was being a bit more conservative than the
Commission would allow, but Staff would like to prevent placing the City in the
position of having to face a discriminatory action by denying such a request. He
clarified that Staff is not of the opinion that granting a variance is not a fundamental
abrogation of City zoning laws. He stated that City zoning does allow for variance
18
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
'36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
requests under certain circumstances, and once certain findings can be made. He
stated that every Code that he is aware of within the State of California allows
variances under this type of provision. He said that Staff feels this request complies
with the local variance requirements of the City taken in conjunction with the
overlying laws of the federal government, which the City must consider when dealing
with areas that have not previously been dealt with. He again recommended
approval of Variance 00-3 and that the Planning Commission return at a later time to
begin to establish guidelines for reasonable accommodation. Mr. Whittenberg
commented that although the City of Long Beach ordinance was not definitive, he
did not believe that an ordinance of this type could ever be definitive. He said that
general areas could be set forth for specific types of applications, making it
unnecessary to go through a variance process. He stated that the reasonable
accommodation law is one that is evolving and these cases are fairly recent, and we
can expect to see more of these types of laws in the future.
Chairperson Hood asked if the Director of Development Services would have
recommended that this variance be approved had there not been the need for
reasonable accommodation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he would not have
recommended approval in that case.
Chairperson Hood noted that the three options available to the Commission were:
1. To approve the variance, possibly making this appear to be a special privilege.
2. To deny the variance, placing the City at risk for possible litigation.
3. To postpone ruling on this matter until guidelines on reasonable accommodation
have been established.
Chairperson Hood stated that he was uneasy about developing policy by precedent.
He stated that he would rather follow a policy that has already been determined,
rather than begin granting things piecemeal and then put them together in an
attempt at developing a policy. He said that he was in favor of having the applicant
wait until the Commission makes recommendation to City Council to act quickly in
developing an ADA policy. Mr. Whittenberg commented that the time frame for
completion of this policy was uncertain, and part of the reason would be whether or
not the reasonable accommodation provisions that the City might adopt are placed
into the Zoning Ordinance. He continued by stating that if they are placed into the
Zoning Ordinance, formal public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council must be held. He stated that even after approval by City Council, there
is a 90-day waiting period before the ordinance would take effect. He projected that
altogether this would take approximately 6 months before any certainty of what the
City's position would be, plus the 90-day waiting period. He continued that if the
provisions were adopted outside the Zoning Ordinance, the process would be
shorter, but he was not sure that City Council would be comfortable in dealing with
the issue without input from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Hood asked
what the timeline would be were the Planning Commission to deny the variance and
if the applicant were to file a lawsuit against the City. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he
19
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
was not sure. Mr. Boga stated that if Variance 00-3 were denied, the applicant
would have to go through the appeal process before the City Council. If the Council
were to deny the appeal, the applicant could then challenge the denial in superior
court after a 90-day appeal period, and the speed of this process would depend
upon the court calendar. Chairperson Hood confirmed that in denying the Variance
the Planning Commission would not create an undue delay in the process, as
compared to filing a lawsuit. Mr. Boga cautioned that the Commission needed to be
aware of compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act, which imposes time limits on
, decisions on permits that if not approved by a certain time limit, gain approval by
default.
Commissioner Brown stated that he did not believe that any of, the types of
reasonable accommodation that the Commission would endorse would include
expansion of a structure for the reasons given by the applicant. He reiterated that
he believed reasonable accommodation refers to enabling someone to access their
property in terms of a wheelchair ramp, wider doorways, etc. He said he would vote
to deny without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to return at a later time.
Mr. Boga interjected that if the variance is denied without prejudice the applicant
could return when the application has been substantially changed or whenever City
Council has adopted a policy on reasonable accommodation. Commissioner Brown
stated that he would be happy to do this.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to deny Variance 00-3 without prejudice.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that denial of Variance 00-3 would require that Staff return
with a revised Resolution setting forth the determination of the Planning
Commission. Chairperson Hood asked for a motion to recommend that City Council
develop specific guidelines on reasonable accommodate.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to recommend that City Council authorize
Staff to review the issue of reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act
to assist in developing guidelines to accommodate these requirements.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
Chairperson Hood explained the options available to the applicant regarding the
decision to return with this application. Mr. Boga advised that once the Resolution
denying Variance 00-3 is adopted, this begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to
20
.~
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 June 14, 2000
the City Council. He explained that because the request was denied without
prejudice, the applicant is free to resubmit the application at any time, but he
recommended waiting until after the City guidelines on reasonable accommodation
have been adopted. Mr. Whittenberg offered to contact the applicant to more
thoroughly explain the process for appeal.
Mr. Whittenberg requested that the Planning Commission recess for 5 minutes and
reconvene at 9:45 p.m. Chairperson Hood granted the recess.
The meeting reconvened at 9:47 p.m.
9. 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 (Continued from Planning Commission
meeting of May 17, 2000)
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: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-18.
Staff ReDort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in
the Planning Department.) He provided some background information and a visual
presentation on this item and explained that this Site Plan Review (SPR) involves
Development Area B as part of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project. He
described the area as the triangular section of the property along Seal Beach
Boulevard between the 1-405 Freeway off ramp and Lampson Avenue. He stated
that formerly there was an ARCO gas station on the property and that the current
application is to approve the SPR for a proposed 10,000 square foot retail bank and
restaurant building proposed as a part of this development. He explained that the
property had been approved by the City Council for the development of four major
land uses, two of which have already received approval from both the Planning
Commission and City Council. He indicated that the Marriott Senior Care Facility
was the first land use approved in 1999. He stated that the most recent application
for this area is the Ayres Group hotel development to be located directly near the
1-405 off ramp to Seal Beach Boulevard. He indicated that the SPR before the
Planning Commission tonight is for the furthest north lot along Seal Beach Boulevard
and is the parcel that would be located at the corner. He stated that there is an
intervening lot between the hotel and this property that is anticipated for up to a
7,500 square foot "quality restaurant." He said that Staff has conferred with the
21
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
restaurant operator and anticipates an application on that location within the next 30
days. He reported that the current request is for a 10,000 square foot, single-story
building, 75 parking spaces, and landscaping within the parking lot area. He
described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH:
Existing Bixby Ranch golf course property that is being reconfigured
and redesigned.
SOUTH:
Proposed restaurant use indicated above, the Ayres Group hotel, the
1-405 Freeway, and the Naval Weapons Station.
EAST
WEST:
Approved Marriott Senior Housing Facility.
Commercial and industrial zoning in the area where the Bixby Office
Park is currently located.
He stated that plans submitted display the basic arrangement of the buildings, which
will be as close to Seal Beach Boulevard as permitted with the requirements for the
approximately 70-foot wide open-space greenbelt area that was agreed to by both
the City and the Bixby Ranch Company. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this is the area
that will be landscaped and will include a 12-foot wide off-street bicycle path system.
He said that the main entrances to buildings will be on the east side of the buildings,
adjacent to the parking area. He commented that not all of the tenants for the
building have been identified. He said that the land is a one-acre, irregular parcel,
with the building taking up 22% of the lot and the parking area comprising 58% of
the land. Approximately 10% of the parcel will be landscaping. He reported that
City Code requires that a minimum of 5% of the parking lot be landscaped. He
noted the two access points to the property as follows:
1. On Seal Beach Boulevard halfway between the 1-405 Freeway off ramp and
Lampson Avenue. This will be a right turn in only and right turn out only
driveway.
2. The driveway on Lampson Avenue and will allow for full turning movements in
all directions. This entrance will align with another entrance into the golf
course for the public driving range.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that these driveway locations were evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the traffic consultant and were determined to
meet all required safety standards. He reviewed the parking analysis for the
restaurant uses, retail uses, and the banking facility with the results reflecting that all
parking requirements are met.
Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that Staff had requested additional traffic analysis from
the City's Traffic Engineer, and that a copy of this report had been included with the
Staff Report. He stated that the major concern had been whether traffic from the
proposed uses would be significantly different from the uses evaluated in the EIR.
22
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000
He noted that the consultant's conclusion was that the implementation of the
previously recommended mitigation measures will fully mitigate the traffic impacts
associated with this proposed amendment to the Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan. He
continued by stating that the traffic impacts are less during the morning peak hours
with these uses than was anticipated in the EIR. He said that the evening traffic
impacts are slightly greater, but not enough to require mitigation measures. He
stated that the traffic consultant's report was sent to the EIR consultants to see if
they agreed with the report, and they reported that the project does not create any
additional impacts.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff recommends approval of Site Plan Review 00-2,
subject to conditions.
Commissioner Questions
Chairperson Hood inquired if there would be a traffic study of Lampson Avenue
completed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the analysis from the Traffic Engineer
evaluates the impacts at the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard. He stated that the report reflects that traffic issues at this location are not
significantly different than what was evaluated under the previous EIR. He reported
that the next intersection evaluated was at Basswood, which today operates at a
level of service of A or B. He noted that concern about traffic is relevant when a
service level of 0 is reported and traffic is to be increased by .010%. Chairperson
Hood affirmed that if morning traffic is at a lesser level, it would appear that this
would help the residents of College Park East in traveling to work. Chairperson
Hood then noted that if the evening traffic was a little bit greater, it should not affect
the residents of College Park East as they would be turning right onto Lampson
Avenue from Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the traffic analysis
had projected that an increase of 1 extra vehicle per minute could be expected in the
late afternoon hours. Chairperson Hood requested clarification of the dual driveway
entrance/exits near the golf course where there would be no traffic signal or stop
signs. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the turning movements allowable within this area,
and stated that provisions have been made to review this area once the commercial
center is in operation, to determine whether a traffic signal of some kind is needed at
this location.
Commissioner Brown asked if Lampson Avenue is divided. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that portions of it are. He said that not all it has a center divider, but
additional center medians will be placed along Lampson to channel traffic at the left
turn locations.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
23
r
.~
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 June 14, 2000
Mr. Brad Becker, the developer for the project, stated that he was available to
respond to questions. He said that as far as the tenants are concerned they have a
signed lease with Cal Fed Bank and Baja Fresh, a quality restaurant. He reported
that he has received applications from coffeehouses, bagel shops, and dry cleaners,
for the middle retail area.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Lyon stated that the only comment to make was to approve Site Plan
Review 00-2.
MOTION by Lyon; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Site Plan Review 00-2, subject to
conditions, and adopt Resolution 00-18.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-18 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that as requested, Staff has provided a copy of the
Hellman Ranch Settlement Agreement for each of the Commissioners. He also
reported that there were also 4 memorandums dealing different issues to be
distributed.
The Director of Development Services explained that the first memorandum provides
a thorough description of conditions for approval for O'Malley's On Main Street and
how the applicant has met these conditions. He apologized for not having placed
this item on the Planning Commission Agenda as soon as the conditions for
approval for this application had been met. He reported that regarding the location
of the parking areas, this condition was modified after a determination from the City
Attorney's office, which states that as long as the required number of parking spaces
were provided within 300 feet of the property in accordance with the Main Street
Specific Plan (MSSP), the 3 parking spaces could be provided off site at some
location other than the specific location determined by the Planning Commission.
He stated that the easement documents for the use of these parking areas had been
approved by the City Attorney, and copies of the signed easement documents will be
provided to the Commission tonight as an attachment to the memorandum.
24
.~
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 June 14,2000
He noted that the other three memorandums are for information purposes and were
prepared by Staff regarding issues on actions by the Orange County Council of
Governments. He said copies of these memos were also provided to the City
Council and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB).
He reported that a copy of the newsletter from the law firm of Richards, Watson, and
Gershon was also available tonight for distribution to the Commission.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Cutuli reported that he would not be able to attend the meeting of
July 5, 2000, as he would be on vacation. Commissioner Brown asked when the
new Planning Commissioner would begin attending the meetings. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that at the Monday City Council meeting, Councilperson Larson had
appointed Jim Sharp to the Planning Commission. He recommended that the
Commission continue the hearing for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 00-2 for
Starbucks to the July 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, although he was not
sure that this could be done. Mr. Boga stated that on July 5, 2000, CUP 00-2 would
have to again be continued to the next scheduled meeting of July 19, 2000.
Commissioner Brown reported that he would also be out of town on July 5. Mr.
Boga advised that because the public would be expecting that a meeting is to be
held on this date, the City Clerk or another representative would need to be present
on July 5, 2000 to announce that there is no quorum of commissioners present, and
the meeting would automatically be adjourned to the next scheduled meeting.
Commissioner Brown stated that it would not be fair to have people come to the
meeting if it was known that there would not be a quorum present. He
recommended publishing notification of cancellation of the meeting and re-noticing
for the public hearing. Mr. Boga stated that if the Planning Commission wished to
authorize this, it could be done.
Chairperson Hood suggested meeting on July 12,2000. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
he was not sure that this would work, as he was not sure what the filing deadline
would be for the Planning Commission meeting of July 19,2000. He recommended
that Staff provide notice of cancellation and re-notice the public hearing items for
July 19, 2000.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to direct Staff to provide notice of
cancellation for the meeting of July 5, 2000, and the re-notice the public hearing
items for the next scheduled meeting of July 19, 2000.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
None
None
25
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~.h -. ~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on July 19, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, June 14, 2000. ~ .
26