HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2001-02-07
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for February 7,2001
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Len Cutuli
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Thomas Lyon
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
o
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
o
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
o
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
o
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
o
Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of February 7, 2001
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
.
.
.
v
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission' Agenda of February 7, 2001
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for February 7,2001
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an Item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning CommIssion regarding any items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or dIscussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific
Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2001.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Zone Text Amendment 01-1 (Continued from January 17, 2001)
ApplicanVOwner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To consider an amendment to the Code of the City of Seal Beach to
reduce the required front yard setback for those properties with existing
2nd floor decks in the District V Residential Low Density (RLD) Housing
Zone. The request is to reduce the front setback for the 2nd floor to allow
residents with eXisting 2nd floor decks that extend into the setback area to
enclose those decks to create habitable livin~ space. The front setback
requirement IS currently 18 feet (for both 1 s and 2nd floors) for a front
entry garage.
Recommendation:
Approval to City CouncIl.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of February 7, 2001
3. Tentative Tract Map 15832
321 Seal Beach Blvd., Shore Shop Property (Continued from January 17, 2001)
AppilcanVOwner:
Request:
Recommendation:
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Avalon Homes
To subdivide the subject property for the future construction of eight (8)
detached single-family residences; with three parcels having twenty-six-
foot frontages, three parcels having twenty-nine-foot frontages, and two
parcels having thirty-foot frontages. The proposed subdivision request is
consistent with General Plan Amendment 98-2 and Zone Change 98-2,
approved by the City Council on December 14, 1998.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 01-02.
4
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of February 7, 2001
.
2001 Aaenda Forecast
Feb 21
Study Session - Retaining Walls
Study Session - Housing Element
Mar 07
Mar 21
Public Hearing - Housing Element
Apr 04
Apr 18
CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Gnll) Review
ADA Handicapped-accessible Restrooms
May 09
May 23
Jun 06
Jun 20
. July 04 HOLIDAY - No Meeting Scheduled
July 18
Aug 08
Aug 22
Sept 05
Sept 19
Oct 03
Oct 17
Noy 07
Noy 21
Dee 05
Dee 19
.
5
.
.
.
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o Study Session:
o Study Session:
o Study Session:
o Staff Report.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of February 7, 2001
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10/7/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10/7/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of February 7, 2001
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 7, 2001. 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, Lyon, and Sharp
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent:
None.
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
None.
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-D7-01 PC Minutes.doc 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
47
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2001.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
Chairperson Hood noted that he would abstain from voting on this item, as he was
not present for the meeting of January 17, 2001.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Hood
2. Zone Text Amendment 01-1 (Continued from January 17, 2001)
Applicant/Owner:
Req uest:
Recommendation:
Staff Report
City of Seal Beach
To consider an amendment to the Code of the City of
Seal Beach to reduce the required front yard setback for
those properties with existing 2nd floor decks in the
District V Residential Low Density (RLD) Housing Zone.
The request is to reduce the front setback for the 2nd
floor to allow residents with existing 2nd floor decks that
extend into the setback area to enclose those decks to
create habitable living space. The front setback
requirement is currently 18 feet (for both 1 st and 2nd
floors) for a front entry garage.
Approval to City Council.
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 2nd story decks were built onto the original homes as encroaching
structures. He stated that at some point in the past the City had issued permits to
have these decks enclosed. He said that Staff is requesting that the Commission
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 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
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommissIOn
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
make recommendation to the City Council to modify the City Code to allow the
properties with existing 2nd story decks to enclose these decks to create habitable
living space. Mr. Cummins noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission
had requested that Staff ascertain the number of properties that would be affected
by this change. He reported that there are approximately 1,650 single-family homes
in College Park East (CPE) and approximately 5% of these properties would be
affected by this Zone Text Amendment (ZTA). He stated that Staff completed a
driving tour through CPE and counted approximately 85 homes with a similar
situation as the request being made by Mr. & Mrs. Farrell.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. He noted that he had viewed the
videotape of the meeting of January 17, 2001.
Mrs. Rachel Farrell stated that this was something they would really like to do so that
they can utilize this unused space. She said that her neighbors are in support of the
Farrells enclosing their 2nd story deck. She stated that she would be happy to
respond to any questions from the Commission.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Chairperson Hood stated that in accordance with Commissioner Brown's
recommendation, he had spoken to several residents of CPE to ask them how they
felt about the enclosed decks. He said that all of them stated that they preferred to
see the 2nd story decks enclosed as they found the original design of the decks
unattractive and liked to see a bay window or other architectural feature in place of
the decks. He stated that he was not surprised when he received no negative
comme'nts regarding enclosing the decks.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Zone Text Amendment (ZTA)
01-1 and adopt Resolution 01-1 recommending approval to City Council.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
Mr. Whittenberg stated that there would now be a public hearing scheduled before
the City Council. He noted that he anticipated the hearing would be scheduled for
February 26, 2001.
3. Tentative Tract Map 15832
321 Seal Beach Blvd., Shore Shop Property (Continued from January 17,
2001 )
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Avalon Homes
To subdivide the subject property for the future
construction of eight (8) detached single-family
residences; with three parcels having twenty-six-foot
frontages, three parcels having twenty-nine-foot
frontages, and two parcels having thirty-foot frontages.
The proposed subdivision request i~ consistent with
General Plan Amendment 98-2 and Zone Change 98-2,
approved by the City Council on December 14, 1998.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 01-02.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in
the Planning Department.) He noted that a supplemental Staff Report was prepared
that discusses the issues brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting. He
stated that Staff is still recommending approval of the project as submitted. He said
that although Staff understands the concerns of some of the Commissioners
regarding the design of the project, Staff recommends that the Commission take the
same action as that taken in November 1998 when by a 4-1 vote the Planning
Commission recommended approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Zone Change (ZC) to allow an 8-lot project to be built with the lot configuration as
reflected on the subdivision map. He noted that that Planning Commission also
made an additional recommendation to City Council to consider imposing a 30-foot
minimum lot width for the lots in the project. He stated that a copy of the City
Council minutes from December 1998 when the item was heard was included with
the Staff Report. Mr. Whittenberg stated that at that meeting the City Council had
determined to approve the GPA and ZC, without the requirement for the 30-foot
minimum lot size. He reported that in light of the discussion at the Planning
Commission meeting of January 17, 2001, Staff had prepared two resolutions for
tonight's meeting: One reflecting Staffs position of recommending approval of
Tentative Tract Map (TIM) 15832, and the other resolution recommending denial of
the subdivision map with findings reflecting the concerns of the Commission related
to the lot sizes not being a minimum width of 30 feet and allowing development on
the property before all of the lots have received clearance from the Regional Water
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 4
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Minutes of February 7, 2001
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). He stated that the Commission could make a
separate motion to recommend to Council that 30-foot wide lots be required, or this
recommendation could be included with either the resolution for approval or denial.
He noted that copies of the Planning Commission minutes and City Council minutes
from all of the previous discussions on this matter have been included in the
supplementary Staff Report. He stated that a copy of a letter from the City
addressed to the Califomia Coastal Commission (CCC) urging approval of the
project as presented was also included.
Commissioner Questions
Chairperson Hood asked if the Planning Commission approves the item, would it
then automatically go before City Council. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this would
be the case. Chairperson Hood asked if the Planning Commission were to deny this
item would it then automatically go before City Council. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed
that this was true. Chairperson Hood stated that no matter what the Planning
Commission did, this item would still go before City Council. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that on a TIM project consideration the Planning Commission serves as a
recommending body to the City Council, and the subdivision map will automatically
go before City Council regardless of the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Redsun, President of Avalon Homes, stated that he was present to request
approval of TIM 15832 subject to conditions. He said that Avalon believes the map
conforms to Resolution 4671 approved by City Council on December 14, 1998, and
that the map also conforms to all City ordinances. Regarding the environmental
issues, Mr. Redsun stated that Kleinfelder & Associates did prepare a report on this
tract, with Lots 1 through 7 deemed to have no contamination, as approved by the
RWQCB. He said that Lot 8 has minimal contamination, which is being remediated.
He reported that Avalon Homes has a meeting scheduled with the State to review
the findings of the latest round of testing. Mr. Redsun reported that Mr. Juan
Guerrero of Kleinfelder & Associates is present tonight to respond to any questions
related to environmental issues.
Chairperson Hood noted for the record that Ms. Seretta Fielding had contacted him
regarding this issue.
Ms. Seretta Fielding stated that she had also spoken to Commissioners Cutuli and
Brown. She said that this project is something that has been needed in Seal Beach
for many years, improvements to Seal Beach Boulevard, the gateway to the City.
She stated that she wanted to remind everyone that the Commission would be
voting only on the TIM of an approved project. She said that she was in agreement
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07 -01 PC Minutes.doc 5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
with the Staff Report, and feels that, given the constraints of the block and the
surrounding area, she believes this project to be an opportunity for the City to have a
beautiful project that conforms to the General Plan at no expense to the City. She
urged the Planning Commission to provide unanimous approval of this project.
Ms. Lideen Lewis stated that their property backs up the former Shore Shop property
at 321 Seal Beach Boulevard. She said that she and her husband had been told
that there was concern for building on 25-foot lots on this property. She noted that
there were already at least 7 one and two-story buildings on this size lot in the 300
block of 17th Street, because most of the owners prefer the 25-foot lots as opposed
to large maintenance properties. As to the concerns expressed by the Planning
Commission regarding creating a pleasant appearance at the City entrance, she
noted that currently visitors entering Seal Beach along Seal Beach Boulevard are
greeted by a liquor store, bait store, and several motels that have been converted to
other purposes, including one that provides approximately 22 one-room family
residences. She said that all of these "give our area a pretty shabby appearance to
the City." Ms. Lewis stated that the alley to the rear of the Shore Shop has become
no more than "a public toilet." She said that customers from the bait shop and liquor
store stop at all hours to relieve themselves in the overgrown shrubbery, to dispose
of trash, and to allow their pets to relieve themselves. With regard to the concerns
of the underground pollution, she stated that an easy solution would be to require a
Conditional Use Permit that would allow the developer to proceed to build only on
those lots that are proven to be pollution free. She stated that the only problem the
Lewis' have had was further delay to proceed on a proposal that would create an
attractive, upscale residential neighborhood and allow the City to move forward with
the improvements on Seal Beach Boulevard to Electric Avenue. She said that when
this project is complete it would create "a very pleasant entrance to our City from
one of the heaviest traveled areas to Seal Beach."
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown said his previous comments still stand. He said that as he
reviewed the Staff Report, he can't believe that the Staff is proposing to allow
someone to build on 7 lots knowing the 8th lot has not been cleared. He stated that
there is contamination of the 8th lot, and if it is determined that building on this lot
should not be done, he does not see how the City can allow construction on the
other 7 lots and assume that the workers will not use Lot 8 for storage, or to walk on.
He questioned whether Lot 8 would be fenced off during the construction on Lots
1-7. He stated that he felt it was "foolhardy" for the Commission to approve any part
of the project to be built until the entire property is cleared. Commissioner Brown
noted that aside from this issue, he has not changed his position against 25-foot
wide lots. He stated he still believes the minimum width should be 30 feet
throughout the City. He said that contrary to a previous Councilperson's statements,
he does not believe that 1 ih Street is a real gateway to the City, but Seal Beach
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 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 Plannmg Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
Boulevard is. He stated that if the City is going to have residential in this area, it
should be the best residential that the City can have. He noted that this is a prime
piece of property with prime ocean views and he does not believe that the
developers would have any trouble at all selling the lots if they were bigger. He said
that he believed the net profit would be the same as the developer would be able to
sell the larger lots for more money. Commissioner Brown stated that he believes it
is critical that if you want to improve the feel and look of an area then you must build
nice homes. He said that as he sees the project with the minimum size lots, it would
look like row houses. He said that although he would support anyone wanting to
change the zoning on Seal Beach Boulevard from limited commercial to residential,
he had not wanted the zoning to be residential to begin with because once this is
done on this keystone property, then the rest of the street must "domino" into
residential, otherwise it doesn't look good. He stated that if there were to be
residential at this key intersection, "let's have the best residential that we can have."
He noted that he had read the City Council minutes very carefully, and he did not
see a requirement for 8 lots, but rather stated "a maximum of 8 lots." He said that if
the developers come back with 7 lots, they would have a better project that will sell
for more money, and will look good. Commissioner Brown pointed out an item in the
minutes that he had not previously noted: Although the Coastal Commission
approved the project, Coastal Commission Staff had recommended against this
project. He stated that he believes this says something that is helpful to know. He
said he would still recommend denial of TIM 15832 and he believes that this is the
best way to let City Council know that the Planning Commission believes 3D-foot
wide lots are appropriate and would be consistent with the Commission's previous
decision to approve residential with 3D-foot wide lots.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Brown regarding
the size of the lots. He said that along Pacific Coast Highway and Surfside the
standard lot size is 25 feet. He said that the City is also designed with 25-foot lots
for houses built along the beach. He noted that most residents do not want a big
yard to maintain. He said that as far as the Coastal Commission is concerned, with
their Staff recommending one thing and the Commission voting another, he said that
he could present several cases where Coastal Commission Staff had recommended
approval and the Commission had denied the request and visa-versa. He noted that
because Staff makes a recommendation does not indicate that this is how the
Commission will vote. Commissioner Sharp said he believes the Commission would
be doing an injustice to the builder and the City Council in trying to make a decision
to require 3D-foot lots. He said that he felt the project was well worth doing and
would make a much better appearance along Seal Beach Boulevard.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he believed the development would be nicer if the
lots were 30 feet wide. He said that although there were a lot of houses in the City
built on 25-foot lots, and he lived in one in Surfside, he realizes that this is not the
ideal living circumstance unless absolutely necessitated by what is already there.
He stated that he would like to give a strong message to City Council by voting to
\\SCULLy\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 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 Planmng Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
require 3D-foot wide lots to allow for a more attractive development with less of a
"row of houses."
Commissioner Lyon stated that he agreed with Commissioner Sharp. He said that
the Council has already approved this project, and he believes that to require that
one house be eliminated to create 3D-foot lots would be unfair. He noted that there
are not that many lots in Seal Beach that are over 3D-feet wide. He said that there
was only one lot that is questionable, and that lot measures approximately 26.6 feet.
He stated that as long as City Council has approved this project, he believes the
Planning Commission should approve it as well.
Chairperson Hood clarified with the Director of Development Services whether the
Planning Commission could amend or redraw the boundaries of the tract map. Mr.
Whittenberg confirmed that the Planning Commission could not do so. He reported
that the Planning Commission could make a motion to approve the map as
submitted, approve it with recommendations, or deny it because it doesn't meet with
the recommended modifications. Chairperson Hood confirmed the options and
added the option of simply denying TIM 15832. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the
Draft Resolution for denial in the Staff Report is a denial because of the concerns
the Commission expressed at the meeting of January 17, 2001. Chairperson Hood
responded that this resolution is cast in a negative way and he wanted to see if the
denial could be cast in a more positive way. He said he was attempting to reach
"some middle ground between the two sides." He asked Commissioner Brown how
he might feel about approving TIM 15832 with the recommendation that the City
Council impose 3D-foot lots and denying it with the concern that it does not have 30-
foot lots. Commissioner Brown said that he believes it is a much stronger
recommendation when it is a denial. He said that this would send the message "we
don't think this is an adequate tract now." He stated that to say, "we think this is an
adequate tract map, but by the way it should really be 3D-foot wide lots," was in his
view nowhere near as strong. He said that a denial would be a stronger
recommendation. He said that a Councilperson looking at this project after having
received approval from the Planning Commission, might not feel the need to
carefully review the recommendations. He noted that if the Councilperson receives
a denial that might have to be overturned, he or she would then have to justify the
reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Hood referred to Page 31 of the Staff Report and read Item No.1,
which states:
The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development and is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's
desire that the City Council require all of the subject lots to be a
minimum of 3D-feet wide.
He confirmed with the Director of Development Services that this would be the
"number one condition/objection" of the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
stated if the determination of the Planning Commission is to recommend denial, the
above quoted paragraph reflects the findings based upon the discussion at the last
meeting that Staff found would be most appropriate for the resolution of denial.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that if the City Council wishes to approve TIM 15832,
all they would have to do would be to make the findings of the Planning Commission
void. Mr. Whittenberg responded that whatever the resolution of recommendation
approved by the Planning Commission is, will go before the City Council as an item
of consideration as a part of their Public Hearing. He continued by stating that City
Council can then take that resolution of recommendation and do with it as they
please. He said that at that point City Council may adopt a resolution either to
approve or deny the ,map. Whether it reflects all of the concerns of the Planning
Commission is up to the City Council. Commissioner Brown asked if the City
Council could modify a tract map. Mr. Whittenberg responded that City Council
could do so. He stated that the Planning Commission could recommend
modifications to the City Council, who would then make a determination on whether
or not to approve them. Commissioner Brown confirmed that the Planning
Commission could state that it accepts the tract map with the condition that the lots
be 30 feet wide, or state that it does not accept the tract map because the lots
should be 30 feet wide. He said that he still believed that denial was a stronger way
of making the point. Chairperson Hood confirmed with Commissioner Brown that he
was recommending that City Council modify the tract map. He confirmed with the
Director of Development Services that this was an option. Mr. Whittenberg asked if
the Commission was suggesting that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
recommending approval subject to the lots being 3D-foot wide lots and to also
include the other conditions noted in the approval resolution. Commissioner Brown
said that this was not what he was recommending.
Commissioner Sharp interjected that within the City there are different requirements
for lot sizes for the different districts, and he could not see how the Planning
Commission could begin at this late date to change the rules on lot size. He noted
that in Old Town south of Pacific Coast Highway, the requirement is 25-foot lots
unless the lots have been re-zoned or subdivided to 35 or 50 feet. He said that he
would also like to see 3D-foot wide lots, but in this case he did not believe that the
Planning Commission had any right to require 3D-foot lots. He stated that he felt the
Planning Commission was attempting to rewrite the laws at a late date. Chairperson
Hood asked Staff what the percentage of lots between Pacific Coast Highway and
the ocean measure 25 feet. Commissioner Brown stated that the Shore Shop
property was created by joining nine 25-foot lots, so the underlying lots are already
25-feet wide. He said that City Council had already changed the lot size from 25-
feet wide, so to say that the Planning Commission cannot recommend that City
Council change the size of the lots is not accurate. Commissioner Sharp stated that
the Planning Commission can make this recommendation, but he believes it to be
"completely wrong." In response to Chairperson Hood's question Mr. Whittenberg
stated that his best guess is that between 75 and 80 percent of the properties are
25-foot wide lots. He said the rest of the lots would be anywhere from 30-37.5 foot
wide lots, with up to 50-foot wide lots in the Gold Coast area. He noted that the
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Mmutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 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 Mmutes of February 7, 2001
37.5-foot lots are created when someone purchases two 25-foot lots and subdivides
12.5 feet from it. He confirmed that the underlying parcels on the Shore Shop
property were originally 25-foot lots. He said that at the time of the GPA and ZC
approval of the property, the City then has discretion to impose additional
requirements on the ZC, and at this point they can impose the requirements of
differing lot widths in the area to attempt to address the concerns that arose at the
Planning Commission level. He noted that apparently City Council did not feel that a
standard of a minimum 3D-foot wide lot was appropriate when approving the ZC. He
stated that a subdivision map is adjudicated and does not give a lot of discretion to a
City Councilor Planning Commission as long as it complies with the standard
development provisions already in place for that particular zone designation of the
city. He said that in this area the minimum standard is 25 feet wide by 100 feet deep
lots. He reported that City Council approved the ZC to allow residential development
on the properties, but they approved it subject to different lot widths, and that is what
is before the Planning Commission tonight. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are
. times when standards can be changed, but it has to be at the appropriate time under
the provisions of State law, and he said that in all honesty, this would not be the time
that the City has the authority to do that.
Mr. 80ga interjected that City Council in 1998 approved a set of legislative rules that
allowed for lots that are 25 feet wide on this property. Regarding the question that
arose with whether or not the Council approving this map can require the lots to be
3D-feet, he said that it was not clear to him that when the Zoning Ordinance and the
General Plan allow lots of 25 feet in width that as part of a subdivision map City
Council or the Planning Commission could require the 3D-foot wide lots. He said
that the way to do this would be to change the actual legislative rules underlying this
approval, which is the Zoning Ordinance under the General Plan. He stated that the
way to set the lot width would be through the legislative policy and making a decision
on the tract map would mean looking at whether or not it conforms to the legislative
rules that are in place.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that what Mr. 80ga was stating was that if City Council
at the request of the Planning .Commission were to consider larger lots and
recommend that the developer reduce the number of lots, was the developer
required to comply with this request. Mr. Whittenberg responded that in order to
effect the zone change, the developer had to comply with the request of Council to
change the lot sizes. Chairperson Hood asked if the developer had simply taken
nine lots and made them into eight lots. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the
developer had done so as part of a different land use being authorized by the City
and it legislative prerogative. Chairperson Hood confirmed that a change in the lot
sizes had already been approved. Mr. Whittenberg responded that right now the
property is in a General Plan designation and is in the process of having the zoning
changed from a commercial designation to residential. He said that when City
Council made the policy decision to change the land use, they made this change
subject to the lots of the new project being specific widths, which are the widths that
have been presented tonight. Chairperson Hood clarified that these lot sizes had
\\SCULLy\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
been imposed by City Council. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct.
Chairperson Hood asked if they were to impose larger lot sizes on the developer,
could this be in any way considered discriminatory. Mr. Boga responded that he
would not use the term "discriminatory," but he believes that the City has to make
certain findings in order to approve or disapprove a map, and it becomes difficult to
justify those findings if the finding is "we're going to disapprove this map because the
lot size doesn't meet whatever number," when in fact the lot size number is
consistent with the rules on the books at the time of the decision. Commissioner
Brown interjected that the lot sizes are minimums and the findings do not state that
the developer can only have 25-foot wide maximum lots. He stated that he would
like to make a motion to deny.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to deny Tentative Tract Map 15832 and
adopt Resolution 01-2 as presented.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Lyon to approve Tentative Tract
Map 15832 and adopt Resolution 01-2 as presented.
Chairperson Hood asked if Commissioner Sharp would recommend having City
Council consider larger lot sizes. Commissioner Sharp stated that the Planning
Commission could request that Council consider larger lots, but if not, to approve the
existing lot sizes as presented. Chairperson Hood asked if Commissioner Sharp left
room for any flexibility on this recommendation. Commissioner Sharp stated that he
would accept the motion if the recommendation were made that Council take
another look at the size of the lots. Mr. Boga referred to the draft of the approval
resolution on Page 15 of the Staff Report and read the clause toward the bottom of
the page, which states:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does recommend
approval of Tentative Tract Map 15832, subject to the attached
conditions shown as "Exhibit A. "
He recommended adding the following language at the end of this clause:
. . .and recommends that the City Council reconsider the imposition
of a 30-foot wide minimum lot requirement.
Commissioner Brown stated that although he understood what Chairperson Hood
was attempting to accomplish, he believes that basically what Chairperson Hood has
done is to bury this recommendation at the bottom of the resolution where it can be
conveniently ignored. Commissioner Brown stated that this certainly would not be
his desire, but that if Chairperson Hood believed this to be a good plan, he could
vote for it as such. Commissioner Sharp interjected that Commissioner Brown was
doing exactly what he had accused Mr. Whittenberg of doing during the last meeting.
Commissioner Brown stated that there was a difference as he is a Commissioner
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 11
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
participating in a discussion on a resolution. Chairperson Hood interjected that he
was wrestling with the problem of the Planning Commission having previously made
a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that the property owner, the
developer, and City Council may not have gone as far as the Planning Commission
had recommended, but they did meet half way, and did move in the direction
requested by the Commission. He noted that now the developer has returned with a
tract map that does meet code requirements, and the Commission must have a
finding that shows that the map is not acceptable. He stated that he is having
difficulty finding that this tract map per se is not acceptable, and the finding in his
mind is that although the map may not be most desirable, it is acceptable.
Chairperson Hood stated that because the developer has already made changes to
the lot configuration, it appears that the most the Commission can do is to
recommend that City Council make the developer change the lot size again. He said
that he was not sure that this was the developer's fault, but if City Council had
recommended changing the lot size, the developer probably would have changed
them. He stated that he believed Planning Commission needed to send this item to
City Council in order to accomplish this. Commissioner Brown stated that
Chairperson Hood was correct, that the Commission could only make
recommendation to City Council. He noted that the question was how strongly the
Commission wanted to make the recommendation. He stated that if Chairperson
Hood feels that the developer has met the minimum requirement, he should vote to
approve this, but what Commissioner Brown is saying is that the City should not
have to accept the minimum for the gateway to Seal Beach. Chairperson Hood
stated that if Commissioner Brown could strengthen the recommendation Mr. Boga
read and sell it to the maker of the motion and the second, the Commissioners
would like to accommodate him since this project is in Commissioner Brown's
district. Chairperson Hood continued by stating that in this case, some of the
Commissioners were having a problem accepting that this is not a negative finding.
Commissioner Brown stated that he assumed that the Commissioners were
accepting of Mr. Boga's wording of the recommendation. Commissioner Brown
called for a vote. Commissioner Sharp asked that Mr. Boga re-state the motion. Mr.
Boga stated that the motion on the floor is the substitute motion to approve Tentative
Tract Map 15832 and recommend approval to the City Council and adopt Resolution
01-2 with the modification on Page 15 of the Staff Report as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the
Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does recommend
approval of Tentative Tract Map 15832, subject to the attached
conditions shown as "Exhibit A," and recommends that the City
Council reconsider the imposition of a 30-foot wide minimum lot
requirement.
Chairperson Hood asked if the words "strongly recommend" would be used.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he did not know what the Planning Commission
was going to do, unless they were going to tell City Council what to do and he did
not believe that Council would appreciate this. Chairperson Hood said that he was
\\SCULLy\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Mmutes of February 7, 2001
less concerned with them appreciating it than with attempting to come up with
something that the Commission could come closer to agreeing on. Commissioner
Sharp stated the recommendation is strong enough as it reads and he noted that
Commissioner Brown had called for the vote and he would also call for the vote on
the Substitute Motion.
MOTION FAilS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2-3
Hood and Sharp
Brown, Cutuli, and Lyon
None
Mr. Whittenberg announced the Substitute Motion fails on a 2-3 vote.
Commissioner Sharp called for a re-vote. Commissioner Brown called for a roll call
vote. Mr. Whittenberg polled the Commissioners who voted as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Hood and Sharp
Brown, Cutuli, and Lyon
None
Chairperson Hood then called for a vote on the MAIN MOTION to deny Tentative
Tract Map 15832.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-1-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon
Sharp
None
Commissioner Lyon stated that the developer does not need the approval of the
Planning Commission, as City Council has already approveq this project.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that a public hearing would be held at the City Council
level to consider this matter.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that a copy of a letter from Woody and Lisa Woodruff
addressed to the Planning Commission and received by the City Clerk's office today
speaking in opposition to the Indefinite Extension of the Conditional Use Permit for
Hennessey's had been provided to each Commissioner. He noted that this
application has been appealed to the City Council and the public hearing will be held
on Monday, February 12, 2001. Chairperson Hood asked if the public hearing has
been properly noticed. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it had been. Chairperson
Hood stated that he was contacted by telephone by the individual who wrote the
letter who stated that they had not received a notice.
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-o7-o1 PC Minutes.doc 13
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission
Meeting Mmutes of February 7, 2001
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Cutuli asked about the status of the Starbuck's project. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that Staff had not had any interaction with Starbuck's for
quite some time. Commissioner Cutuli inquired about the property on Main Street
and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg reported that they have received
approval for grading permits and will be completing grading fairly soon. He stated
that building permits would not be issued until they acquire encroachment permits
from CalTrans for the work to be done along Pacific Coast Highway and the
sidewalk area. Commissioner Cutuli asked if they could build without having to
come before the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Whittenberg responded
that plans for the structure on that property had already been approved.
Commissioner Cutuli asked about the retailers that would be locating in this building.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that he has received tentative notice of the clients for the
approximately 6,000 square foot retail building with parking along Pacific Coast
Highway, but he would defer making any announcement at this point. He stated that
the structure meets all of the requirements imposed by City Council at the time of
approval.
Commissioner Cutuli asked about the status of the Hellman Project. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that the project has received Coastal Permits to begin the
archaeology fieldwork, which should begin next week. He stated that once this work
is completed, grading of the property will begin. He said that an amendment to the
Specific Plan to eliminate the golf course and substitute the 100-acre, deed-
restricted future wetland area imposed by the Coastal Commission would be coming
before the City Council in either late February or early March. Commission Cutuli
asked when construction might begin. Mr. Whittenberg responded that 1-2 months
of actual field investigation work followed by lab analysis of any recovered items plus
completion and approval of reports documenting the results of the investigation must
be completed before grading permits can be issued. He projected that construction
would probably not begin for at least 4-6 months.
Commissioner Cutuli asked the Director of Development Services to comment on
the removal of the diseased eucalyptus trees on the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center.
Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the Commissioners had received a copy of the
Eucalyptus Tree Permit, which the Commission affirmed. He continued by reporting
that as part of the City's Eucalyptus Ordinance, there are provisions that allow the
Director of Development Services to issue permits for removal of trees that are
diseased and pose a public health and safety hazard. He stated that since the
project was approved, and as part of the EIR preparation, the Bixby Ranch
Company with the concurrence of the City retained an arborist to evaluate the
eucalyptus trees and provide monthly reports on their health. He said that at the
time the EIR documents were approved and certified by City Council, there was not
infestation of the trees. He reported that some time in late 1998 or early 1999 a
parasite that is indigenous to Australia migrated to this region and began infesting
Red Gum Eucalyptus trees throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. He said
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 14
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
that the Red Gum Lerp Psyllid lays eggs on the leaves of the tree, which create a
film on the leaves preventing photosynthesis from occurring and the trees eventually
die. He stated that in the United States there is no natural predator for this bug. He
said that in an effort to eliminate the Lerp, the California Department of Agriculture
(CDA) had imported a wasp from Australia that lays its eggs on top of the Psyllid
eggs, which kills the Lerp Psyllid eggs. He stated that CDA authorized spreading of
the wasp at approximately 5 or 6 locations in both Los Angeles and Orange
Counties. Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff had requested that this area be one of
those selected for spreading of the wasp, but the request was not approved by CDA,
as they were looking at larger growths of trees in which to complete the test
program. He stated that as a result the last report from the arborist when the
Director of Development Services actually issued the permit to demolish the trees,
showed that about 70% of the trees north of St. Cloud were already dead and the
rest were quickly dying. He said that because of the nature of eucalyptus trees,
when they are dead, branches fall off without any kind of pressure. Because of this,
the Director of Development Services issued the permit to remove all of the trees
north of St. Cloud and also allowed the removal of some of the dead trees south of
St. Cloud that were infested with the same parasite. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
there is a replanting program that must be submitted to the City for approval within a
specific period of time that requires a 4 to 1 tree replacement ratio at the expense of
the Bixby Company. He stated that copies of the tree removal permit had been
provided'to the local newspapers and for anyone interested in a copy, they are
available in the Department of Development Services. He noted that the tree permit
also includes copies of the monitoring reports completed by the arborist.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if City Council had been informed of the tree removal
permit before the removal of the trees. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that City Council
had been informed. Commissioner Cutuli asked if the permit had been approved by
City Council. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the permit was issued by the
Department of Development Services, who informed City Council of the intended
action approximately 3 days before issuing the permit. Commissioner Cutuli
commented that for something as sensitive as the removal of trees that have been at
the center of such an intense preservation effort, it would appear that a permit of this
kind should have required the approval of City Council. He stated that not having
City Council participate in this decision might give the appearance of being a "behind
the scenes thing" that allowed the developers to do something that from all
appearances they had intended to do all along without having to go through the
proper channels. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the proper channels were
followed in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. He stated that there
was nothing that the developer did to encourage this bug to land on the trees to
cause the infestation that resulted in the death of the trees. He said the infestation
occurred from San Diego to Ventura. Commissioner Cutuli retorted that the trees in
Gum Grove Park also have the Red Lerp Psyllid and those trees have not been
removed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the trees in Gum Grove Park are of a
different type of eucalyptus. Commissioner Cutuli responded that these trees were
Red Gum Eucalyptus and that approximately 100 trees were infested and had lost
all of their leaves, but the trees are still there. He wondered why the City would only
\\SCULL y\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 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 Plannmg Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2001
take an interest in the trees on the Bixby Ranch project and not the trees in Gum
Grove Park. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he had never been informed that the trees
in Gum Grove Park were infested. He said that he had always been told that these
were Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Cutuli stated that they were not.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would also look into the status of the trees in Gum
Grove Park. He said that if the trees are dead and if branches have the potential to
fall off, it is definitely a public liability issue that demands attention.
Commissioner Brown stated that he had received an inquiry about a wall being
stuccoed near 1 ih Street north of Pacific Coast Highway where the street changes
and five homes were built. He asked if the City was completing the stucco work.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that there is a wall of a home at Marina and Pacific
Coast Highway that was stuccoed to match the house, but there is a block wall at
the corner of 1 ih Street and Pacific Coast Highway, and to the best of his
knowledge he had not heard of any stucco work on this wall. Commissioner Brown
asked if the City had any control over a private wall. Mr. Whittenberg responded that
if it is a private wall, all that is required is a permit to complete the work they want to
do.
Commissioner Brown then addressed the letter received from the Woordruffs
regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Hennessey's. Commissioner Sharp
interjected that this item was not before the Planning Commission tonight and he
had not yet had an opportunity to read the letter. Chairperson Hood stated that
Commissioner comments or concerns do not have to pertain to the meeting.
Commissioner Brown continued by asking when the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision by Hennessey's had come before City Council. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that the public hearing was scheduled for Monday, February
12, 2001. Commissioner Brown stated that any decision of the Planning
Commission could be appealed to the City Council and that is the right of the
applicant. He commented that in the letter the Wood ruffs asked that the
Commissioners go before the City Council to support their decision. He stated that
this would not be the appropriate thing to do because the Planning Commission
votes and sends its recommendations to City Council, who are free to read them as
they wish and to make a determination as they choose. He said that he always felt it
would be unfair as a member of the Planning Commission to go before the City
Council to argue his case in an appeal. Commissioner Sharp stated that he was in
total agreement. Commissioner Lyon stated that he wanted to know why the rules
were not enforced to make Hennessey's close when they are supposed to. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that these were issues that could not be discussed tonight. He
said that the Commissioners could ask the questions tonight and Staff could report
back at a future meeting. He stated that Staff had attempted to do this when the
public hearing before the Planning Commission was held. Commissioner Lyon
stated that in spite of the discussion at that meeting the infractions of the Conditions
of Approval were still taking place. Mr. Whittenberg declined to comment further on
this issue.
\\SCULLy\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 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 Mmutes of February 7, 2001
Chairperson Hood commented that sometime in the past he had asked the arborist
about what would happen to the eucalyptus trees if part of the windrow were
removed, and Mr. Ron Bradshaw had interrupted and responded that nothing would
happen to the trees. He said that this should have been a clue as to what would
happen. He continued by stating that although the Director of Development
Services had notified City Council about the tree permit, Mayor Patty Campbell was
out of town at the time and returned to find that the trees had been removed.
Chairperson Hood said that replanting of the trees was another issue as he
understood that the trees could be replanted wherever the Bixby developers wanted,
and that they were not required to replant trees where the original trees were
removed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a large majority would be replanted in
that same area. He said that the recommendation of the arborist was to replant with
different species of eucalyptus trees and other types of trees in order to provide
variety and to prevent infestation from any pest that might target a specific species
of trees. Chairperson Hood stated that he understood this, but his comment related
to Bixby not having to replant the trees in the same place from which the diseased
trees had been removed, but could plant anywhere on the property. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that the Bixby Company was not obligated to plant in specific areas, but
the City will require that a majority of the trees be replanted in the area where the
windrow of trees has been removed. He said that the arborist would be monitoring
that there is sufficient room left between the new plantings to allow for growth and
prevent crowding. He stated that this was part of the problems with the existing
grove of eucalyptus trees. He said that many new "sucker trees" were sprouting up
and weakening the root system of the larger trees, creating a decline in the entire
grove of trees. Mr. Whittenberg reported that although he could not guarantee that
all of the replanting will be done in the area where the trees were recently removed,
the 4 to 1 ratio of new trees agreed to by Bixby would be planted. Commissioner
Brown confirmed whether the City did have control over where the trees will be
planted. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct.
Chairperson Hood commended Vice-Chairperson Cutuli's handling of the Planning
Commission meeting of January 17, 2001 and thanked Commissioner Cutuli for
sitting in his place while Chairperson Hood was out of town.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secre ry
Planning Department
\\SCULLy\CARMEN\PC Minutes\2001\02-07-01 PC Minutes.doc 17
.~
3
4
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Minutes of February 7, 2001
APPROVAL
The Commission on February 21, 2001 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, February 7, 2001. ~
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\02..o7..o1 PC Mmutes.doc
18