HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2002-09-04
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for September 4, 2002
7:3Q p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate 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.
1
.
.
.
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 oroceedinas are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for September 4, 2002
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.
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 August 21, 2002.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Southern California Real Estate Summit - Strategies for Solutions -
Summit Report"
3. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Southern California Real Estate Summit - Strategies for Solutions -
Brief Series"
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. Planning Commission Review - Development Standards, Grading Policies & Height Restrictions
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Planned Sign Program 02-2
Rossmoor Business Center
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
J. Brian Gibbons / Century National Properiies, Inc.
To approve a Planned Sign Program for the existing Rossmoor Shopping
center, including directional signs and monument signs..
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-37.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of September 4, 2002
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
#
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of September 4, 2002
Sept 18
Oct 09
Oct 23
Nav 06
Nav 20
Dee 04
Dee 18
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o
o
o
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Study Session:
2002 Aaenda Forecast
Study Session: Retaining Walls
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of September 4, 2002
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 4, 2002. The meeting
was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
Also
Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Absent: None.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Chairperson Hood recommended that Item No.5 be heard before Item NO.4.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
Ms. Jean Beyer stated that with the heavy traffic flow along Seal Beach Boulevard
(SBB), she was wondering if the City were planning on creating double left turn
lanes from SBB onto St. Cloud Drive to help in easing the traffic congestion at this
intersection. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he was not aware of any plans to do
so, however, Staff would review this issue with the City Engineering Department and
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-04.02 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
present a report to the Planning Commission (PC). Ms. Beyer also noted that the
traffic signal at St. Cloud only allows for a right or left turn onto SBB and does not
allow vehicles to drive straight across SBB into the Old Town Center. She
requested that this also be evaluated. Mr. Whittenberg took note of this
recommendation.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2002.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Southern California Real Estate Summit - Strategies for
Solutions - Summit Report"
3. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Southern California Real Estate Summit - Strategies for
Solutions - Brief Series"
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Planned Sign Program 02-2
Rossmoor Business Center
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
J. Brian Gibbons I Century National Properties, Inc.
To approve a Planned Sign Program for the existing
Rossmoor Shopping center, including directional signs
and monument signs..
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
02-37. .
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
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-G4-G2 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
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
explained that the Municipal Code allows for slight deviations from the Sign Code
under the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process and through the adoption of a
Planned Sign Program (PSP). He described the current mix of tenant I.D. signs at
the Rossmoor Shopping Center and stated that center management would like to
create a more uniform sign display with a similar design style. Mr. Cummins then
proceeded to describe the proposed changes to the signage for the center and
reviewed the specific dimensions for the signs. He then referred to Section 28-1803
of the Municipal Code, which sets forth the criteria for a PSP as follows:
Cl Two acre minimum area
Cl 10,000 square feet minimum floor area
Cl 5 or more activities
The Associate Planner then described the findings the PC must make in relation to a
request for a PSP as follows:
1. Proposed signage is consistent with the intent of the Sign Code Provision
article of the City Code.
2. Signs included in the PSP meet minimum sign design standards adopted
for that purpose.
3. Approval does not constitute granting of special privilege or allow
substantially greater visibility than the standard provisions allow.
Mr. Cummins stated that the proposed signs meet the intent of the Sign Code, as
this is a large shopping that needs a fair amount of signage along the boulevard to
allow passers by to know which tenants can be found within the center. He reported
that the Rossmoor Center does have a PSP on the site that was granted in 1985 for
the existing signs. He explained that should this new PSP be adopted, it would then
become the overriding PSP for the Rossmoor Center. He stated that Staff is
recommending approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution No. 02-37.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Sharp stated that he wanted to make sure that the new signage
would not block the view of anyone driving along the boulevard. Mr. Cummins
stated that there would be no obstruction of anyone's view.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. J. Brian Gibbons stated that the new signage would be a big improvement to the
center, and he noted that he would be happy to respond to any questions from the
Commissioners.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-04-02 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp stated that as long as the signs would not block the view of
any drivers or pedestrians, he would have no objections to approval of PSP 02-2.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Planned Sign Program 02-2,
subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 02-37.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. 80ga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02-37 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. Planning Commission Review - Development Standards, Grading Policies &
Height Restrictions
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
began by reviewing the City Grading Policies as outlined on Page 1 of the Staff
Report. With regard to the question of whether a property owner can import dirt to
make the grade of the property higher, Mr. Cummins explained that currently as City
Code is interpreted, nothing prohibits this process. He noted that in response to
some of the concerns raised regarding this issue, the City Engineer is reviewing
ways to curb or prevent this practice entirely.
The Associate Planner then addressed the Development Standards for Retaining
Walls as presented on Page 2 and 3 of the Staff Report. He explained that the issue
of retaining walls arose as a result of the decks along Crestview Avenue, when
concerns were expressed regarding the possibility. of construction of a very tall
retaining wall and filling it in with dirt, then constructing a fence on top of the
retaining wall. He noted that City Code states that as long as the retaining wall is
holding dirt in, the height of the wall is not counted towards the height of the fence.
He stated that it is a retaining wall by definition and the City has no standard for the
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-Q4-Q2 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
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
height of a retaining wall, but only for a fence, which can be located along the natural
grade surface or on top of a retaining wall.
With regard to the height of buildings, Mr. Cummins stated that the height of a
building is measured from the highest point of the natural grade on a property to the
height limit in a particular zone. He said that in most residential zones the maximum
height is 25 feet, however, there are some provisions in Old Town for a house to be
35 feet on the rear half of the lot if the lot is larger than 37.5 feet in width. He
explained that when there are hill fluctuations, an average natural grade is
calculated with measurements being made from that point. He noted that in most
situations there is a building pad that is already level. Mr. Cummins stated that the
main concern regarding building height for the property in question is whether when
soil is imported does the City begin height measurements from the top of the new
soil or the natural grade. He explained that in this case the building height
measurement would still begin from where the original natural grade occurs.
The Associate Planner then addressed Commission concerns regarding provisions
for the maximum size for garages. He referred to Section 28-400(A)(2) noting that it
deals with accessory buildings (page 4 of the Staff Report) and he confirmed that
there is no maximum size for garages as long as the garage is directly attached to
the main house or structure. He noted that a detached garage could only be large
enough to house no more than 3 automobiles.
Mr. Cummins then stated that the reason the project for the property in question did
not come before the PC is because when the plans were submitted to the
Department of Development Services they met all of the conditions for approval as
outlined in the City Zoning Code. He explained that in such a case the City must
approve the project with no requirements for discretionary approval or for a public
hearing before the PC. The Associate Planner then indicated that Staff is making no
recommendations to the PC on this issue, but is simply providing the requested
information and if the PC wishes to provide direction regarding composing a Zone
Text Amendment, Staff would be happy to do so.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Shanks gave the example of a property owner on Crestview and
asked whether they would have to come before the PC for approval of a retaining
wall constructed along the rear of the property along Gum Grove Park, then filled in
with dirt to extend the length of the rear yard. Mr. Cummins responded that as long
as the area between the rear yard grade and the retaining wall were to be filled in
with dirt, the property owner would simply have to file the plans with the Department
of Development Services. He noted that the wall would have to actually retain soil
as opposed to simply being a block wall fence. Commissioner Shanks then inquired
as to when the City would determine that a retaining wall is needed when grading for
new construction is taking place with the accumulation of excess dirt begining to
encroach upon an adjacent property. Mr. Cummins stated that the need for a
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-04..Q2 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 September 4, 2002
retaining wall would be determined during the building inspection, if the Building
Inspector ascertains that one is needed. Commissioner Shanks asked if the term
"imported dirt" also applies to dirt that is dug up on the property itself, or only to dirt
brought onto the property from an outside source. Mr. Cummins stated that it could
be either.
Commissioner Sharp stated that because every piece of property has different
characteristics, he does not see how the City could set a limit on the height of
retaining walls.
Mr. Cummins reported for the record that two letters were received from Mr. Earl
Carlson, 1535 Crestview Avenue, expressing his concerns regarding grading
policies and height restrictions.
Mr. Whittenberg also reported for the record that a copy of materials received this
evening from Mr. Earl Carlson was distributed to the PC prior to tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Deaton asked which section of City Code defines "accessory
building." Mr. Cummins reported that it is Section 28-400(A)(2). Commissioner
Deaton referred to the survey of the property jn question and noted that the claim is
that the original grade was 2 feet higher than it should have been. She asked if the
survey was taken prior to the 2 feet being higher or after. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that the grading plan that was approved shows the pre-existing grade for the house
then on the property prior to it being demolished. He noted that the City has no
records of what the grade was prior to this pre-existing house having been
constructed on the property in 1958 or 1959. Commissioner Deaton inquired about
the photographs and the claims that the grade was 2 feet higher. Mr. Whittenberg
stated at that point in time City standards may have been markedly different than
what they are today. He noted that you cannot go back 30 years and attempt to
change the grade on a piece of property that has been in existence that long.
Commissioner Deaton asked the Associate Planner to explain why no public notice
is provided on this type of project. Mr. Cummins explained that public notice is
required only when a discretionary entitlement on a project is needed. He stated
that if someone brings in a set of plans that meet all of the City Zoning Code
requirements, the City by right has to approve the plans. He stated that when plans
do not meet a City requirement and the property owner is requesting discretionary
approval, a notice of public hearing must be circulated. Commissioner Deaton
asked how this would differ for Old Town. Mr. Cummins stated that the noticing
requirement is the same Citywide. He explained that for a Minor Plan Review (MPR)
property owners and residents within a 100 foot radius of the proposed project would
be notified, and for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Height Variation (HV), or
Variance, property owners and residents within a 300 foot radius would be noticed.
Commissioner Deaton asked if the only difference was in the noticing procedure for
a California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit. Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that if a
project meets all City Code requirements, no notice would be provided to
neighboring properties. He said that in the coastal zone the CCC has its own
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-D4-D2 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
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
separate noticing requirements as their guidelines and policies are different. He also
noted that in order to build in the coastal zone, a permit from CCC is required since
the City will not issue the building permits without approval from the CCC. He
indicated that in Seal Beach the coastal zone extends from the ocean to
Westminster Avenue. Commissioner Deaton clarified that the CCC noticing process
is different for Old Town than it is for those homes on The Hill. Mr. Cummins stated
that the CCC has an exemption process that requires no notice, and there is also a
waiver to the coastal act, which is a Consent Calendar item and does require
circulation of a public notice. He noted that it has been observed that properties to
the south of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) are usually required to go through the
waiver process. Commissioner Deaton cited the example of a resident being
unhappy with a 6-foot fence. She hypothesized that all the resident would then have
to do is import dirt to fill in the fenced area to create a retaining wall, and then build a
fence on top of the previous fence, which would now be a retaining wall. Mr.
Cummins stated that under the current Code this could occur.
Chairperson Hood inquired about the CCC approval of the plans for the Crestview
property. Mr. Cummins reported that the CCC had approved in concept the set of
plans originally approved by the City. He stated that the applicant had subsequently
requested that the subterranean portion of the structure be made slightly larger. The
City approved the changes to the plans as they continued to meet all City Code
requirements. He noted that there is some concern as to how this might affect the
CCC permit, but the CCC would make this determination. He reiterated that the
project as it currently stands meets all City requirements. He stated that if the CCC
were to decide to do so, they could make an amendment to the Coast Permit.
Chairperson Hood asked whether an unhappy neighbor had any recourse in this
matter. Mr. Cummins stated that the neighbor could communicate by telephone with
the CCC. Chairperson Hood then asked about the approval process for the grading
policy. Mr. Cummins responded that it would originate with the City Engineer and
then would come before the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the City
Engineering Department, the Director of Development Services, and a consultant
that deals in developing grading plans have been looking at the ordinance and part
of the process may involve a PC review of certain types of applications, such as
bringing infill to raise up lot levels and construction of retaining walls, etc. He said
that at this point the City Engineer is evaluating whether to make these changes. He
noted that with the issues that have arisen along the Crestview Avenue area, it
would not be surprising if City Council refers these matters back to the PC for input.
Public Comment Session
Chairperson Hood opened the pUblic comment session. He reminded the public that
the focus is to remain on the grading policy and not on any particular property or
project.
Mr. John Hermstead asked why anything should be changed at this point. He
commented that this person is coming in and creating his own hill. He asked why
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-04-02 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
the City should change anything, which would only prevent Mr. Hermstead from
making his house higher than his neighbor's house.
Mr. Jerry Anderson expressed his frustration at his recognition that his presence
here tonight would do absolutely no good. He stated that the arrogance of City staff
is appalling. He noted that this project was brought to the City's attention over two
months ago and it appears that the City is saying that this project is O.K., but
something different will be done in the future. He said that somehow common sense
must prevail. He stated that he resides in a single-story home and both of his
neighbor's homes rise 35 feet above his property. Mr. Anderson stated that the
height limit means nothing because when someone wants to go above the limit the
property owner simply applies for a Variance. He said that because a Variance is
illegal, a Height Variation is granted in its place. He lamented the loss of civility as
property owners have no concern or consideration for their neighbors and are
"building to the absolute maximum." He stated that if this is brought to the attention
of the City, the response is, "Well, we'll have to look into that for future
consideration." Mr. Anderson stated that at some point in time the PC and City
Council and Staff have to be responsive to the residents. He argued that Seal
Beach is not "a nice little beach town," and what is happening on The Hill is
unconscionable. He stated that The Hill is ugly and is getting uglier day by day. He
said that City Staff and the City Manager along with the PC and City Council are not
responsive to the needs of the residents.
Ms. Susan Nummedal read some of the highlights of the letter dated 9-2-02 that she
and her husband, Earl Carlson, wrote, and delivered for distribution to the PC. She
raised the question of at what point the City would become involved in cases of infill
being brought in to raise the grade of a property. She cited the problem with her not
being able to open or close the gate to her yard due to dirt spilling over from the
construction site next door and piling up against her fence. Ms. Nummedal
commented that although a project might meet Code requirements, the City should
still look at the overall ramifications of constructing such a project. She stated that a
process was needed to evaluate the ramifications of how a new project would affect
the surrounding neighbors and to determine if there are alternatives that would more
adequately and equitably meet the needs of all concerned. She requested that her
letter be filed for the record.
Mr. John Hermstead stated that he had spoken to Mark Vukojevic, the Assistant City
Engineer, and had told him about the problem with the infi" dirt blocking the
Carlson's gate. He said Mr. Vukojevic was told him that the City had no problem
with this and that the plans had already been approved.
Mr. Steve Wright stated that anyone would fight against having a 20-foot wall
erected next to his or her property. He said whether it complies with City Code or
not, it is not right. He stated that this is not the way to treat a neighbor.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-04-02 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 September 4, 2002
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public
comment session.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp confirmed that the height of a house is measured from the
natural grade. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in this case the height of the house was
measured from the average grade at the front of the previously existing home. He
said that the new structure could be no higher than 25 feet above the mid-point of
the grade. He noted that this is the height of the building and not the height of the
dirt on the sides of the building. He said that at this point the City has no regulations
as to what can be done with the dirt on the side yards. Mr. Whittenberg also
reported that because the City does not have copies of the plans of the previously
existing house, the actual height measurements cannot be ascertained, nor can any
questions related to the grade of that home be answered.
Commissioner Ladner asked what the height is for the lot next door to the property in
question. Mr. Cummins stated that he did not have the information available. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the neighbors have indicated a difference in the grade of 2-4
feet.
Commissioner Shanks stated that lots in Seal Beach are being filled side to side with
3,000 square foot homes. He agreed that the height of this home is going to be an
encroachment to neighboring property owners, but if the neighbors chose to do the
same, as the Code currently stands, they could do so. He noted that the trend
toward converting single-story homes to larger two-story homes will continue. He
concurred that because the home in question is located along Gum Grove Park the
resulting wall will be very high, particularly on the side of the Carlson's home. He
stated that short of an Architectural Review Board to oversee every development on
the hill, he was not certain what could be done in this situation.
Commissioner Deaton stated that for most projects an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is required. She said that in this day and age when the very nature of the
community is being changed by the way homes are being constructed, there should
be some environmental review of how the new construction could affect existing
neighbors. She recommended installing a review vehicle that would reflect the
impacts of new construction upon surrounding properties. She stated although she
understands how Staff makes its determinations in relation to City Code, to totally
disregard these impacts leads to these types of problems. She emphasized that in
today's rapidly changing community there must be a method for making a more
thorough assessment of environmental impacts of new construction within the City.
Commissioner Deaton also expressed that she too was at a loss for an effective
solution.
Chairperson Hood pondered how the City could restrict specific architectural or
design features even though they conform to City Code or how ex post facto law
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-Q4-Q2 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 Minutes of September 4, 2002
could be applied. He also commented that he was not certain how to better address
this issue to the satisfaction of all parties concerned and inquired of Mr. 80ga as to
his input.
Mr. 80ga stated that he did not have an answer tonight. He said that the laws of the
future could be changed and he advised that perhaps the PC could direct that Staff
create specific prerequisites or a process for discretionary review for all future
projects. He noted that in terms of the project in question tonight, there is little or
nothing that can be done.
Commissioner Shanks advised looking into the falling over fence to avert its
eventual collapse onto either property.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the major issue of concern is the raising of the grade of
the property. He noted that as part of the Grading Ordinance process there will be
criteria established to require some discretionary approval for a grading permit when
either the grade level is proposed to change over a certain height, or a certain
amount of dirt is proposed to be moved either within the property or to be imported
onto the property. With regard to an Architectural Review Board, Mr. Whittenberg
pointed out the difficulties that sometimes arise as a result differences of opinion
related to design preferences. He then commented that he was not certain how to
go about managing the circulation of public notices for projects that have already
met all City requirements. The Director of Development Services explained that the
housing development in which he lives has an association that establishes design
guidelines. He stated that the 80ard also requires that residents desiring to add to
or remodel their homes provide opportunity for their surrounding neighbors to review
the plans. He noted that neighboring residents still have no authority to override
what the property owner proposes to do.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she has previously resided in a similar housing
development with similar requirements and noted that it is a nightmare. She
proposed that in the case of a major remodel or demolition for new construction in
Seal Beach that an EIR and/or a Negative Declaration (ND) be created and
circulated with public notice to neighboring residents to help make them aware of
any potential environmental impacts. She emphasized that this would allow
neighbors and residents the opportunity to have some input into changes that are
occurring within their neighborhoods.
Commissioner Sharp clarified the details of this process with the Director of
Development Services and confirmed how the PC should proceed in this case. Mr.
Whittenberg .provided some guidance as to how the PC might wish to approach
these tasks and any direction they might wish to provide to Staff.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Deaton to direct Staff to prepare a program
timeline with projections of Staff time involved to address the issues related to
grading policies, retaining walls, and environmental review of projects and
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09-04-02 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 September 4, 2002
thresholds for presentation as a Scheduled Matter at the October 23, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Deaton, Hood, ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that no public notice for this item would be circulated, as
the cost of citywide noticing would be prohibitive. He suggested publication of a
display ad in the Sun Newspaper to provide notice to the public.
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Deaton expressed her appreciation to Mac Cummins for taking the
time to meet with her and provide clarification on information related to current PC
Agenda items. She stated that she would like to be better informed regarding
accessory buildings and recommended that this item be agendized for further
discussion.
Commissioner Shanks requested a status report on the meetings for updating the
General Plan (GP) and creating a Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Mr. Whittenberg
reported that the consultants are currently preparing the individual elements of the
GP. He noted that the community meetings would probably not commence until the
beginning of 2003.
Chairperson Hood reported that he would be out of the country beginning
mid-December and would return on January 18. He renewed his inquiry about the
Lampson Avenue bicycle lane.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
RespectfUlly Submitted,
~~\\.~~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret~ry
Planning Department
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-04-G2 PC Mlnutes.doc
11
.~
3
4
.
.
APPROVAL
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002
The Commission on September 18, 2002 approved the ...Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, September 4, 2002. ~.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-D4-02 PC Mlnutes.doc
12