HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2002-09-18
'.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for September 18, 2002
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Deoartment of Develooment 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 MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All Droceedinas are recorded.
2
I.
.
.
City of Seal, Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for September 18, 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 September 4, 2002.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Western City Magazine Articles: "Balancing Housing and Growth
Pressures With Limited Resources: It's Time for Leadership," and "What Californians Think
About Growth and Development."
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Clarification of Ambiguity - Garage Structure Size
4. STUDY SESSION #3 - Retaining Walls
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
3
i.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of September 18, 2002
Oct 09
Oct 23
Nay 06
Nay 20
Dee 04
Dec 18
TO BE SCHEDULED:
Q
Q
Q
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Study Session:
2002 Aaenda Forecast
Grading Policies, Retaining Walls & Environmental Review of Projects
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
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
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of September 18, 2002
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 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: Department of Development Services
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09.18-02 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 18, 2002
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002.
2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Western City Magazine Articles: "Balancing Housing and
Growth Pressures With Limited Resources: It's Time for Leadership," and
"What Californians Think About Growth and Development."
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Clarification of Ambiguity - Garage Structure Size
Staff Reoort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated that as requested by the Planning Commission
(PC) at the September 4,2002 meeting, he would attempt to provide clarification as
to the definition of an accessory structure as it relates to garages. He indicated that
there is a provision in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zoning standards that
allows for accessory buildings or structures, including private garages, to
accommodate not more than three automobiles. He stated that this provision is
intended to limit the size of accessory or structures separate from the main structure
to a maximum 3-car capacity. He reviewed the definition for "Accessory" and
explained that Staff has always interpreted this to mean that an accessory structure
is a separate detached building. Mr. Cummins stated that there are provisions to
allow these accessory structures within the required setback areas subject to various
PC approvals. He noted that Commissioner Deaton's question was whether the City
should limit the overall size of a garage in general. He reviewed several
recommendations made by Staff on the best way to address this issue as follows:
1. Amend the definitions section of the City Code to define a garage use as an
accessory use within the zone itself.
2. Add language to require discretionary approval for any garage constructed on a
residential property to accommodate more than 3 vehicles.
3. Staff recommends that the PC require a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process for
these requests.
\\DA T AFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-1S.Q2 PC Mlnutes.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
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002
He reviewed the options available to the PC as listed on Page 3 of the Staff Report.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Shanks asked how the 4-car garage on Ocean Avenue noted on
Page 2 of the Staff Report would be categorized. Mr. Cummins stated that as Staff
currently interprets the Code, garages that are attached to the main structure on a
property can be constructed to accommodate as many cars as the homeowner
desires and are not subject to the provisions for accessory structures and garages.
He noted that this property was actually comprised of two lots combined into one.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Deaton recommended that the PC consider requiring approval via the
MPR or Variance (V AR) process for parking in excess of 3 cars on a property. She
stated that this requirement would provide the PC with the opportunity to review a
project before it is constructed, and would also allow for pubic notice to surrounding
properties. She recommended that these items be placed on the agenda under the
Consent Calendar minimizing Staff work and eliminating the need for a public
hearing, yet still provide a means for allowing residents to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar for further discussion. Commissioner Deaton then recommended
that the wording defining an accessory structure be revised to make clear whether it
means a free-standing structure or a part of the main structure or a part of the free-
standing structure.
Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification of the 3-car garage per lot provision
using the combined lots on Ocean Avenue as an example of whether this would be
considered one lot or two. Mr. Cummins clarified that what he had intended to state
was a 3-car garage per unit. Commissioner Deaton interjected that as she
understands, the lot line for the property on Ocean Avenue was redrawn to create
one lot, as it is illegal to build a structure over a property line. Mr. Cummins reported
that this was correct. Commissioner Sharp asked how the lot line was changed
without PC review. Mr. Cummins stated that lot line adjustments are handled
administratively through the Engineering Department. Commissioner Sharp stated
that for previous requests to create two lots out of three Old Town lots a subdivision
map had been required. Mr. Cummins explained that for division of one piece of
land into several lots a subdivision map is required, but to combine two lots into one,
a lot line adjustment is all that is required.
Commissioner Shanks clarified that what Commissioner Deaton was recommending
was to restrict the size of a garage or accessory structure to accommodate no more
than three automobiles. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that this was correct.
Commissioner Shanks noted that the only place where this has occurred in on "The
Hill." He inquired of the Associate Planner if there were other cases in Old Town.
Mr. Cummins confirmed that there are a number of these cases in Old Town.
Commissioner Shanks commented that he believes that having the PC review these
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-1S-02 PC Mlnutes.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 18, 2002
cases makes it awfully complicated and may appear like the PC is getting "awfully
picky" over something that does not occur that frequently.
Commissioner Ladner asked how the home on Ocean Avenue could have a 4-car
garage as opposed to a 3-car garage. Mr. Cummins explained that currently there is
no maximum on garage size as long as it is attached to the main structure on the lot.
Commissioner Sharp interjected that one of the biggest problems in the City of Seal
Beach is parking, and if someone wants to have a 4-car garage and take 4 cars off
the street, he believes the City should be happy about this. Commissioner Deaton
stated that she is in complete agreement with this, but she still feels that a review
process is necessary to help prevent as many problems as possible related to
density, retaining walls, and structure heights. She noted that this allows for a
process to redress a problem when there is one.
Chairperson Hood stated that the problem, as he sees it, is not the number of cars in
a garage, but the fact that a garage was whittled out of the earth and the earth
remained on the lot creating difficulties for the next door neighbors. He said that in
many ways, what is being discussed is underground garages. He noted that
historically the restriction on the size of detached garages was to prevent over-
building on any lot. He stated that the real issue is the grading and what happens to
the earth when it is dug out to make a 3 or 4 or 5-car underground garage. He
asked about whether a new grading policy is to be established to prevent this
occurring again. Mr. Cummins reported that the City Engineer is currently working
on a Grading Ordinance for review by the City Council to specifically address the
concerns that arose as a result of the new home up on The Hill.
Chairperson Hood asked if had the draft Grading Ordinance been in effect at the
time that this property was modified, would the neighbors on either side of the
property have experienced the same discomfort and inconvenience as they are
currently. Mr. Cummins stated that if the City approves an ordinance that requires a
discretionary permit for importation of dirt or creating a new grade above the natural
grade. that homeowner would need to acquire discretionary approval by the PC,
which would require notification to the surrounding neighbors. Chairperson Hood
asked how much could the grade be raised without having to come before the PC for
approval. Mr. Cummins stated that this was still being determined. He guessed it
might be one foot to eighteen inches, except for homes within a flood zone.
Commissioner Shanks interjected that half of the homes on The Hill are at least
one-half foot higher than the sidewalk level. Mr. Cummins stated that the ordinance
would be using the natural finished grade used when the homes were subdivided.
Commissioner Sharp stated that with the City's current financial difficulties, he does
not believe that this will be of great benefit but will create a lot of extra work for an
already overloaded Staff.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09.1S-D2 PC Mlnutes.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 18. 2002
Commissioner Deaton stated that with all due respect to the Chair, this was not a
grading issue. She emphasized that this was about a review process; about density;
about citizens having a say in their own government; about law suits. She inquired
of Mr. Boga if under Section 28-203 "accessory" means a building, part of a building
or structure, or use, which is subordinate to that of the main building. She noted that
she sees nothing in this text that indicates that this is a free-standing building. Mr.
Boga agreed that the definition of "accessory" is not clear and concurred that the
interpretation of this section of the Code is difficult, however, after careful review by
counsel's office, they are in agreement with Staffs reading of this definition. He
noted that when you take this definition combined with the other provisions of the
Code, this basically translates into a limitation of 3 cars applying only to detached
garages. Commissioner Deaton then noted that there is a section in the Code that
discusses clearing up any ambiguity, and she believes that at this time clarification
of the ambiguity should be provided and forwarded to City Council for their
determination.
MOTION by Deaton to direct Staff to provide clarification of Section 28-203 of the
City Code with a more clear definition of the word "accessory" and forward to City
Council for their determination.
Commissioner Shanks clarified that what Commissioner Deaton was requesting is
clarification of the definition of an accessory building. Commissioner Deaton stated
that what she wanted is a clarification of the definition of the word "accessory." She
noted the dictionary definition and stated that she wanted to make sure that there is
no ambiguity that could lead to possible litigation. She stated that she did not feel it
would create a lot of work for Staff to create a Consent Calendar item.
MOTION dies for lack of a Second.
4. STUDY SESSION #3 - Retaining Walls
Commissioner Sharp asked if the Engineering Department is working on an
ordinance to present to City Council, what input would the PC have regarding
retaining walls. Mr. Cummins explained that the Zoning Code would have to be
amended to address what the maximum height for retaining walls would be. He
stated that the Engineering Department is not involved in this, but is working on a
grading ordinance regarding importing dirt onto a property. Commissioner Sharp
commented that in his opinion, the grading and retaining wall issues should be
addressed together.
Commissioner Shanks stated that he had read the minutes from the study sessions
on retaining walls held approximately two years ago. He inquired as to what had
come about as a result. Mr. Cummins explained that a study session on this issue
had taken place in November 2000 and had subsequently taken a back seat to
issues related to finalizing the Bixby Project and other higher priority projects.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-1S-02 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 18, 2002
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 the study
session of November 2000 and explained that one of the main issues related to
retaining walls resulted from the illegally constructed decks along Crestview Avenue
for homes whose back yards overlook Gum Grove Park. He noted that there is a
huge grade differential between the park and the rear of the properties abutting the
park. He said that currently the way the Code reads, a retaining wall could be
constructed and filled in with dirt leaving a view from the Gum Grove side of a
massive block wall. Mr. Cummins also reported that there are several stub streets
that run from Ocean Avenue to the beach with fairly substantial grades. He stated
that the PC had directed Staff to create a report on retaining walls currently existing
in the City and at that time had determined that they did not want to see walls higher
than 10 feet. He pointed out that currently the Code deals only with fence height but
there is nothing that specifically addresses the height of retaining walls. He
explained that Staff had researched many building code definitions, public
works/engineering definitions, and standard practices for retaining walls, and all of
them referred mainly to structural load and what a retaining wall will hold. He said
there is really nothing that provides a good definition of height of overall wall. The
Associate Planner then proceeded to present several photographs of retaining walls
found throughout the City and noted the individual features of each wall design. He
explained that for the stub streets along Ocean Avenue, the PC had determined that
it would be appropriate to have landscaped buffers installed along these streets
rather than solid block walls. He interjected that Staff is recommending that the
buffers not extend into the rear 96 feet of the property, which is the portion of the
property down at the beach level.
Mr. Cummins continued by stating that for the properties along Gum Grove Park, the
PC had recommended a maximum height of 6 feet for retaining walls with a
minimum 3-foot terrace in between each 6-foot section of retaining wall. He
explained that this would allow property owners to have more usable recreation area
in the rear of their properties without creating the massive block wall look. He
emphasized that there is no other place in the City with such a large grade
differential as the homes along Crestview Avenue. The Associate Planner then
reported that for the front setback area Staff had recommended retaining walls with
a maximum height of 30 inches to be permitted by right. Any wall greater than 30
inches would require a Minor Plan Review (MPR) to come before the PC. He stated
that for homes with a grade differential from street level to house level, they could
terrace 30-inch retaining walls with landscaped buffers in between up to the natural
grade. He noted that if the resident preferred to have a straight up and down
retaining wall, this would require a MPR. The Associate Planner reported that for
side yard setbacks, the recommended height is 30 inches by right, and more than 30
inches up to a maximum of 4 feet would require a MPR. He noted that a maximum
6-foot fence could be constructed above the retaining walls.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Cannen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09.1S.02 PC Mlnutes.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 1 B, 2002
The Associate Planner then discussed the issue of guardrails noting that there are
Building Code provisions that require guard rails whenever one property is elevated
higher than a neighboring property. This would prevent people using the yard areas
from falling off onto the lower elevation. Staff had recommended that guardrails be
required for retaining walls taller than 30 inches. He continued by stating that Staff
recommends that for those areas of town where Code allows, the maximum height
for any combination of a fence and retaining wall should be 10 feet, and this would
apply primarily to those homes where a retaining wall is needed to retain dirt. He
then reported that it had been recommended that any existing retaining walls be
grandfathered in as the City cannot retroactively demand that existing walls be
revised to meet the new standard.
Mr. Cummins then stated that Staff is requesting direction on the following:
1. Is the standard for a 30-inch retaining wall, by right, acceptable to the PC?
2. Is it appropriate to have the 3 different areas in town addressed separately in the
Code?
3. Does the PC like the concept of terracing as described in the Staff Report?
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Ladner questioned the dimensions for a retaining wall/fence
combination as listed on Page 5 of the Staff Report and asked if it was correct to
state that this would allow for a 12-foot high fence. Mr. Cummins stated that the
fence cannot be taller than 6 feet, and in combination with a 4-foot retaining wall
would reach a height of 10 feet.
Commissioner Sharp commented that for the homes along Crestview Avenue
overlooking Gum Grove Park there is a rear easement area. Mr. Cummins reported
that there is an easement on the Hellman side of the property line where power lines
are located.
Commissioner Shanks stated that he has no problem with a 6-foot retaining wall and
other than a small area where there is a steep incline, there would be little reason to
build a wall higher than 6 feet. He noted that terracing the retaining walls along this
rear incline would look nice, but would provide the property owner with little extra
space. He commented that there are other areas on the hill other than Crestview
with steep inclines where terracing of retaining walls would also be warranted.
Commissioner Shanks also cautioned that the PC should consider the pending
development of Gum Grove Park and what changes to the landscape this might
produce. He commented that he did not consider the view from Gum Grove Park of
the homes above to be a priority for the homeowners along Crestview. He said that
he agrees with the 30-inch height for retaining walls. He inquired as to what the
previous provisions had been. Mr. Cummins reported that currently the Building
Code only defines retaining walls as those walls larger than 2 feet ret~ining earth.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09.18.Q2 PC Mlnutes.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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002
Commissioner Deaton commended Staff for the work completed on the Staff Report
and asked who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping on the stub
streets along Ocean Avenue. Mr. Cummins stated that assuming the landscaping is
on private property, it would be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the
landscaping.
Commissioner Shanks asked if there were any stub streets that have not been
walled up to a certain height. Mr. Cummins stated that he believed they are all
walled.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to direct Staff to draft a Zone Text
Amendment for Retaining Walls to include the following provisions:
1. A 30-inch retaining wall will be permissible, by right.
2. Establish different provisions for The Hill, The Gold Coast, and Old Town to
coincide with the grade levels within each area of town.
3. Incorporate the provision of terracing retaining walls on steep grades.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Cummins apologized to Chairperson Hood as Staff has not yet provided a report
on the bike lane along Lampson and Basswood.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Sharp asked about the construction activity along Seal Beach
Boulevard (SBB) south of Westminster Avenue. Mr. Cummins reported that
sidewalks are being constructed from Bolsa Avenue north to the John Laing Homes
site. He noted that infrastructure improvements to the street are also being
completed. Commissioner Sharp then inquired about whether any work is
scheduled to begin on the 1-405 Freeway overcrossing along SBB. Mr. Cummins
stated that construction plans are on hold pending the outcome of the proposed
widening of the 22 Freeway.
\\DA T AFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-1S.Q2 PC Mlnutes.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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002
Commissioner Deaton requested a brief history of Gum Grove Park. Commissioner
Shanks stated that he would be happy to provide this information to Commissioner
Deaton.
Commissioner Shanks inquired regarding the construction activity along Marina
Drive and Fifth Street. Mr. Cummins stated that he was not certain about what the
project entailed.
Chairperson Hood asked if the Seal Beach Historical Society is planning on
providing a publication on the history of Seal Beach. Commissioner Shanks
reported that other than the one already in print, there are no immediate plans for
another printing. He indicated that enrollment in the society has decreased making it
difficult to adequately address many projects.
Chairperson Hood again requested that he be provided information on the bike lanes
along Lampson Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on October 9, 2002, approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, September 18, 2002. ~
Z:\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\09-18-02 PC Minutes.doc 9