HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2003-06-04
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for June 4, 2003
7:30 p.m.
DIstrict 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - David Hood
Distnct 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
l:l
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.
l:l
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.
l:l
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
l:l
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
l:l Copies of staff reports and/or wntten materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspectIon.
1
.
.
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssion · Agenda of June 4, 2003
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 Droceedinas are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for June 4,2003
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
" 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 Planmng Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003
2 Minor Plan Review 03-7
24 Cottonwood Lane
AppllcanUOwner
Request
Joe & Antonio DeBernardo/L1NC Housing LLC
To construct a 2-story mobile home within the trailer park located off of
First St The applicant proposes to bUild a 2-story modular umt
Recommendation
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-18
3 Minor Plan Review 03-9
42 Rlversea Road
AppllcanUOwner
Request
Frank BoychucklLlNC Housing LLC
To construct a 2-story mobile home within the trailer park located off of
First St The applicant proposes to bUild a 2-story cabana where an
eXisting traIler IS located The overall height of the proposed structure
WIll be less than 25 feet
Recommendation
Approval subject to conditIons and adoption of Resolution 03-22
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of June 4. 2003
VI SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII PUBLIC HEARINGS
4 Review of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan
Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
Apphcant/Owner
Request
Recommendation
VIII STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X ADJOURNMENT
Boeing Realty Corporation
Amend the Land Use, Open Space/Recreation/Conservation, Housing,
and Circulation Elements of the General Plan, adopt the Boeing
Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan, amend the ZOning
Map, and adopt a Precise Plan to accommodate the proposed land uses
descrrbed In the Staff Report, and approve a vesting tentative tract map
The BIDS Specific Plan proposes a mixed-use business park on 107
acres consisting of a varrety of commercial/retail, hotel, restaurant, and
business park uses
Recommend approval of subject requests to City Council With any
amendments determined approprrate and adoption of Resolutions 03-25.
03-26,03-27, and 03-28 (Continued from May 21,2003 )
4
.
.
.
June 18
July9
July 23
Aug6
Aug 20
Sept 3
Sept 17
Oct 8
Oct 22
NavS
Nav 19
Dee 3
Dee 17
TO BE SCHEDULED:
[J Study SessIon
[J Staff Report
[J Study Session
[J Study Session
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommissIon · Agenda of June 4, 2003
2003 Aaenda Forecast
Minor Plan Review 03-10 - 48 Rlversea Road
Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergroundlng of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
Parking Issues In Old Town
S
~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of June 4, 2003
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4,2003 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: DeDartment of DeveloDment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Absent: None.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg noted that Item No.3, Minor Plan RevIew 03-9 for 42 Riversea Road is
to be continued to the next scheduled meeting of June 18, 2003, and must be re-noticed
due to Staff error In not properly noticing this item.
Commissioner Deaton requested that Item No.2, Minor Plan Review 03-7 be removed
from the Consent Calendar for further discussion
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting
1
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff received a letter regarding Minor Plan Review 03-9,
which was continued to the meeting of June 18, 2003. He indicated that this letter
would be included as part of the June 18 Staff Report and would be on the record at
that point In time.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2003.
3. Minor Plan Review 03-9
42 Riversea Road
Applicant/Owner.
Request:
Frank Boychuck/L1NC Housing LLC
To construct a 2-story mobile home within the trailer park
located off of First St. The applicant proposes to build a
2-story cabana where an existing trailer is located. The
overall height of the proposed structure will be less than 25
feet.
Recommendation:
Continue to June 18, 2003.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
2. Minor Plan Review 03-7
24 Cottonwood Lane
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Joe & Antonio DeBernardo/L1NC Housing LLC
To construct a 2-story mobile home within the trailer park
located off of First St The applicant proposes to build a 2-
story modular unit.
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
03-18.
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated that City Code does allow for construction of this type
of 2-story cabana with submission of an application for a Minor Plan Review (MPR) to
be approved by the Planning Commission (PC) before the project can proceed to final
building permit review, California Coastal Commission (CCC) review, and building
permit issuance. He indicated that within the Seal Beach Trailer Park (SBTP) there are
Identified trailer space lease lines that define the lease area for each separate unit
within the trailer park, and by provisions of Title 25 of the State Administrative Code
there are required setbacks from those trailer space lease lines to locate new mobile
homes, modular homes, or manufactured homes within a trailer park. The setbacks are
3 feet on each side, and the structure can be located immediately adjacent to a lease
line that fronts a roadway, and there is also a setback off the rear of the unit. He said
that if a structure meets these requirements it may be approved with the condition that a
survey must be completed to set one of the side lease lines so that Staff knows where
the measurements begin, as these lines have not been identified. He stated that other
than this the conditions are standard with regard to sprinkler systems, height of the
structure, etc., which are all in compliance with standard provisions of the City.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked why after her being on the PC for a year all of a sudden
the City IS receiving so many of this type of application. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this
is probably due to the Redevelopment Agency's (RA) housing assistance program for
low/moderate income housing units within the City that are also applicable to projects in
the trailer park. He said that he knows for a fact that two of them are anticipating
receiving financial assistance from the City to undertake the work, and other than this
he is not aware of any other changes that might contribute to the increase in
applications. Commissioner Deaton asked for an explanation of "equal protection under
the law," with the trailers being 20 feet apart. Mr. Whittenberg explained that City Code
states that if someone goes through the PC and get approval for a 2-story cabana any
other 2-story cabana must be located at least 20 feet away from the approved cabana.
He noted that sometimes this will totally eliminate the possibility of being able to locate a
2-story cabana on an adjoining property and sometimes it does not. He indicated that
there are properties on the trailer park where some of the spaces are long enough to
allow having the 2-story cabana at the front of their trailer and the adjoining property can
have it at the back of their trailer and still have the 20-foot separation. He said that
where the problem arises is in the area of the trailer park referred to as "the greenbelt,"
which comprises the trailer spaces along the interior trailer park roadway system. He
stated that as part of the process of going through the housing assistance program in
order to assist people in improving the quality of their living environment on these small
spaces, Staff has gone to City Council (CC) for direction in amending the Code to
eliminate the 20-foot separation standard for those trailers within the greenbelt area and
for two other trailer spaces at the north side of the park that are not in the greenbelt, but
are very small. He said that Staff is beginning to initiate the public hearing process
3
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2003
because this requirement is part of the Zoning Ordinance and eventually a public
hearing before the PC will take place to determine whether to amend the Zoning Code
to reflect this change. After this It would go before CC for approval and adoption. He
explained that once this process is complete the separation requirement would no
longer apply to those trailers that are included in this program. He cautioned that he
could not guarantee to anyone that this ordinance change would be adopted, but Staff
does have very clear direction from CC to proceed in this matter.
Commissioner Deaton posed the example of her having a mobile home space and the
person next to her having one. She asked what would happen if the other person
qualified for assistance and she does not, and her neighbor is able to construct a
cabana with public funds, while she is still saving her money to be able to do so. Would
this create a problem for the City as far as any liability for improving one person's
property and not another? Mr. Abbe stated that the fact that one person putting up a
cabana affects another person's ability to do so, in and of itself does not necessarily
raise a legal problem. He noted that it is very common that someone will do something
to his or her property that has an impact upon someone else's property, but this does
not necessarily mean that there has been a violation of equal protection. He cited the
case of a hotel constructing a wall that blocked the view of a neighboring hotel and the
hotel not able to recover losses because of this. He said that whether legislatively the
City decides that they want to change this is up to the City's discretion. Commissioner
Deaton stated that she is more concerned about giving public assistance to help one
homeowner over another. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that by State law, the RA is
required to use a certain amount of it redevelopment funds to assist low to moderate-
income housing. He explained that with this program some of these individuals can
qualify based upon income levels and number In the household and the City does have
responsibility to assist people within this income category. Commissioner Deaton
stated that with the funds given to those individuals who qualify, they could construct a
cabana that could prevent the person that lives next door, who cannot qualify for RA
funds, from constructing a cabana. Mr. Whittenberg stated that person could not have
qualified to begin with if they did not meet the income criteria. Commissioner Deaton
stated that this seems to be preferential treatment. Mr. Abbe stated that with the
provIsion of funds to low-income individuals, by definition you are treating people
differently, however, there is a well-established line of cases upholding such treatment.
Commissioner Sharp stated that as he recalled, when this law was passed regarding
the distance between the cabanas, it was strictly to minimize potential fire hazards. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that he was not employed with the City when this ordinance was
passed. He said that within the cabana standards there is also a provision that these
structures have to be sprinklered in accordance with the Fire Authority Standards. He
stated that this may be part of the concern, but he believes there are also issues of two-
story structures being very close together, similar to what is seen in Surfside Colony.
Commissioner Shanks reported that he had received two telephone calls in favor of
MPR 03-7.
4
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Chairperson Hood stated that there is one agency or one set of criteria that approve the
assistance and when the PC approves a building they are not concerned with who pays
for it, but are simply looking at the building itself. Commissioner Deaton stated that she
was concerned with the City as a whole being liable. Chairperson Hood stated that the
PC has approved several of these types of structures in the past and he noted that 3 of
these approvals are mentioned on Page 3 of the Staff Report. He asked if by approving
these applications the PC has granted special privilege. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
this would depend upon what each individual Commissioner defines as special
privilege. He said that by Code people are allowed to submit this type of an application
and if it meets the criteria the PC generally has approved them. He reiterated that It IS
really not an issue of privilege, but an issue of someone applying under the current
allowable guidelines of the City. Chairperson Hood asked if the PC were to deny an
application essentially the same as one that the PC had previously approved, would the
Commission be acting in a prejudicial or capricious manner. Mr. Abbe stated that the
important point to note is that as a PC the deCisions are by definition discretionary. He
said that the PC is deciding what is appropriate for a particular area or parcel, what is
compatible with other uses in the area, and by definition no two plots of land are exactly
the same, so while to some it might appear inequitable to grant something in one case
an deny it in another, as long as the PC makes specific findings as to why it may be
compatible or incompatible, there should be no legal concerns. Chairperson Hood
presented the example of an applicant being extremely popular and everyone
supporting his application, while another applicant might not be as popular and
everyone would oppose that application, but the two applications are essentially
identical. He said that it would appear that both applications would have to be treated in
the same way, unless the PC was being capricious. Mr. Abbe stated that this would
depend upon the findings as listed in the resolutions. He noted that if the cases are
identical and the PC cannot make findings that one is compatible and another IS not,
then the PC would be unable to render different decisions.
Commissioner Sharp stated that at one time the trailer park was under the control of the
State and the City was limited to what it could do on this property. He asked the
Director of Development Services if this were still the case. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
this is still the case. He explained that the basic installation standards for new trailers or
manufactured homes in the trailer park and how far those units have to be away from
the trailer space lines and the roadways are defined by State law and the City cannot
change, amend, or vary from those standards. The State has given the City the special
discretion to consider 2-story cabana structures and to develop its own standards for
under what process, standards, and criteria a second story can be developed on a unit
in the trailer park. He noted that even then the City could not allow the 2-story cabana
portion to extend into the setbacks required in Title 25 of the State Code.
Commissioner Shanks stated that there has been some question regarding an existing
trailer being located within the proper property line. He indicated that if the PC
approves this application one of the requirements would be that this location must be re-
surveyed. He said that this well help clarify any questions before issuance of building
permits. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff wishes to add one more condition to the
5
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Minutes of June 4, 2003
proposed draft resolution to indicate that a survey is required for one of the interior lot
lines. He said the survey is not needed for both lot lines, because once one line is
defined the measurement can be taken to find out where the second one should be.
Commissioner Deaton asked how an architectural review would be different from the
usual form or review of applications. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the architectural
review is needed to ensure that the proposed structure complies with the guidelines of
the section of the Code that allows 2-story cabanas, which has provisions that limit the
height of windows. He noted that this allows the PC to state whether they agree with
the proposed exterior treatment of the structure, rooflines, etc. He said that in his
experience the PC has never gone to that level of detail, but it does provide that
discretion If the PC feels it is appropriate.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Williams spoke in favor of this application. He explained that in 1993 the
20-foot distance between structures was required for fire safety to allow passage by fire
vehicles, and for aesthetics and to allow for light and circulation of air. He indicated that
since then Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD) has measured the streets to ensure
that there was sufficient distance. He reported that the streets are 25-35 feet wide. He
noted that on Dolphin Avenue and in Surfside there can be anywhere from 11-13 feet of
street between parked cars. He indicated that the applicant is paying for this
improvement and had previously purchased a 2-story mobile home, which she intended
to move to the trailer park, but was not able to do so as CC advised that she wait until
the change in ownership of the park was resolved. He noted that it took 10 months and
the hiring of an attorney in order to get her money refunded and she consequently was
unable to invest this money in an interest bearing account during that time. He
explained that the applicant needs the space to care for her ailing husband and is willing
to comply with all City requirements. He stated that he would also be at her disposal to
assist with meeting any requirements.
Mr. Frank Boychuck also spoke in favor of this application. He stated that he was on
the board during the purchase of the trailer park by L1NC Housing. He said that he
believed Mrs. DeBernardo had suffered some prejudices when she had first attempted
to complete this project due to her association With Mr. Richard Hall. He said that the
park has been in place since 1933 and is a wonderful place to live. He noted that in
spite of some of the conflicts among the residents, they are like family to one another.
Ms. Penny Peddicord, a resident of the trailer park, also spoke in favor of thiS
application. She stated that the DeBernardo's current home is very small and they do
not have a front or back yard or a garage, and need additional room. She encouraged
approval of this application. She noted that there are already 12 two-story cabanas on
Cottonwood Lane.
6
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Ms. Rita Brenner spoke in favor of this application. She indicated that the DeBernardos
are very nice people and the type of people that the trailer park needs, as they are
helping to change the atmosphere in the trailer park. She stated that Mrs. DeBernardo
had previously been unnecessarily prejudiced, harassed, and in general treated very
badly. She encouraged approval of this request.
Ms. Kathy DeBernardo, daughter-in-law of the applicant, stated that this process has
gone on so long, and all the family wants to do is provide a more comfortable living
environment for her father-in-law who had cancer and now suffers from Alzheimer's
Disease. She requested approval of this application.
Mr. Bob Latta spoke in favor of this request. He said that the building behind him was
approved by the PC quite a while ago, and the cement for that project was poured two
feet from the property line, so when he constructed his unit he had to compensate by
leaving a 6-foot setback from their existing structure, losing two feet from his lot. He
recommended that the survey be made from both lot lines to prevent this situation
happening again. He said he would like to see the City require that the 2-story cabanas
be inhabited by the homeowners only and not be permitted to be sub-leased as rentals.
Ms. Renee Ruchon spoke in favor of the DeBernardos. She said that she does not
believe that anyone was trying to prevent them from haVing their home moved to the
park, but there were other issues going on at that time that created the delay and
inconvenience for the DeBernardo project. She said she thinks it is wonderful that
anyone wanting to build a 2-story cabana is able to do so, whether they are assisted by
public funds or not. Ms. Ruchon recommended approval and stated that she hoped that
other applicants for this same type of project would receive the same conSideration.
She thanked Staff and stated that the City has been wonderfully supportive to all of the
residents of the trailer park.
Ms. Patricia Clark also spoke in favor of this project. She noted that another reason
Mrs. DeBernardo was not able to bring in the 2-story cabana she had purchased was
because it was more than 2 feet over the City height limit. She recommended approval
of Minor Plan Review 03-7.
Mr. Mike Berry spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he lives next door to the
DeBernardo's and was on the board that helped accommodate the purchase of the
trailer park by LI NC Housing. He said that when the DeBernardo's were prepared to
bnng their home into the park the board was prepared to welcome this as they all
thought the application would be approved. He stated that the members of the board
were surprised at the denial of the application. He said that building a 2-story cabana
now will actually take up more space on the lot than the initial 2-story house and he has
no problem with that. He indicated that based upon the City's measurements the
DeBernardo's lot measures 25 feet 6 inches and the DeBernardos have constructed two
fences at the rear of the property and from fence post to fence post it measures 26 feet
4 Inches. He said that he is not stating that the fence should be taken down, he simply
wants to register this information to ensure that when the 2-story cabana is installed that
7
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
there are no other liberties taken. He stated that he would like to officially extend his
welcome to the DeBernardos to the trailer park.
Mrs. Maria DeBernardo stated that three years ago she had attended 4 PC meetings
regarding installing her 2-story home in the trailer park and most of the people at these
meetings were against her. She said that she proceeded to buy a small trailer and paid
rent in the park for over 8 months and had $50,000 locked in escrow without interest.
She said that she had lived for 5 years in Oakwood Apartments and breached her lease
because she was told that on May 1, 1999, she could move into her new home. She
indicated that she had paid $1,600 for 3 months penalty for breaking the lease and went
to month-to-month rent, which was then increased to $180. She stated that she then
had to wait for 3 years from February 26, 2000, because she had to prove to the trailer
park residents that she was not a spy for Mr. Richard Hall. She said she and her
husband are decent people and she needs the space as he now requires 24-hour care
and this will allow family members to come and stay with her to help with her husband's
care. She encouraged the PC to approve her application.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Deaton stated that if everyone were in favor she would like to make a
motion to approve.
Mr. Whittenberg read the proposed language for the amended Condition No. 7 of
Resolution 03-18 as follows:
'7he applicant shall have a survey completed which locates one of the
interior trailer lot line boundaries on location of the existing trailer. The
survey shall be submitted to the City for review before any building permits
shall be obtained. II
Commissioner Deaton asked if the cost were much more to survey both lot lines. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that it is. He said that there is no problem in knowing where the
front and rear lot lines are, but the issue is how far the unit can be from the Side lot
lines. He indicated that in speaking with the City Building Inspectors they are
comfortable with having only one lot line surveyed as they can easily measure the 25.5
feet from that marker.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to approve Minor Plan Review 03-7, subject
to conditions, and adopt Resolution 03-18 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
8
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03-18 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Review of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan
Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Boeing Realty Corporation
Amend the Land Use, Open Space/Recreation/
Conservation, Housing, and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan, adopt the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
(BIDS) Specific Plan, amend the Zoning Map, and adopt a
Precise Plan to accommodate the proposed land uses
described in the Staff Report, and approve a vesting
tentative tract map. The BIDS Specific Plan proposes a
mixed-use business park on 107 acres consisting of a
variety of commercial/retail, hotel, restaurant, and business
park uses.
Recommendation:
Recommend approval of subject requests to City Council
with any amendments determined appropriate and adoption
of Resolutions 03-25, 03-26, 03-27, and 03-28. (Continued
from May 21,2003.)
Staff ReDort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He began by reviewing the schedule of approvals the PC was to
look at. He explained that at the last meeting the PC had reviewed the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and found it to be adequate as written, and tonight
the PC will review the project itself and make recommendations to the City Council (CC)
as to whether the project should be approved. He said he would begin with a
discussion of the General Plan Amendments (GPA) and proposed zone changes, which
in this case would Involve the adoption of a Specific Plan (SP). He Indicated that Staff
continues to recommend that public testimony be taken on those items first before
moving on to discussion of the proposed tract map and Precise Plan (PP) approvals,
which would happen subsequent to the GPAs and zone changes being approved.
9
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Using an aerial photo of the project site, Mr. Cummins provided a brief review of the
project and the four Planning Areas. He described Planning Area 1 (PA1) as the 40-
acre core Boeing campus where the existing Boeing buildings are located. He said the
proposal IS that this area remains as it is today. He stated that the 16-acre Planning
Area 2 (PA2) located to the immediate west of the core campus area contains some
eXisting facilities and currently Boeing is uncertain as to whether these will be
demolished and this is why PA2 is designated as a separate planning area. He then
referred to PA3 located on the far western edge of the property, which is proposed for
development in the first phase. He said that there are currently 3 man-made drainage
ditches in PA3, the two southernmost of which are proposed to be retained for water
quality purposes, with the northernmost ditch to be filled in. He described PA4 as a
small 5-acre plot on the far northeast corner of the project site, which is proposed to
accommodate a 120-room hotel and ancillary retail land uses. He said that the specific
plan stipulates that these uses be reviewed 18-months after adoption of the speCific
plan to determine whether the market supports these land uses. If not, the applicant
proposes to have PA4 revert to light industrial business park uses similar to PA2 and
PA3. He then noted the approximate square footage for the respective planning areas
as follows:
PA1
PA2
1,000,000 sq. ft.
345,000 sq. ft
PA3
PA4
628,000 sq. ft.
30,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Cummins noted that if PA2 were to revert to light industrial as the project is currently
proposed, this square footage would be added into PA1.
The Associate Planner then stated that the first thing that the PC is being asked to look
at IS the potential amendments to the City's General Plan (GP). He described the seven
specifiC elements of the GP and indicated that Staff is asking that the PC look at the
amendments to the GP because several elements in the GP acknowledge the Boeing
site as the Rockwell Facility in some cases and as the Boeing Facility in others. He said
that if the Boeing Project were approved, it would be referenced within the GP as the
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan.
Mr. Cummins explained that the GP is a legislative act as compared to tract maps, as
there is far more discretion for both the PC and CC in determining what is or is not in
the public interest In deciding whether or not to allow these types of changes in the GP
Land Use, Circulation, and Open Space Elements. He said that If the BIDS Specific
Plan were to be adopted, it would be necessary to adjust the number of tables that
acknowledge undeveloped land or certain types of land uses by acre. He noted that in
the Land Use Element the table of land uses by acre would have to identify the Boeing
property as the Boeing Specific Plan Area with minor changes to the text to make It
consistent with the other elements of the GP. He indicated that the Open
Space/Recreation/Conservation Element would call out a little over 4.5 acres on the
western edge of the property for water quality purposes. He noted that on this end of
the property there are a few lettered lots proposed for use as water quality retention
basin areas. He then reported that the Housing Element contains language that calls
10
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
for the PC to hold public hearings relating to the potentIal for development of low- and
moderate-income housing on the site. He indicated that the draft resolutions contain
language reviewed by the City Attorney's office stating that the potential for this land
use was considered at a public hearing in 2003, a.k.a., this hearing process, and was
ultimately determined not to be the best land use for this site for a number of reasons,
which are outlined in the draft resolution. Mr. Cummins stated that the Circulation
Element will have to be amended to add a new internal street, Apollo Drive, which will
transverse the site from Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) to Westminster Avenue and is
proposed to be defined within the GP as a "collector street," which by definition has a
60-foot right-of-way. He also noted that the GP map still shows a future roadway
extension from First Street to Westminster Avenue across the far western end of the
Hellman Property and the Boeing Property, for which the City abandoned the right-of-
way several years ago, so this would be a "clean-up" item only.
The Associate Planner then referred to the Specific Plan (SP), which appears in the
FEIR Appendices Volume II and noted that there are a number of sections to the plan.
He explained that the SP lists the allowable land uses and those uses that would
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Variance (VAR) , or a business license, etc.,
public facilities, design architectural guidelines, development regulatIons, and
procedural issues. Mr. Cummins stated that the allowable land uses are principally all
of the land uses currently allowed within the existing Light Industrial (M-1) Zone. He
indicated that the new SP would allow for some point-of-sale types of land uses such as
a manufacturer selling product from the manufacturing site. He stated that self-storage
would be allowed on one particular lot, which he would point out when reviewing the
tract map. He noted that this lot would be accessible only from Adolfo Lopez Drive. He
referenced to Table 5-1 on Page 5-5 of the SP which lists the allowable land uses by
right and by CUP. With regard to the Circulation Element he explained that the project
would have access points from both SBB and Westminster Avenue and the current
proposal is to have two cul-de-sac public streets, with the potential to have Apollo Drive
cut all the way through from SBB to Westminster Avenue. He noted that Apollo Drive is
proposed to be a 60-foot right-of-way with sidewalk on both sides of the street and all
the way around the cul-de-sacs, no on-street parking, and some space for a parkway
between the back of the sidewalk and the actual property lines of the individual lots. He
stated that the water piping is to be located in the public right-of-way as would the sewer
system, and there are provisions in the SP that deal specifically with water quality.
Mr. Cummins then referred to the design and architectural guidelines and explained that
if the City were to take in a plan under the proposed SP, Staff would look at grading,
drainage, types, size, and locations of walls; parking facilities, landscaping guidelines,
architecture, coordinating design of building facades, neutral color scheme, parking
areas, lighting, and signage. The Associate Planner then proceeded to discuss the
development regulations, which have to do with land uses, building guidelines, and
zoning requirements. He continued with the procedural process and stated that
currently the SP calls for PP approvals, which are similar to what the PC looked at
dUring the Site Plan Review process for the Bixby Project. He noted that when Staff
takes in a PP, they must ensure that it is consistent with all of the provisions in the SP,
11
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
and if the PP is consistent, this would be a Staff level approval. He indicated that the
applicant is proposing that if all of the PPs submitted are substantially in conformance
with the SP as proposed, the Director of Development Services or a designee would
make that approval. He noted that traditionally the City has made this a PC function.
He indicated that some minor adjustments are proposed to be handled at the Staff level
such as no more than 10% reduction in a building setback or in the number of required
parking spaces, etc. He stated that height vanation types of things are also proposed
for Staff level approval for architectural screening reasons, provided they are no taller
than 7 feet above the height limit and are non-habitable. He noted that historically these
types of things have had to go through the Height Variation public hearing process
before the PC. He explained that the applicant proposes some changes to the SP as
follows:
~ Change the name to Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Project
~ The illustrative map within the SP should be changed to reflect the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) as is currently proposed.
~ Parking requirement to be changed for the self-storage uses and medical
facilities should be allowed as an allowable land use.
~ Change some of the language in the SP in the section on public financing as it
relates to a community facilities district.
Mr. Cummins then noted that Staff recommends that the PC recommend to CC that
these changes would be appropriate except for the last item, and also recommends that
the original language remain as it appears in the SP for the last item. The Associate
Planner then recommended that the PC now take public testimony and questions from
the Commission.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Shanks stated that allowing these decisions to be made at the Staff level
without having to come before the PC is probably not a wise move as it puts Staff on the
spot if the public is not happy with the decisions made. He noted that one of the
reasons for having a PC is to provide the opportunity for the community to be made
aware of new development and other projects in the area. He asked whose idea this
was? Mr. Cummins stated that it was originally an applicant request. Commissioner
Shanks commented that although the Boeing team might want to speed things up, this
is not necessarily what the City wants. He noted that the SP states that should Boeing
not be happy with a Staff decision, they could appeal to the PC. He then stated that he
is concerned With the fact that the SP does not state at the present what the final day for
SP approval would be. Would this be when the PC, CC, or the CCC approves It? He
said that it would seem to him that most of the effort on the part of Boeing would be
spent in preparing the property in PA3 for sale. He stated that he knows that this is how
Boeing handled the property in Huntington Beach, but he doesn't recall seeing a hotel at
12
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
that location. He noted that the SP lists PA4 as having all the same business park uses
as PA 1, PA2, and PA3 do. He said this makes it look as though one of the major efforts
to attempt to get sales tax for the City was to push for a hotel or retail. He said that he
would like to see possible integration of PA4 with PA 1 conditioned to be evaluated 36
months after approval from the CCC.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Alan DeFrancis, a representative of the realty company for The Boeing Company,
stated that before making a presentation he Wished to thank the PC for their
consideration and he wanted to share the Boeing model of development and the
thought process behind creating a project that Boeing feels works well not only within
the City and the community but also with Boeing's operations. He explained that his
role within the company is to help the business units monetize surplus real estate. He
said that as a fiduciary to the stockholders, if Boeing has assets that are not producing,
they must be turned into aerospace-type assets. He noted that in this situation Boeing
has surplus land throughout Southern California, in Washington State, and throughout
the country, and is doing this to attempt to right size their facilities to make the company
more competitive in the workplace. He stated that Boeing is not your traditional
developer, but is currently the largest private employer within the City and one of the
largest contributors to recurring annual revenues. He emphasized that although Boeing
is looking to sell this surplus real estate, the company itself plans to stay here in Seal
Beach. He stated that this is why it is important not only to Boeing but to the City that
the project is something that is compatible with the existing Boeing use as well as the
needs of the community. He noted that throughout the presentation, some of the areas
that they are asking the PC to consider are related specifically to how Boeing does
business. He said that when Boeing looks at a project, first and foremost, they must
ensure that operations are not affected. He explained that BIDS is the military and
space side of The Boeing Company and everything that takes place at the Seal Beach
campus has some level of a secure nature and they must be sensitive to that. He said
that other issues relate to operational issues to ensure that this site is operationally as
efficient, if not more efficient than any of the others so that they can continue to do
business here. He noted that when Boeing must surplus real estate, they want to leave
a legacy in creating something that is compatible for everyone concerned and brings
new jobs to the City as well as additional recurring revenue. Mr. DeFrancis then
introduced Mr. Clay Corwin of the Stonecreek Company.
Mr. Corwin provided a background as to how this project has evolved over a three-year
period. He stated that Boeing has attempted to come up with a project for the surplus
45-acres of mostly raw land on the western portion of the property that made sense for
operations and the community, and balanced all of the legitimate interests. He said that
when Stonecreek was brought in approximately 2 years ago, one of the things they
were asked to do was to create a project that would provide sources of recurring
revenue for the City and do it in a way that would have minimal environmental impacts,
13
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2003
preserve the quality of life in Seal Beach, and one that was sensitive to Boeing's
ongoing operations. Mr. Corwin stated that in terms of feasibility, Stonecreek looked
closely at every major land use such as retail, which has been included in PA4. He
noted that discussion on whether this is a major retail site from a market feasibility
perspective has determined that this is not where retailers come, and the City already
has pretty good market coverage of most major retailers within the area. He said
consideration of whether this would be a good location for a big box user such as Home
Depot, Lowe's, Walmart, etc., determined that it was not as they all already have market
coverage in the area. He noted that the site has physical constraints from the
standpoint of physically not being able to create a site with what is being preserved. He
stated that retail would have created substantial environmental impacts from traffic,
noise, etc., and Stonecreek attempted to be sensitive in balancing this with the
community. He indicated that Stonecreek understood that Seal Beach does have a
policy of preserving some of the existing, longstanding businesses on Main Street and
in the core of Seal Beach and that there was not a focus to bring in substantial
competition. He said that based upon this analysis, Stonecreek rationalized that there
was the potential to create an opportunity for some convenience serving retail in the
eastern portion of the property. With regard to residential uses, Mr. Corwin stated that
infill residential uses are an attractive land use with a strong market, but in discussions
with the City, the impression was that this would not be a preferred land use.
Additionally, from Boeing's perspective, this was not a preferred adjacent land use due
to security concerns. He then explained that from a market perspective this is not an
office site as there are not a lot of amenities for employees. He noted that the office
market in Orange County is currently very soft and has been for some time and office
uses would not do too much for the City. He stated that light industrial is what is seen
for the bulk of the project and is a natural fit with the existing land uses and creates the
least amount of Impacts to the surrounding community. He indicated that by
Incorporating some of the mechanisms into the SP for cleaning up some of the M-1
Zone and getting rid of some of the less preferred uses and adding the ability to have
point-of-sale that could create recurring revenues for the City, Stonecreek believes that
it has come up with the best use for this site. He stated that the as Commissioner
Shanks mentioned, the McDonnell Center in Huntington Beach is comparable to the
type of uses one might expect to see with the Boeing project. He noted that there is a
104-room Extended Stay America Hotel adjacent to the Huntington Beach site, which
has turned out to be a very compatible use with the nearby Boeing facility. He then
introduced Mr. Dave Bartlett of D. Bartlett & Associates.
Using a slide presentation Mr. Bartlett provided a brief history of the genesis of the Seal
Beach Boeing facility, which currently employs between 2,500-3,000 people, with
defense, intelligence, communications, and space capabilities. He stated that the site
issues mentioned such as security, access and circulation, parking, operations and
facilities, the helipad, the current Boeing working environment, and adjoining uses were
all considerations that went into the current SP. He said that the objectives were
primarily to respect business operations, to build a project consistent with GP policy,
minimize impacts to surrounding uses, develop a project with positive fiscal impacts for
the City, and minimize impacts to the community and the surrounding environment. He
14
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2003
listed the identified uses for the proposed business park as light industrial, research and
development, manufacturing, warehouse and distribution, office, and point-of-sale
Industrial manufacturing, as well as a hotel, restaurant, and general commercial. He
reiterated that the project has been found to be compatible with the GP designation of
M-1 Light Industrial. He noted that the GPA and Zone Change (ZC) are necessary to
permit the point-of-sale uses within the business park, which was included at the
request of the City Manager and Staff to allow the potential for sales tax revenue to
occur within the business park. The GPA is also required to permit the hotel and retail
uses within PA4, which was also a recommendation from the City Manager. He said
that the ZC was to change the zoning from M-1 to Specific Plan regulations. Mr. Bartlett
then proceeded to describe the four site planning areas and stated that the SP includes
13 buildings in PA3, with those adjacent to Westminster Avenue set back 250 feet from
Leisure World, and those building adjacent to Island Village set back 230 and 370 feet.
He described the water quality provisions to capture and treat runoff prior to entering the
retarding basin.
Commissioner Deaton asked what the setbacks from the street would be. Mr. Bartlett
responded that the setbacks are approximately 90 feet.
Chairperson Hood noted that actually the existing retarding basin already provides the
setback from Island Village. Mr. Bartlett concurred and noted that the new construction
has been set back further than the current zoning requirement.
Mr. Bartlett continued by stating that Phase 1 would deal primarily with the vacant land,
and it is anticipated that this would include PA2, Phase 2 would be the hotel and retail
area, and Phase 3 would be the existing Boeing campus for which no development is
currently proposed. Commissioner Deaton asked if referring to Phase 3 infers that at
one point the Boeing facility is to be demolished. Mr. Bartlett stated that this area is
identified as Phase 3 because the SP allows for the transfer of square footage from PA2
into PA1 upon demolition of the existing facilities in PA2.
Mr. Bartlett described the fiscal benefits to the City this project would create.
Chairperson Hood interjected that the hotel/retail uses are not promised, and therefore,
they should not be included as a projected fiscal benefit. Mr. Bartlett stated that annual
recurring revenues from existing Boeing facilities equal $770,000 plus $712,000 with the
proposed projected including the hotel would be equal to total annual recurring
revenues of approximately $1.5 million. He noted that Without the hotel annual
revenues for the proposed project decrease to $450,000. Commissioner Deaton asked
if when referring to the 18-month window for the hotel, does this also include the retail?
Mr. Bartlett stated that this would include the hotel and the retail. He explained that
over time it could be a better retail site, and once the industrial buildings are in place the
retail area might gain a better position in the marketplace. He noted that Boeing would
be amenable to Commissioner Shanks' suggestion that the timing begin With the
approval of the Coastal Development Permit. Commissioner Deaton asked if
restaurants would be included in the retail. Mr. Bartlett said that this was correct.
Commissioner Deaton commented that when built out with all of the industrial there will
15
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
be a lot of people needing lunch, and she believes it is premature to make the whole
thing conditional upon the 18-month window. Mr. Bartlett stated that Boeing Realty
wants nothing more than to develop this site with the hotel and retail. Commissioner
Deaton noted that in recent discussions with individuals in the hotel industry, she was
told that currently it is very difficult to get financing for hotels. Mr. Bartlett commented
that representative from Boeing did receive a call today from a hotel developer, and
Boeing would be eager to construct a hotel on that property.
Chairperson Hood asked If point-of-sale was allowed on the Boeing Huntington Beach
site? Mr. Bartlett responded that there is point of sale on that site. Chairperson Hood
asked what percentage of Huntington Beach sales are retail taxable, and which are
exempt because they are business to business? Mr. Bartlett stated that he did not
know, but he would find out.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the 18-month window would be from final approval by the
City and the CCC? He said if this were the case the timeline would not expire until at
least 36 months from now. Mr. Bartlett agreed with this calculation.
Mr. Bartlett continued with the visual presentation then proceeded to outline the benefits
to the City of building this project as follows:
1. Consistent with the General Plan (GP) designation.
2. Enhances the zoning and allows the hotel and point-of-sale pursuant to City
requests.
3. Brings non-competitive businesses into the City, which is consistent with City
Council policy.
4. Provides positive fiscal benefits with a net $450-$700,000 in reoccurring
revenues, depending on the hotel/retail.
5. Expands the City's economic base and creates jobs.
6. Transportation fees of approximately $1.8 million will be made to the City for
improvements.
7. Construction impacts, which are primarily air quality and noise, will be temporary.
Mr. Bartlett stated that there are some concerns with some of the City requirements
noted in the Staff Report. He asked Mr. Corwin if he wished to present these concerns
to the PC now. Chairperson Hood proposed that the representatives for Boeing
complete their presentation, hear public comment, and then allow the Commissioners to
present questions to the Boeing representatives. The Commission was in agreement
with this.
Mr. Bartlett began by addressing Commissioner Shanks' mention of the PP process.
He stated that the PP as presented tonight for approval by the PC would not go back to
Staff for subsequent review or approval. He said that the Director of Development
Services could approve any new PP that presumably would have come before the PC,
as long as it continues to meet the requirements of the Specific Plan. He noted that this
PP IS almost precisely the same format that was approved for the Hellman Ranch
16
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meeting Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Specific Plan, but is a little bit better. Commissioner Shanks referred to Page 6-2, under
Procedures and read, "authonty for approval of the Precise Plan shall rest with the
Director of Development Services pursuant to Article 29, Section 28-2904..." Mr.
Bartlett stated that that article and section refer to projects that meet all City zoning
requirements and would not require any discretionary approval from the PC. He
explained that if the Boeing project meets all Code standards, it could be approved
pursuant to this process.
Commissioner Ladner asked if in the event the economy does not turn around and the
hotel is never constructed, what will be constructed in place of it? Mr. Bartlett stated
that the provision is that it could be an extension of the Boeing campus or light industrial
uses. Commissioner Ladner conjectured that there could be no retail at all in that case.
Mr. Bartlett stated that this was possible.
Mr. Bartlett then referred to the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation GPA that Staff is
proposing for the water quality areas and stated that Boeing does not believe that this
needs to be a part of the GP for Open Space. He noted that when you look at the
facilities that are in the GP for open space this includes public use facilities like
beaches, parks, etc., and these water quality basins will not be for public use but will be
privately owned. He stated that CCC is going to place additional restrictions on this
project, and the water quality basins may end up getting bigger rather than smaller, and
if they would get bigger, then Boeing would have to return before the PC to request
another GPA. He said that because of this Boeing is requesting that the water quality
basins not be included in the GP.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he has a problem With giving Staff sole discretion on
the 7-foot height limits. He said that he would like to have these approvals done at the
PC level. Mr. Bartlett stated that the PP package before each of the Commissioners
tonight shows exactly what these height variations will be, so in effect the PC does have
the discretion to take action on this package for that PP. He said that any future PP that
would deviate from this would also be at the discretion of the PC.
Chairperson Hood stated that the Director of Development Services could approve
minor variations. Mr. Bartlett noted that he did not have the text before him.
Commissioner Deaton interjected that the text reads "10 percent." Mr. Bartlett stated
that similar to the Hellman SP, this SP allows flexibility that is not substantial.
Chairperson Hood noted that the City does not allow Staff to make these determinations
for residential areas and he would vote against allowing Staff to make these decisions
on this project.
Mr. Cummins interjected that he believes most of the additional concerns that Mr.
Bartlett will refer to relate to the proposed tract map conditions. He asked whether the
Commission would prefer to take that testimony now or later during the diSCUSSion on
the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM). Chairperson Hood stated that the discussion
17
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
on the VTTM would probably not take place tonight, so it would be appropriate to
confine the discussion to GP issues.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked why it was so important to avoid coming back before the
PC. Mr. Bartlett responded that most SPs include a mechanism that holds that as long
as future proposals are consistent with the SP and all the standards are met, it becomes
an administrative function, as witnessed by the provision cited by Commissioner
Shanks. Commissioner Deaton stated that her concern is that if the PP is to make up to
a 10% or more change that makes the PP no longer consistent with the SP. Mr. Bartlett
reiterated that the SP allows for minor variations that would allow the administrator to
make the decision as to whether or not It is significant.
Mr. David Lyon, a resident of Leisure World (LW), referred to Page 20 of the May 21,
2003 Staff Report and asked that the PC take note of the conditional land uses allowed.
He stated that residents of LW are very concerned with conditional land uses for heliport
maintenance and service facilities, automotive service centers, and sports related
facilities. He asked that these uses be removed from the list. He categorized the
Boeing presentation to residents of LW as "slick" and as ultimately being "just a dog and
pony show," which generated a lot of excitement and elicited a positive reaction from
the residents who attended. He said that the promise of the hotellretail area to include
a restaurant was misleading as with the 18-month window the likelihood of this
happening if remote. He encouraged the PC to carefully read between the lines, as he
believes that Boeing has been deceptive and this warrants the City's attention.
Mr. Corwin apologized to Mr. Lyon for any confusion in how the Information was
conveyed. He said that he did not believe there was any difference in the information
tonight than what was conveyed at the May 21 meeting. He noted that Boeing is not
what is called a "vertical developer," and Boeing is not going to construct the hotel or
the retail space, but is simply going through the planning process with the City and the
CCC to create a planning area of approximately 5 acres that will allow the opportunity
through a land use and zone change for potential hotel and retail users or developers to
come if they foresee that there is a market need that they can fill. He said that in terms
of market conditions, Boeing is not in a position to guarantee any of these projects, but
has included this in the SP in an effort to work with the City in meeting its goals.
Chairperson Hood asked If you have an M-1 Zone already where by right you can do a
great deal, why would you want to go through all of this trouble to change from M-1 to
the SP regulation? Why would Boeing not go ahead and just develop as it is? Mr.
Corwin explained that the 107-acre parcel is not currently subdivided In any way and is
one legal lot and thiS necessitated going through the legal process in order to obtain the
subdivision map. He said that as the process has progressed and in attempting to fulfill
some community goals and Boeing's goals, it has evolved since the fall of 2001
beginning with the due diligence and feasibility phase through the beginning of 2003
with discussions with Staff, the City Manager, and CC on the type of project the City
wanted. He emphasized that Boeing tries to be a good neighbor and remain an integral
18
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
part of the community and has worked with the City in attempting to come up with the
best project possible. Chairperson Hood asked how you could bUild a better project
with a SP rather than with the existing M-1 Zoning. Mr. Corwin responded that this is by
Imposing design guidelines and development standards that are not currently covered
by City Code and that would bind future builders of those lots. He reminded the PC that
Boeing's role is simply to come up with a template for future developers and users to
ensure that they do things in an appropriate manner and at a quality level. Chairperson
Hood asked if there were no other way to ensure this other than the SP? Mr. Corwin
stated that there are other mechanisms.
CommiSSioner Deaton asked if the lot were one large lot, then Boeing would not be able
to sell the individual lots. Mr. Corwin stated that as the property stands right now the
only transfer would be for the entire parcel.
Chairperson Hood asked the Director of Development Services if it were possible to
subdivide without going through a Zone Change? Mr. Whittenberg stated that to
subdivide the property it is not necessary to go through this process. He said that the
real driving force behind the SP is to put in place additional development standards that
currently do not exist in the M-1 Zoning provisions, which currently do not allow the City
the right to dictate what the development standards should be.
There being no other questions, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. He
recommended that a short recess would be taken before the PC begins its discussion
and review of the GPA. The Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that at this time the PC could state their questions and address
concerns regarding the SP because as Staff has proposed all of the GPAs, they reflect
the current provisions of the SP as presented.
Chairperson Hood explained that the PC would be reviewing the SP found in the FEIR
Appendices Volume 2 and part of the Staff Report that discusses the SP. Mr. Cummins
noted that the Staff Report serves as a synopsis of the key points within the SP that
Staff provides to the PC for consideration in making their recommendations to CC. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that in the Associate Planner's presentation there were a
number of suggested amendments to the SP that the Boeing team had proposed and
Staff was agreeable to. He referred to the Memorandum packet with the draft
resolutions with the recommendations for changes to the SP provisions. He noted that
the proposed changes do not deal with the Issue of whether administrative waivers on
future Site Plan Reviews should be a function of Staff or should come before the PC.
Chairperson Hood recommended beginning with Section 1 of the SP and working
through to the end of the document. He began by noting the following changes:
Pg. 1.5 Inclusion of statement on business-to business sales being tax exempt.
19
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Chairperson Hood noted that he has already asked this question of Mr. Corwin and has
requested the figures and percentages on sales from the Huntington Beach location to
determine what these amounts are and to estimate what potential income the City
would receive. Mr. Whittenberg noted that fiscal impacts would not be a consideration
of the PC but are to be considered by CC. He explained that the PCs decisions are not
to be based upon fiscal issues, as this is part of the Statement of Overriding
Considerations that CC considers during the EIR process. He said that PC decisions
and recommendations must be based solely on land use impacts to the community.
Chairperson Hood asked about the timeline for development or non-development. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that the PC may make a recommendation to CC as to whether
or not the timeline as set forth is appropriate. Chairperson Hood stated that one of the
reasons the PC is concerned about how an area IS developed IS the potential fiscal
Impact the project might have. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could deal With
future fiscal impacts in a general statement. Chairperson Hood asked about the
percentage of the development that would be used for retail as opposed to non-retail
exchanges. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this level of detail would also be beyond the
purview of the PC. He stated that the extent of the PC's purview would be whether or
not the project accomplishes the capability ot having point-ot-sale returns to the City in
sales tax. Chairperson Hood continued by noting the following:
Pg. 1-5 (2nd checkmark towards bottom of page.) Concerns with using the term
"flexibility." What about the Precise Plan?
Mr. Cummins stated that the PP application is in Itself the PP. He explained that Staff
would review the application to determine whether the proposed buildings create a
cohesive identity for that particular PP area. He said that if this is the case, then it is in
conformance with this particular provision of the SP.
Pg.1-7 PA2 The Business Park
Chairperson Hood asked if Boeing is being given the option to destroy or not destroy
the existing buildings? Mr. Cummins stated that this was correct. Chairperson Hood
asked if these building are demolished could Boeing build something else or transfer
this acreage to PA1? Mr. Cummins confirmed this as correct. Chairperson Hood stated
that this could translate into a net gain of 345,000 square feet for the overall project.
Mr. Cummins stated that this is correct. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that this provision is
here to allow Boeing the flexibility that if they do need to keep certain buildings in PA2
for their ongoing business operations in PA 1, they Will have the ability to do that. If as
their business operations in PA 1 may change due to the types of federal defense
contracts that they may acquire, and some of the facilities in PA2 are determined to no
longer be necessary, they would be able to remove those buildings and develop PA2
with new business park development in accordance with the SP and have the option to
transfer the lost building area from their operations over to PA 1.
Commissioner Deaton stated that her concerns begin in Section 2 on Land Use. She
said that with the SP the City has very specifically brought in a few uses, but she would
like to see those uses expanded and not totally eliminate residential as a land use. She
20
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
asked about the proposed timeline for the hotel/retail portion of the project, which as
she understands was put in to benefit the City, and inquired about what would occur if
the retail would be built and then was not supported by the market? Mr. Whittenberg
explained that within 18 months of the CCC adoption of the SP the City would not
entertain any proposals for anything other than hotel/retail. He said that after 18 months
Boeing would be able to come back and submit a PP for that area that could also
include a business park use or could still propose a hotel/retail. Commissioner Deaton
said that it is not as though someone would come in and start a business only to be told
that It is not proving successful and, therefore, the use is to be changed. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that Boeing would sell the property to a future user and that user
would make that determination. He said it would be up to the land owner as to what he
or she feels should be on the property, but for the first 18 months the only uses the City
would accept would be the hotel/retail uses.
Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Abbe to explain what a Development Agreement (DA)
is. Mr. Abbe stated that a DA is something that provides a developer with more security
in terms of entering into a project. He said that in the mid-70's there were many
problems with developers spending large sums of money in preparation for developing
a project and then not being able to proceed because the zoning was changed. He
explained that the DA locks in the current zoning and land uses and at the same time
provides greater flexibility to the City in requesting specific concessions and exactions
that would not normally be permissible under State law. He noted that how long the DA
is to last is also subject to negotiation. Commissioner Deaton asked if the City has a
DA on this project. Mr. Abbe responded that the City does not. Commissioner Deaton
asked why not? Mr. Whittenberg stated that the DA is made between the landowner
and the City and this was discussed with Boeing, however, they felt that the project
could be adequately conditioned through the PP and VTTM approvals. Commissioner
Deaton asked if the project is to include the hotel and if there were a DA, then Boeing
could offer to be sure that so many rooms were occupied for so many days of the week
for so many weeks of the year? Mr. Abbe stated that a DA gives the City broad
discretion as to what it can include. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that it must be a mutual
agreement. Commissioner Deaton stated that she was bringing this out because
currently Boeing does use a lot of hotel space in the City, and with the new hotel they
could simply take the beds that are being used in other parts of the City and relocate
them to this new hotel, and although this hotel might be successful, it could be at the
loss to other hotels. She said that Boeing would not be giving up anything to say that
their people would use this hotel.
Commissioner Deaton then stated that the list of allowed uses is limited. She asked
about a building supply store or an outlet store within PA3. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
these would not be allowable uses under the business park development standards as
they are considered to be retail stores. Commissioner Deaton commented that through
our land use proposals we have eliminated other uses that might have worked. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that current zoning does not allow for these uses. Commissioner
Deaton noted that we are changing the zoning now. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
proposal is to make modifications to the underlying zoning to allow better rights in
21
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
decisions on the developments standards for that area. He said that if the PC feels that
additional retail sales uses should be incorporated into the SP, this should be a
recommendation to CC.
Commissioner Shanks confirmed that retail sales within a light industrial park would not
be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg said that as Staff understands the provisions there may be
sales if they do some type of manufacturing within the confines of the facility.
Chairperson Hood asked if point-of-sale, general manufacturing usually yields taxable
Income. Mr. Whittenberg said that depending upon the type of use it could generate
substantial taxable income. He indicated that if sales were to a Federal or State
government agency, these sales would not be taxable.
Commissioner Deaton asked when talking about sales tax, is the assumption being
made that the City is going to be allowed its sales tax revenue? She referred to
Assembly Bill 1221 (AB1221), which proposes a recall of all sales tax for use by the
State and a return to giving cities a percentage of property taxes. She said that when
looking at land use the City must consider what the best use for that area would be and
she believes having a residential buffer would be a good mixed use for this project. She
noted that although the City should include retail and light industrial, it should remain as
flexible as possible, and she believes this plan is too confining for what the City may
wish to do in the future.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that what Commissioner Deaton is proposing is to amend
Table 5-1 on Page 2-2 to include low/moderate residential. Commissioner Deaton
stated that this is correct. She suggested that Staff look at this option and return with
recommendations on how this project might be made more flexible with regard to
permitted uses. Mr. Whittenberg advised making these specific recommendations to
the CC to consider as part of their deliberations in possibly amending the SP to
accommodate these types of uses. He noted that the EIR evaluated residential uses for
approximately 11 acres along the frontage of Westminster Avenue as an alternative to
accommodate the section of the GP that discusses low/moderate income housing. He
recommended reviewing this alternative as presented in the EIR. Chairperson Hood
noted that the EIR categorizes housing as the environmentally superior alternative.
Commissioner Deaton asked how Boeing felt about this. Mr. Whittenberg suggested
reopening the public hearing in order to present these questions to the Boeing team;
however, he recommended competing the PC discussion on the SP before doing so.
Chairperson Hood referred to Pages 2-9 and 2-10 and commented that everything is
referred to as "anticipated " and nothing is very specific except for the 18-month
timeline.
Commissioner Deaton asked for an explanation of the ramification for pulling the water
quality basins out of the GP. Mr. Whittenberg stated Staff concerns are related to the
VTTM in that the subdivision map reflects separate parcels for these water quality
basins, and Staff feels that the land use for these separately deeded parcels should be
22
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Minutes of June 4, 2003
accounted for in the GP. He said Staff is concerned that they may not have some sort
of designation in the GP. He said that the Boeing team feels that this should just be
counted as part of the overall SP and not be called out separately; however, Staff feels
that as long as they are separately deeded parcels for a very specific non-development
use, that this should be reflected in the Open Space Element of the GP. He indicated
that Staff let the Boeing team know that it would be appropriate to incorporate those
water quality basin areas back into the adjoining business park lots and then have
easements recorded over those same areas to accomplish the same thing, as then it is
just part of a parcel that is part of a business park and not a separate parcel of land.
Commissioner Shanks referred to Page 3-5, Storm Drain and Water Quality Concept
Plan, and noted that every time there is a heavy rain the area along SBB next to
Buildings 80 and 81 on the Boeing property always gets flooded. He asked if there
were any plans in this project to help rem.edy this problem? Mr. Cummins stated that
there is a proposed condition on the tract map that specifically addresses this situation
and this can be discussed dunng the review of the VTTM. Commissioner Shanks noted
that this does not appear in the Storm Drain and Water Quality Concept Plan. Mr.
Cummins stated that this is because there is no SP. He said that Staff has drafted a
proposed condition that states that this flooding condition needs to be fixed.
Commissioner Shanks then noted that there is no PP for PA4 and he asked who would
approve the plans for the hotel/retail, assuming this area sold and is to be developed.
Mr. Cummins stated that as currently drafted in the SP, this would be a Staff level
function, but nothing can be built on PA4 without an approved PP, and several of the
Commissioners have already expressed their preference to have future PPs brought
before the PC. Chairperson Hood took a straw vote to determine if the Commission
was in favor of directing Staff to stipulate that any future PPs should be brought before
the PC. The vote was unanimous.
Chairperson Hood then referred to Page 5-1, Section 5.24 and read, 'Whenever a use
has not been specifically listed as being a permitted use in a particular planning area of
the Specific Plan, it shall be the duty of the Director of Development Services to
determine if the use is consistent with the intent.. .," and asked the Commissioners if this
text should be changed to state that whenever an unlisted use is proposed, it should
come before the PC for review. Commissioner Deaton said that she believes these
uses should come before the PC to prevent having people come in to ask who is
making these decisions. Mr. Cummins noted that the PC will typically make the
determination as to whether or not a use that is not specifically prescribed as an allowed
use fits within the general intent of that provision of the zoning code. The Commission
unanimously agreed that this text should be revised on both Section 5.2.4 and 5.2.6 to
read "Planning Commission" instead of "Director of Development Services."
Commissioner Deaton stated that she would like to change the wording in 5.2.11, as
she does not see an 18-month window as being practical.
Commissioner Shanks stated that he would like to see it state 36 months and it should
reflect that the timeline beginS after CCC approval.
23
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Commissioner Sharp asked when talking about the timeline, what would Boeing do that
IS different at the end of the 18 or 36 months? Mr. Whittenberg stated that under either
scenario it does not require Boeing to do anything, but gives Boeing the flexibility to not
have to continue to try to find a hotel/retail land use and they can expand the market
that they can address for this area to also include some sort of business park use,
similar to what would be in PA3. Commissioner Sharp asked why the City would want
to tie Boeing down for 36 months? He recommended leaving the timeline at 18 months.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the discussion is now that the 18 months not begin until after
the Coastal Development Permit is issued.
Commissioner Deaton noted that the retail development in PA4 appears to be tied to
the viability of the hotel, and she questioned whether any developed retail on that site
would be "thrown out" if the hotel were found to be nonviable? Mr. Whittenberg stated
that as he understands the intent of the language, it states that for 18 months after
approval of the SP by the CCC, the property can only be marketed for retail or hotel.
After 18 months Boeing will have the option to market for hotel, retail, business park, or
any combination of these, and their new proposal would have to come back to the City
for additional PP approval.
Chairperson Hood took a straw vote on the timeline of 18 months from the date of
approval of the Specific Plan by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The vote
was unanimous.
Mr. Abbe stated that for clarification regarding Section 5.2.4 and 5.2.6 he wished to ask
if this would be through a standard CUP process or by another means. Mr. Whittenberg
explained that these now come to the PC by Staff making a separate request to the PC
for a determination of conformity with the zoning or with the SP.
Chairperson Hood referred to Page 5-4 and Page 17 of the draft resolution and noted
that the applicant has requested parking standards for self-storage and medical uses.
He questioned whether developers of these uses have already approached the
applicant.
Mr. Whittenberg asked if there were any other uses the PC wished to discuss before
moving on to Section 6. Chairperson Hood requested that housing be included. Mr.
Whittenberg suggested that a general statement recommending that CC revisit this as
an option would be preferable as opposed to making more specific recommendations
Commissioner Deaton suggested medical supply and noted that everything has been
narrowed down so finely that she sees little room to move. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
a medical supply use would probably be put Into a warehouse and distribution category.
Commissioner Deaton also suggested a hospital, office buildings, and laboratones. Mr.
Whittenberg noted that a laboratory would be classified under the Research and
Development permitted uses that are already established.
24
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2003
Chairperson Hood referred to Pages 6-1 and 6-2, Section 6.1 and then deferred to the
Director of Development Services. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the intent of the
Commission is that all decisions regarding administrative revisions and consideration of
future PPs would be a PC function only. Chairperson Hood said that he would like to
make this section consistent with the City's general practices. Mr. Whittenberg
explained that in the context of SPs the City does not follow a general practice as
indicated In the presentations by the Boeing team. He said that there are provisions on
the Hellman Project Site Plan Reviews that allow for automatic administrative waivers of
certain development standards to which the PC agreed at that time. He indicated that
the only thing it applies to are certain development standards for single-family homes
and a single-family subdivision, not to a potential 130,000 square foot big box
warehouse building. He noted that there is a difference in the scope of what could be
done, but there is no standard procedure or policy that the City has followed as it has
looked at SPs. He said that if the PC were comfortable with doing so, there are some
things that Staff would not be averse to taking on, and it might be appropriate to revise
the language to indicate that these decisions may be made by Staff but would not
become final until it is a Receive and File item on the PC Agenda reporting the intent of
Staff, and under current provisions of City laws, any decision made by the Director of
Development Services can be appealed to the PC by anyone. Commissioner Deaton
expressed the concern that the only time that the appeal will happen is after something
is built. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that before Staff would grant a waiver of any condition,
it would not take effect until after the item is reported to the PC and it has reviewed it as
a Receive and File item. Commissioner Deaton asked about a Minor Plan Review
(MPR) process, which also does not call for a public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg noted
that this was a possibility. Chairperson Hood stated that the PC would want items like
PPs to automatically come before them. Mr. Whittenberg recommended that the
language in Sections 6.4-1 and 6.4-2 on Page 6-3 be revised to state that these items
may be approved through the MPR process instead of the Director of Development
Services.
Commissioner Deaton noted that in Mr. Cummins' presentation he mentioned 3 items
that would normally go before the PC, which were being proposed for Administrative
Adjustment by Staff. Mr. Cummins responded that these included PP approval, height
variation for non-habitable architectural features, and the minor adjustments of no more
than 10% from original PP. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the 10% is now a part of
the MPR process based on the discussion for 6.4-1 and 6.4-2. Chairperson Deaton
asked about the height variations. Mr. Whittenberg state that height variation has been
covered as part of the PP and since this has to go through a public hearing anyway, this
is more notice than would be required under a Height Variation (HV) process under the
existing system.
Chairperson Hood asked about someone wanting to construct a building that is taller
than the height variation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would require a Vanance
(VAR) and under the SP, depending upon the size of the lot, if it is more than 10 acres,
a 75-foot high building could be constructed.
25
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
,
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
Commissioner Shanks referred to 6.4.2, Item 3, on Page 6-4 and asked what zero-lot
line development means. Mr. Whittenberg explained that in some cases the zoning
allows both commercial and industrial properties to build to a property line. He noted
that in certain cases it may be preferable to have the building against the property line
with no openings and nothing happening behind it as opposed to having a trash area,
loading dock, or parking area that people are coming in and out of early in the morning
or late in the evening creating a disturbance for someone that may be next door. He
noted that this is not proposed at all In the Boeing PP, but in some cases it may be
something they would like to have the flexibility to propose. He said that the MPR
process give the PC the authority to say yes or no to this type of request.
The Director of Development Services then recommended that the PC hold off on a
vote on the resolutions for the SP and GP until all of the items including the PP and
VTTM discussions are completed. He recommended continuing the public hearing.
Chairperson Hood stated that due to the complexity of these items the Planning
Commissioners should Interact with their constituents regarding this project. He
encouraged the public to contact their Planning Commissioner with comments,
questions, etc. He also suggested that the Commissioners bring in comments received
to be entered into the record during the next scheduled PC meeting.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the preferred manner to receive public testimony is at a
public hearing. He stated that although the method mentioned by Chairperson Hood is
allowable, there may be some filtering of discussions, and Commissioners must be very
careful to try to reflect these comments as accurately as possible. Commissioner
Deaton requested that a press release be provided for publication in the Sun
Newspaper. Mr. Whittenberg said that this could be done.
Chairperson Hood inquired of Mr. Abbe regarding this request. Mr. Abbe stated that a
press release would be an appropriate measure. He noted that the public hearing IS not
closed but has only been recessed, and because of this it does not need to be re-
noticed. As for the communications to the Planning Commissioners he believes Mr.
Whittenberg stated the rules appropnately, and he cautioned the Commissioners
regarding stating any conclusions related to the issues currently before the PC.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Sharp to continue the public hearing for Review of
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (BIDS) Specific Plan to the next scheduled meeting
of June 18, 2003.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
26
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
.
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~A/'-~/
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Sec~etary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of June 4, 2003
The Commission on June 18, 2003, ap~d the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, June 4, 2003. .
27