HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2003-12-03
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for December 3, 2003
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - JIm Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - Henry Eagar
District 5 - Phil Ladner
. Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, AICP, Associate Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
D 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.
D 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.
D Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p m
D Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
.
D 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
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission · Agenda of December 3. 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 dunng 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
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for December 3, 2003
7:30 p.m.
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 November 5, 2003
VI SCHEDULED MATTERS
2 PRESENTATION - Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System
VII PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 Conditional Use Permit 01-8 Indefinite Extension (Continued from November 5,2003)
209% Main Street
AppllcanUOwner
Request
Julie Beck / Flora Trostler
To continue to operate a personal fitness training studio on Main St
Recommendation
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-44
4 Variance 03-3
212 _14th Street
AppllcanUOwner
Request
Terry Booth / DaVid and Kay Coop
To construct a third story on the rear half of the property. MUnicipal
Code currently allows only properties that are at least 37 5 feet wide to
have a third story on the rear half of the property, With a maximum
3
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of December 3, 2003
.
structure height of 35 feet The applicant's property IS odd shaped and IS
approximately 56 feet wide In the rear and 27 feet wide In the front
This averages out to a width of 37 5 feet, however, the Planning
Commission has previously determined that properties must be a
minimum of 37 5 feet wide on both sides for the purposes of the height
provIsion The applicant seeks a variance from this Code provIsion and
requests the ability to have a 3rd story on the rear half of the property
Recommendation
Continue to meeting of January 7. 2004
5 Zone Text Amendment 03-3 - Second Residential Units
CitYWide
AppllcanUOwner
Request
City of Seal Beach
To consider an amendment to the ZOning Ordinance to permit the
establishment of second residential Units In compliance with the
provIsions of California Government Code ~65852 2
Recommendation'
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-48.
VIII STUDY SESSION
6 STUDY SESSION - Expansion and Addition to Legal Non-Conforming Residential Structures
. IX STAFF CONCERNS
X COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI ADJOURNMENT
.
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of December 3, 2003
Dee 17
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o Study Session.
o Staff Report
o Study Session
o Study Session'
2003 Aaenda Forecast
Meeting cancelled due to Christmas Holiday
Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergroundlng of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
Parking Issues In Old Town
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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of December 3, 2003
Chairperson Sharp called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2003. The meeting was held in the
City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Sharp, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Absent: Commissioner Eagar.
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Mr. Cummins is absent tonight as he and his wife are at
hospital awaiting the birth of their baby.
The Director of Development Services also noted that Commissioner Eagar had stated
at the previous meeting that he would not be present for tOnight's meeting. Mr.
Whittenberg said that it would be appropriate at this time to make a motion to excuse
Commissioner Eagar's absence.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to excuse Commissioner Eagar from tonight's
meeting.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg noted that for Item 4 on the Agenda Staff is recommending that no
testimony be taken this evening, but that the public hearing be opened and it be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 7,2004.
1 These Minutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting
Page 1 of 16
.
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 December 3. 2003
Commissioner Deaton stated that if this item is to be continued, it should be re-noticed.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this could be done.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to open the public hearing for Vanance 03-3
and that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 7,
2004, and that public notice be re-circulated.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Sharp opened oral communications.
Ms. Geri West referred to the study session on nonconforming structures and stated
that a year ago she and her husband had spoken before the Planning Commission (PC)
regarding the use of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow additions to
nonconforming structures. She noted that nothing has changed within the past year
related to this issue. She indicated that the intent of the ordinance as enacted in 1969
by elected and appointed representatives increased the parking requirement to 2
spaces per unit to retain the residential character of Old Town and also to mitigate the
parking problem. She noted that residents of Old Town still struggle with parking
problems, which have worsened over the years. She said that in 1969 she and her
husband had requested that their property be effectively downzoned, to their own
economic disadvantage, to contribute to the betterment of the community as a whole.
She said that the intent of the legislation was to discourage the upgrading of eXisting
nonconforming structures, so that as their economic lives expired, they would be
replaced with new conforming structures. She commented that prior to 1969 properties
were allowed to be constructed under the old garage requirements during a moratorium
period, and nothing has changed since 1969. She said within the last 12 months
nothing has changed with regard to allowing additions to nonconforming structures with
the approval of a CUP. She said that this practice circumvents the considered decision
of the people. She warned that the residential character of Old Town is endangered
unless the use of a CUP for this allowance IS eliminated.
Page 2 of 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 Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2003
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the last item on tonight's agenda is a study session to
discuss expansions and additions to legal nonconforming uses. He stated that Staff
recommends that members of the public be allowed to speak at that time rather than
during public comments.
Mr. Roger West stated that reconsideration of the use of CUPs is a "boondoggle" to give
business to the PC. He noted that present Code requirements do not prohibit
improvement of old, nonconforming structures, and do not prohibit minor modifications
to improve their livability and appearance, but only restrict major additions or building
without meeting the new Code requirements as has been done for the past 34 years
He said that employment of a CUP allows people to circumvent building requirements
that the rest of the residents have adhered to, and also involves the City Planning
Department's interminable proposals for considerations of additions and modifications
of nonconforming properties, wasting substantial amounts of taxes to provide planning
personnel with employment.
Ms. Joyce Parque stated that since the State has mandated that residents can build
second residential Units she believes that residents that already have a home with a
second unit wishing to increase the living space should be allowed to do so, as long as
the required parking is provided. Ms. Parque then noted that a resident of Fathom
Avenue wishes to add on to her home, but she was told that building permits would not
be issued until she agrees to improve the sidewalk and the curb. Ms. Parque stated
that when Ruby's Diner came before the PC, they were granted everything they asked
for and were not required to put in new curbs near Eisenhower Park. She asked why
this was not required of Ruby's?
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2003.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. PRESENTATION - Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment
System
Page 3 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
Mr. Whittenberg introduced Ms. Jenny Wedge from the Orange County Water District
(OCWD) and noted that information documents downloaded from the OCWD website
were included in tonight's agenda packet.
Ms. Jenny Wedge gave a presentation on the new OCWD groundwater replenishment
system. She said that because the OCWD provides groundwater to more than half of
Orange County (OC), it is their responsibility to find ways to meet future water needs
within the County. She then proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation describing
projected water shortages within Southern California and what the OCWD is dOing to
address these issues within OC. She explained that OC has two sources of water:
groundwater and imported water. She stated that OCWD provides groundwater to
North and Central County from the groundwater basin that is mostly replenished from
the Santa Ana and Colorado Rivers. She said that water IS pumped from this basin to
wells throughout the County and water is also imported from the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). She said
that this water comes directly off the Colorado River with some from the Northern
California Aqueduct. She noted that 66 percent of the north and central county cities
get groundwater and 44 percent of this supply comes from imported water. Ms. Wedge
noted that South Orange County uses all imported water, which is more costly. She
then described the groundwater replemshment system as a high-tech membrane water
purification system that will make additional, high quality water supplies available to
Orange County. She explained how this groundwater replenishment system would help
expand the seawater intrusion barrier. She stated that in the coastal area of the
groundwater basin, along Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, the groundwater
basin is connected to the Pacific Ocean, and saltwater must be kept out of the basin.
She stated that since 1975 the OCWD has been injecting fresh water underground
under pressure through wells to create a hydraulic barrier that prevents saltwater from
seeping into the groundwater basin, preserving the fresh water supply. She noted that
recently higher saline levels are passing into the groundwater basin so barriers must be
improved and the water facility in Fountain Valley must be rehabilitated or expanded to
produce more water. She saId that the groundwater replenishment system would help
do this. Ms. Wedge then noted that the county groundwater basin has been found to be
high in minerals due to water which carries high salt and mineral levels going into the
basin and over time have created high levels in the groundwater basin. Ms. Wedge
touched upon proposed water conservation and seawater desalination programs and
then proceeded to provide a detailed description of micro filtration, the reverse osmosis
process, and how ultra violet light and hydrogen peroxide are used to disinfect water.
She stated that this environmentally friendly replenishment system creates a drought-
proof source of high quality water that uses 40 percent less energy than importing the
water from outside the area and is less costly. Ms. Wedge ended by distnbuted
information folders describing the various options for groundwater replenishment and
encouraged accessing the OCWD website for additional information.
Commissioner Deaton clarified that what the water district proposes is to filter and clean
sewer water, inject it back into the ground, and then pump the water back up through
the wells. Ms. Wedge confirmed that this was correct.
Page 4 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
Commissioner Ladner asked whether Israel is using a seawater desalination program
for agricultural needs. He also noted that several years ago Catalina Island also had
opened a desalination plant. Ms. Wedge stated that Catalina still uses its plant, but she
was not certain whether Israel uses desalination, but many other countries do use
desalination, as it is more affordable there. Commissioner Ladner asked why this was
the case. Ms. Wedge responded that she was not certain what the reason is.
Commissioner Ladner then asked whether Huntington Beach would be constructing a
desalination plant. Ms. Wedge said that based upon what she has read, it does not
appear that Huntington Beach is planning on this for the near future. She noted that
Huntington Beach is separate from the OCWD. Commissioner Ladner asked if it were
feasible to use a desalination plant as opposed to using the seawater intrusion barrier.
Ms. Wedge said that the seawater must be blocked; otherwise it would have to be
pumped out to prevent It penetrating the groundwater basin. Commissioner Ladner
than asked why so much new development was still ongoing in California if there is a
serious water shortage. Ms. Wedge stated that this does not involve the OCWD.
Commissioner Shanks asked if there were any joint action between the OCWD and the
Los Angeles Water District affecting the San Gabriel River. Ms. Wedge stated that no
joint effort is currently In place, but Los Angeles County IS looking at ways to meet future
water needs. She noted that the OCWD does collaborate with L A. regarding the
Alamitos Barrier, which is another salt water barrier In Seal Beach.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the availability of water is an issue that Southern
California Will struggle with over the next 15-20 years. He said that the population
projections within Orange County alone between now and 2040 is that there will be a
city the size of Philadelphia constructed within the county, and accommodating this
additional demand for water with current demands will be a tough challenge.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Conditional Use Permit 01-8 Indefinite Extension
(Continued from November 5, 2003)
209% Main Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Julie Beck I Flora Trostler
To continue to operate a personal fitness training studio on
Main St.
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
03-44.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this Item and
Page 5 of 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
Meetmg Mmutes of December 3. 2003
stated that this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was originally granted in 2001 with a 6-
month extension, followed by approval of a 12-month extension, which has now expired.
He stated that during the time this business has been in operation the City has had no
complaints of any kind. He said that Staff is recommending approval of CUP 01-8,
subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 03-44 with the elimination of Condition
No.9, which imposes a 12-month deadline for implementing the CUP.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve Indefinite Extension of Conditional
Use Permit 01-8 and adoption of Resolution 03-44 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 03-44 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4. Variance 03-3
212 _14th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Terry Booth I David and Kay Coop
To construct a third story on the rear half of the property.
Municipal Code currently allows only properties that are at
least 37.5 feet wide to have a third story on the rear half of
the property, with a maximum structure height of 35 feet.
The applicant's property is odd shaped and is approximately
56 feet wide in the rear and 27 feet wide in the front. This
averages out to a width of 37.5 feet; however, the Planning
Commission has previously determined that properties must
be a minimum of 37.5 feet wide on both sides for the
purposes of the height provision. The applicant seeks a
variance from this Code provision and requests the ability to
have a 3rd story on the rear half of the property.
Page 6 of 16
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
t
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
47
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of December 3. 2003
Recommendation: Continue to meeting of January 7,2004.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Ladner asked the Director of Development Services how many lots
within Seal Beach have this "pie-shaped" configuration. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
almost the end of every block on both sides of Electnc Avenue from 5th Street to Seal
Beach Boulevard has these types of lots. He approximated that 28-30 lots have this
type of wedge-shaped lot
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to continue the public hearing for Variance
03-3 to the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 2004.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
5. Zone Text Amendment 03-3 - Second Residential Units
Citywide
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
permit the establishment of second residential units In
compliance with the provIsions of California Government
Code ~65852.2.
Recommendation:
Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
03-48.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated that this proposed change to the Zoning Code IS a
result of changes to the California Government Code approved by the State Legislature
and signed into law by the Governor. He noted that the law took effect on July 1, 2003.
He explained that this law made changes to what has been commonly called the granny
unit provisions of state law. He explained that in 1986 the State first imposed granny
unit regulations upon every city within the State of California stating that this type of use
could not be denied by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process or any other review
process. The law requires that cities have specific standards in place to facilitate
application for an over-the-counter permit. He said that the new changes also made a
number of changes to these provisions and further tIghtened the types of controls cities
can place on these types of uses. He stated that as Staff has reviewed the State Law
Page 7 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
provisions and prepared the Ordinance that is a part of this Staff Report. He said the
law does allow cities to exempt areas from these provisions If they can make certain
findings, with the primary findings being related to sewer and water infrastructure issues
and Impacts on parking on the street He said that as Staff has evaluated the 1999
sewer plan for the City (in particular for the Old Town area), and reviewed the on-street
parking situation in Old Town, part of the recommendation to the PC this evening is that
the City can make findings to exempt the Residential High Density (RHD) and
Residential Medium Density (RMD) areas within Old Town between Pacific Coast
Highway (PCH) and the ocean and between Anaheim Bay and the San Gabriel River.
He noted that the only area that would not be included in this exemption would be the
Gold Coast homes along the north side of Ocean Avenue between the pier and the San
Gabriel River. He stated that other residential areas in the city cannot be exempted
from these provisions, but the feeling is that there would probably be less potential for
this to occur in those areas. The Director of Development Services then noted that
since the City does not allow parking for residential uses within the front yard setback,
parking for the second unit would also not be allowed in the front yard setback. He
stated that Staff has also developed standards for minimum and maximum sizes of
these permissible second units, which Include the provision of additional parking for
these units in accordance with the provisions of State law. He indicated that the options
before the PC tonight are:
1. Recommend adoption of an Ordinance similar to what Staff has prepared.
2. Take no action, which would result in anyone being able to apply for permits to
construct a second unit under the provisions of State law. This would not allow
the City to exempt the Old Town area.
Mr. Whittenberg recommended approval of the Ordinance and to include it as Exhibit A
to Resolution 03-48. He noted that Staff feels the proposed recommendations are
probably the strongest position the City can take, while still conforming to the
requirements of State law.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked if Staff would establish the minimum and maximum
allowable floor areas for second units. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this information
appears in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Abbe referred to pages 16 and 19 of the
proposed ordinance and noted that the minimum and maximum floor areas will differ
based upon whether the property is within a RHD or RMD Zone. Mr. Whittenberg noted
that these dimensions are generally based upon the allowances as set forth in the State
law. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that the maximum area would be 800 square
feet. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this maximum would apply to a detached unit, but for
attached units the maximum is 30% of the existing primary dwelling living area. He
indicated another requirement is that the owner of the property must live in one of the
two units on the property, and a deed restriction would be recorded prior to the final
inspection of this type of structure. CommiSSioner Deaton asked for an explanation of a
deed restriction. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the deed restriction indicates that the
Page 8 of 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 Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2003
owner is required to live either in the primary or secondary unit on the property, and if
not they are in violation and would be subject to court processes. Commissioner
Deaton asked if this deed restriction would go with the sale of the property. Mr.
Whittenberg confirmed that it would. Mr. Abbe interjected that the two Units could not
be sold separately.
Commissioner Shanks commented that this would apply to new building, and he could
see that under most circumstances, beach cities, which are basically built on relatively
small lots, don't leave much open space, like cities such as Anaheim that have larger
lots. He said that this legislation does not allow in any way for subdivision of an existing
property. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that minimum City lot size requirements must still
be adhered to, and multiple unit properties cannot add a second unit.
Mr. Abbe interjected that the second Unit can be attached to the single-family residence
on the property.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
Mr. Warren Morton asked who would enforce the deed restriction. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that the City would have to receive a complaint in order to proceed with
enforcement. Mr. Morton asked if he could build a second unit on a property on The HIli
and sell it as a duplex. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he could sell the property, but the
new owner would have to live in one of the units in order to be in compliance. He noted
that in order to be issued a permit to build, the property owner would have to agree to
and sign the deed restriction affidavit.
Mrs. Mitzi Morton stated that she approved of exempting the Old Town area from this
legislation.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve Zone Text Amendment 03-3 and
adopt Resolution 03-48 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
Commissioner Deaton thanked Staff for the work done on the Staff Report for ZT A 03-3.
Page 9 of 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
Meetmg Mmutes of December 3. 2003
Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is no appeal period and by law a Zone Text
Amendment (ZTA) must go before City Council for additional hearrngs. He said that
these hearings would be noticed and published in the newspaper as required by law.
STUDY SESSION
6. STUDY SESSION - Expansion and Additions to Legal Non-Conforming
Residential Structures
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this issue came about in 2002 as a result of an application
for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a property on Electric Avenue He explained
that the Planning Commission (PC) had approved that request, which was later
appealed to the City Council, who ultimately denied the request and directed the PC to
consider the issue of expansions to nonconforming uses. He indicated that a study
session was conducted in February 2003 where the PC recommended that Staff return
with additional information at another study session to be held in March 2003. He noted
that the PC has been provided with copies of the minute excerpts from these study
sessions along with the previous Staff Reports providing the history of how the
expansion of nonconforming use section of the Code has evolved durrng the period
from 1974 to 2002. He stated that during this period of time there have been nine
different amendments to the Code relating to nonconforming uses, the types of
additions and expansions allowed, and the process changing over time for gaining
approval of this type of expansion. He indicated that City Council (CC) had ultimately
adopted an Interim Ordinance, which began a 45-day moratorrum on the acceptance of
applications for additions or expansions to nonconforming structures. He said that prior
to the expiration of this moratorium CC conducted another public hearing and extended
the moratorium for a period of 10 months and 15 days, the maximum time that it could
be extended under the provisions of State law. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the current
moratorium is due to expire on March 12, 2004. He said that unless the City takes
some kind of action to amend the Code prior to March 12, 2004, the old provisions of
the Code would again take effect allowing the acceptance of applications for expansions
to nonconforming uses. He continued by stating that in July 2003 an individual
requested that CC reconsider the Issue of a total moratorium on expansions for cases
where the property met certain conditions as far as parking and density, but did not
meet a setback or lot coverage requirement. CC had responded that they did not
choose to consider this until the PC and CC could again review the entire process. The
Director of Development Services clarified that what the moratorium does is state that
any residential property that is nonconforming, regardless of what the nonconformity
may be, cannot submit a request for an addition to the living space of the eXisting
structure; however other minor Improvements would be allowed. He Indicated that Staff
has subsequently met with several local residents submitting plans for an expansion
who were not aware that the moratorium existed. He stated that at the request of two
separate residents, copies of their plans for expansions have been provided to the PC
to give the PC an idea of the types of projects residents are attempting to do. He
explained that the plans are for a property at 236 Fifth Street, which is an eXisting 2-unit
Page 10 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
property with a 4-car garage with a lot size that meets the density and parking
requirements, but is nonconforming due to a sIde yard setback for one-third of one side
wall of the house. Everything else meets current Code requirements. The applicant is,
therefore, requesting that he be able to construct the rest of the home to meet the
setback requirement. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the moratorium as it currently exists
states that this cannot be done. He then explained that the second set of plans are for
a two-unit property at 222 Seventeenth Street that is nonconforming due to density,
parking, and the alley setback for the garage. He said that the property owner wishes to
add a second story to the front single-family residence (SFR) (a detached, small
2-bedroom, one-bath house), and to maintain the existing rear unit above the garage as
It currently exists. He indicated that under the previous procedures in place prior to
implementation of the moratorium, this type of request would have required a CUP. He
said that the reason these cases are presented tomght is to give the PC an Idea of what
residents are attempting to do on their properties. He stated that the Minor Plan Review
(MPR) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were formerly used for review of
applications for modifications to nonconforming uses. He also noted that there has
always been a provision in the Code that states that if the only nonconformity on a
property is a setback, and the property meets all other Code requirements, the Director
of Development Services then has the authority to approve thiS type of project without it
having to come before the PC. He stated that in March 2003 PC had made the
recommendation to CC that they eliminate the provision allowing expansions or
additions to any legal nonconforming structure within the City. He noted that this is
generally the position that 80% of the CIties in California have taken.
Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that Staff is recommending that the PC receive
comments from the public on this issue tonight and authorize Staff to schedule a future
public hearing for a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to change the Code. He stated that
this would allow the public to comment and respond to the three alternatives as listed
beginning on Page 19 of the Staff Report. He noted that the first recommended
alternative would be to consider elimination of the provisions for expansions of
nonconforming residential structures, but continue to allow for expansions of structures
that are nonconforming due only to setback or height requirements with all new
construction being built to conform to current City Code. He explained that the Code
would continue to allow for minor additions or improvements of nonhabitable spaces to
existing nonconforming structures.
The Director of Development Services referred to Alternative 2 beginning on Page 22,
which proposes that expansions be allowed as set forth in Section 28-2407.A.1 through
28-2407.A.2. ThiS would maintain the current policies of the City regarding "Minor
Structural Alterations and Improvements," but would exempt adding any new livable
space Mr. Whittenberg then presented the proposal for Sections 28-2407.A.3 which
would require a CUP for expansions greater in size than permitted by Section 28-
2407'A.2 that do not provide a minimum of 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit on the
property and set a maxImum size on an addition that could be requested by an
applicant. A final alternative as presented for Section and 28-2407.A.4 would require a
CUP for expansions greater in size than permitted by Section 28-2407 A.2 that do
Page 11 of 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 Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2003
provide a minimum of 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit on the property and set no
maximum size on an addition that could be requested by an applicant. Mr. Whittenberg
noted that these alternatives were very similar to what was discussed at the March 5,
2003 study session when the PC proposed giving property owners the incentive for
increasing parking space by allowing them to build a larger addition.
Alternative 3, as presented on Page 25 recommends no change to the existing Code;
however, the Director of Development Services noted that based upon previous
discussions by the PC and CC, this would not appear to be a viable alternative, but
should still be taken under consideration Commissioner Deaton stated that there is no
alternative that reflects the determination of the PC at its last study session, which was
basically to permit no additions. Mr Whittenberg noted that this appears in Alternative 1
with the exception of the Issue of an addition only if it IS nonconforming due to setbacks.
Commissioner Deaton stated that a separate Alternative 4 should be included to state
the recommendation that PC had made to CC so that everything would be "on the
table."
Commissioner Shanks cited an example that if the required side-yard setback IS 3 feet 9
Inches, could the property owner then apply for a Variance (V AR) or would City Code
clearly stipulate that If this setback requirement were not met, there would be no
allowances made for a V AR or CUP? Mr. Whittenberg stated that If the Ordinance were
to state that there would be no exception to this requirement, the property owner could
still apply for a V AR; however, Staff would strongly urge the property owner to refrain
from applying for a V AR, as Staff would recommend denial of the request to both the
PC and CC. He emphasized that an individual could not be prohibited from asking for a
Variance from a Section of the Code, but the only reason a V AR could be granted is if
there are unusual circumstances on a particular property that do no generally exist
throughout the rest of the community. He said that for nonconforming situations,
particularly in Old Town, this would be a very difficult finding to make.
Commissioner Deaton asked if there were any other means of requesting a change
other than a Variance? Mr. Whittenberg responded that for a nonconforming lot this
would be the only vehicle for doing this.
Chairperson Sharp requested that the Planning Commission take a short recess before
continuing with the Public Comment portion of the Study Session. The PC recessed at
8:45 p m.
The PC reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the PC should focus on the fact that the Interim Ordinance
currently in place will expire on March 12, 2004, and if the City does not formally go
through the Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) process to change the provisions of the Code,
the old provisions will automatically go back into effect. He said that he believes State
law does allow for an additional one-year extension, which CC could consider, should
the ZT A process not be completed by March 12, 2004.
Page 12 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
Pubic Comments
Chairperson Sharp opened the public comment period.
Mr. Steve Cole stated that he lives in the home at 222 - 1 ih Street for which plans were
presented to the PC tonight as an example of a nonconforming use. He said he has
lived in Seal B\beach for 33 years and purchased his present home 27 years ago and
has since lived in it for most of that time. He stated that his home is an 850 square foot,
2-bedroom home and is quite small, so he would like to reconfigure the property by
adding a second floor where the new two bedrooms would be located with the first floor
being converted to create a dining room and a study. He noted that this would not
create an increase in density on the property. He said that he could make one-half of
the garage a tandem parking unit to provide for off-street parking. Mr. Cole indicated
that It was frustrating to see other property owners who are allowed to complete projects
similar to the one he is proposing without having to provide the required parking, yet he
has not been able to do so. He said that he has done extensive remodeling on the
inside of the home and would like to further improve it by adding the second story. He
stated that this beach community does represent a wide range of people and their
desires of what they would like to do with their property, and they should not have rigid
rules that prevents this. He encouraged consideration of this type of case when
deciding upon the alternatives for nonconforming uses. Commissioner Deaton asked
what causes Mr. Cole's property to be nonconforming. Mr. Cole stated that there is a
rental over the garage and there are only 2 off-street parking spaces making his
property nonconforming due to density and parking.
Mr. Warren Morton stated that what Staff has prepared is good. He said that additions
to nonconforming properties should not be allowed if they do not conform to setbacks,
height restrictions, and parking, and access to garages must be from alleys and not
from the street. He stated that if the property does meet setback, height, and parking
requirements they should be allowed to make some improvements and additions. He
commented that the size of the 4-car garage in the plans for 236 Fifth Street would not
allow for the 3 foot 9 Inch side yard setbacks on either side. Mr. Whittenberg clarified
that this would be a 3-car garage with one tandem space at the front of the garage.
Ms. Mitzi Morton stated that what the PC needs to look at is what the City will look like
10 years from now. She said that when the City downzoned to single-family residences,
homeowners had anticipated that the lots would have yards with front and rear yard
setbacks, but as land became more valuable developers convinced homeowners to fill
up their lots with huge two-story homes. She stated that major expansions to legal
nonconforming uses should not be allowed. She noted that if owners of nonconforming
lots wish to have more room they should give up the second unit on their property. She
cautioned that if things continue there would be a high building density of these huge
two-story homes, which block out the light from the sun. Ms. Morton commented that
the current Minor Plan Review (MPR) process allows for too great an expansion.
Page 13 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public
comment penod.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that wntten statements from Geraldine West and Roger West
were received with the request that they be entered into the record.
The Director of Development Services then stated that Staff is recommending that the
PC authorize Staff to schedule a public hearing for a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) with
formal language prepared for each of the alternatives presented in the Staff Report and
Alternative 4 as proposed by Commissioner Deaton. He suggested scheduling the
public hearing for January 7 or January 21 , 2004.
Commissioner Deaton asked if the public heanng were scheduled for January 21, 2004
would CC be able to complete its public heanng before the March 12, 2004 expiration
date. Mr. Whittenberg stated he was not certain, but CC has the option to extend the
ordinance for another year. Commissioner Deaton expressed her desire to see the
issue resolved before the March 12 expiration date, rather than extending the hearing
for another year making it necessary that members of the public come out once again to
express their concerns on this issue. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it is the intent of the
City that should resolution of this issue go beyond the March 12 deadline, CC could
extend the ordinance to keep it in place only while a final determination is made.
Commissioner Deaton thanked the members of the public present tonight and asked
that they continue to appear at future public hearings on this issue until it is resolved.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to authorize Staff to schedule a public
hearing for a Zone Text Amendment to consider alternatives to modify City Code
regarding additions or expansions to legal nonconforming structures.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
None
Eagar
Mr. Whittenberg reported that because this is a citywide issue, the public hearing
notices would be noticed in the Sun Newspaper only, with no indiVidual mailings being
sent out.
STAFF CONCERNS
On behalf of City Staff Mr. Whittenberg extended best wishes for the Holiday Season to
all of the Planning Commissioners.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Shanks stated that he had received an inquiry on the John's Food King
remodel asking about how many retail units it would contain and how parking IS to be
Page 14 of 16
.
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 December 3, 2003
handled. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the building has been subdivided into 7 smaller
units. He said that parking for the building is grandfathered based upon a retail use of
the market, so all new uses that go into the bUilding must be retail uses with the same
parking requirement as the former market. This would not include restaurant uses. He
noted that coffee houses or dessert shops that are less than 1,000 square feet have the
same parking requirement as a retail sales use. He stated that one of the retail uses
would be a coffee shop. Commissioner Shanks asked if the parking lot at Hennessey's
would be shared with the new retail uses. Mr. Whittenberg noted that once the new
building is occupied, Hennessey's must share the parking spaces in the lot.
Commissioner Shanks then asked If City Council's request to have the option of
allowing council comments after oral communications had been approved. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that he believed this was approved. Commissioner Shanks stated
that the reason he inquired about this is that many times during oral communications
members of the public may make comments that are totally inaccurate and no
clarification is provided. He suggested that this might be a consideration for the PC
meetings.
Chairperson Sharp stated that in the past Commissioners have responded to comments
dunng oral communications, and many times ended up getting into heated discussions
that should not have occurred. He said he was not comfortable with allowing this.
Commissioner Shanks stated that a period for Commissioner Comments could be made
after all oral communications have taken place. Commissioner Deaton concurred.
Commissioner Deaton then asked whether a historical plaque of any kind would be
placed on the building that was formerly John's Food King. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
the diagonal sign from the corner of the old building was salvaged and will be
reinstalled.
Commissioner Ladner asked if grading had resumed on the Hellman property. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that John Laing Homes has received permission from the California
Coastal Commission (CCC) to resume grading. Commissioner Ladner then inquired
about CCC approval for installation of parking meters along Main Street. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that the application was submitted but the CCC has not yet
responded. Commissioner Ladner asked if there were a legal time limit for their
response. Mr. Whittenberg stated that City Counsel IS looking into this question.
Commissioner Shanks stated that Mr. Bruce Frenzeger died on November 19, 2003.
He Indicated that Mr. Frenzeger was responsible for preservation of the Red Car in Seal
Beach and an important member of the Seal Beach Historical Society
Chairperson Sharp inquired on the status of the DWP property. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that Bay City Partners submitted an incomplete application and Staff notified
them of what was needed to deem the application complete. Bay City Partners did
submit the requested materials on Tuesday and Staff will be reviewing this data next
Page 15 of 16
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of December 3, 2003
week. If the application is found to be complete, the City would then hire consultants to
begin the environmental review process and prepare the documents that must be
circulated for public review and comment.
Commissioner Shanks requested that the meeting be adjourned in the memory of Bruce
Frenzeger.
ADJOURNMENT
As ordered by Chairperson Sharp, Commissioner Shanks adjourned the meeting at
9:20 p.m. in memory of Bruce Brensiger.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on January 7, 2004, approved th~Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, December 3, 2003. ~
Page 16 of 16