HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2005-05-04
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for May 4, 2005
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - Gary Roberts
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Christy Teague, AICP, Senior Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Q
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.
Q
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 at (562) 431-2527.
Q
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday afternoons, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
Q
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
Q 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.
Page 1 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 4, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All /Jroceedinqs are recorded.
Page 2 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for May 4, 2005
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or
public to request an item be 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 April 6, 2005.
2. March 2005 Building and Safety Department Statistical Report.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Variance 05-3
B-1 Surfside
ApplicanVOwner: Carl J. Loza / Keven & Lori Loza
Page 3 of 6
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Agenda of May 4, 2005
.
Request:
Construct new single-family residence on a 29.75 foot by
45.08 foot lot (1,364.78 square feet), which does not
meet the minimum lot size requirement of 25 feet by 60
feet (1,500 square feet) with proposed side setback of 6
inches where the Seal Beach Zoninq Code requires a
side setback of 3 feet; and a proposed rear setback of 6
inches, where the Code requires 3 feet. A storage
building currently exists on the lot.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adopt Resolution
05-18.
4. Conditional Use Permit 05-5
209 Main Street 0Noody's Diner)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
.
Erik Johnson / Fran Trostler
To expand hours of operation for a restaurant in an
existing commercial building. Specifically, the applicant
proposes to pen for breakfast at 7:00 a.m. and close at
10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and to close at
11 :00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Holiday evenings.
The request includes small jukeboxes at each of the
tables to play music selection on existing restaurant-wide
sound system.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adopt Resolution
05-17.
5. Conditional Use Permit 99-3 (Indefinite Extension)
140 Main Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Brian Kyle
To continue to permit a fully enclosed, uncovered outdoor
dining area of approximately 300 square feet at the rear
of the existing restaurant structure between the
restaurant and an existing detached two-car
garage/apartment above structure.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions as recommended by Staff,
and as may be further revised by the Commission after
considering public testimony.
VIII. STUDY SESSION
. 6. Main Street Specific Plan Sign Standards
Page 4 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of May 4, 2005
IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 4, 2005
2005 Aqenda Forecast
May 18 Minor Plan Review 05-2 -1205-1205 ~ Seal Way
Minor Plan Review 05-3 - 265 Harvard Lane
Minor Plan Review 05-4 - 8-14 Surfside
Jun 8
Jun 22
July 6
July 20
Aug 3
Aug 17
Sep 7
Sep 21
Oct 5
Oct 19
Nov9
Nov 23
Dee 7
Dee 21
Page 6 of 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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of May 4,2005
Chairperson Ladner called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2005. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 .
ROll CAll
Present: Chairperson Ladner, Commissioners Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp.
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Absent: Christy Teague, AICP, Senior Planner
AGENDA APPROVAL
Commissioner Shanks requested that Item No. 1 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
ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Ladner opened oral communications.
David Rosenman spoke on behalf of Trees For Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Tree
Committee to remind the public that the Committee has free shade trees available for
adoption. He noted that interested parties should contact Bob Eagle at City Hall by
calling (562) 431-2527 Ext. 321. He also reminded the public about the Summer Kick-
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Page 1 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
Off Fundraiser to take place on Saturday, June 18, 2005, beginning at 5:00 p.m.
Tickets are available by advance purchase only by calling (714) 235-0880.
Brian Kyle said that he would not be able to stay for the study session on Main Street
Specific Plan Sign Standards and wished to make a statement. He noted that in 1982
he participated on the task force to create the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). He
indicated that at that time Main Street was a "dead street" with many of the shops
boarded up, and for 6-12 months the task force met on a regular basis to help improve
this, with an emphasis on maintaining the Old Town atmosphere. He stated that he has
invested a lot of money into Main Street and is disheartened by what he currently sees
happening with the neon lights, which he believes cheapens the appearance of Old
Town and threaten to do away with the Old Town feel. He also noted the need to add
more streetlights to Main Street and again encouraged the Planning Commission (PC)
to be cautions about allowing more neon signs or brightly illuminated lighting.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. March 2005 Building and Safety Department Statistical Report.
Commissioner Deaton thanked Staff for provision of the Building Activity Summary.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Roberts to approve the Consent Calendar as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2005.
Commissioner Shanks is to abstain from voting, as he was not present for the meeting
of April 6, 2005.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to approve the Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2005 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-1
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Sharp
None
None
Shanks
Page 2 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Variance 05-3
B-1 Surfside
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Carl J. Loza I Keven & Lori Loza
Construct new single-family residence on a 29.75 foot by 45.08
foot lot (1,364.78 'square feet), which does not meet the
minimum lot size requirement of 25 feet by 60 feet (1,500
square feet) with proposed side setback of 6 inches where the
Seal Beach Zoninq Code requires a side setback of 3 feet; and
a proposed rear setback of 6 inches, where the Code requires 3
feet. A storage building currently exists on the lot.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adopt Resolution 05-18.
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
noted that the PC had previously approved an application for B-2 Surfside with
nonconforming setbacks related to the fact that the property fronts Anderson Street and
has entrance driveways on both sides of the lot. He indicated that Variance 05-3
presents the same request with the house being located on the southerly end of the
property rather than the northerly. He noted that at the public hearing for B-2 Surfside a
neighboring resident had expressed concerns on the ability of the Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA) to maneuver its vehicles around these two parcels, but Staff did meet
at the site with one of the OCFA circulation planners who found that there would be no
difficulty in responding or maneuvering equipment. He indicated that currently the
driveway nearest the beach is strictly an exit driveway with spikes in the road preventing
entry, but the spikes are to be removed and the OCFA will have an override system
allowing them to enter and exit at will. The Director of Development Services ended by
stating that Staff is recommending approval subject to the same conditions imposed
upon B-2 Surfside.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked if there would be a standard setback between the two
homes. Mr. Whittenberg reported that there would be a 3-foot setback between
property lines.
Page 3 of 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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing.
Carl Loza stated that he is constructing this home for his son, and the specifications of
this home are the same as those for the previously approved project at B-2 Surfside.
He provided drawings of the home for review by the PC. Commissioner Roberts asked
if the landscaping on the southerly side is to be the same as for B-2 Surfside. Mr. Loza
confirmed that the landscaping would be the same. Commissioner Sharp asked if the
lots are side by side. Mr. Loza explained that the lots are almost the same size and are
side by side. Commissioner Sharp asked if there were different owners for the lots. Mr.
Loza confirmed that there are. Commissioner Sharp expressed his concern that these
lots are too small for houses and stated that realistically the lot should accommodate
only one house. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that many of the lots in Surfside Colony
are pre-existing and measure 25 x 35 feet, and the City standard allows for this. He
also noted that Staff had received an e-mail comment at 3:26 p.m. today from Jaime
Harrison of Sunset Beach speaking in opposition to this project due to parking issues.
(E-mail is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) Commissioner Roberts
commented that Dave Evans, President of the Surfside Colony Homeowners
Association (SCHA) is not present tonight. He asked if anyone would be representing
the SCHA. Mr. Loza stated that he has already received approval from the SCHA.
Mr. Durby, the owner of A-1 Surfside stated that he had previously expressed his
opposition to building these homes so close together, and noted that this property
should never have been subdivided into two lots. He indicated that formerly this area
was used principally as a dumpsite and now with the proposed homes, he is concerned
with access to the entire colony via the Anderson Street gates. He noted that the SCHA
had not provided details on this project to any of the surrounding residents. He also
expressed concerns regarding airflow, with making the streets more narrow in this area,
and that these projects deviate from City standards which could set a precedent, noting
that if this is approved, he and other homeowners should be allowed the same privilege
should they decide to expand their homes in the future.
Commissioner Deaton stated that after listening to Mr. Durby's concerns during the
public hearing for B-2 Surfside, she had visited the site along with the Director of
Development Services and a representative of the OCFA to see exactly what the
situation was. She stated that because they believed they had addressed every issue
expressed by Mr. Durby, the PC had proceeded to approve the project for B-2 Surfside.
She stated that the issues presented tonight by Mr. Durby were not expressed at the
previous public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg explained that a fire hydrant that is now in the
roadway is to be moved adjacent to the new homes, which will allow more turning area
in the roadway, and the major issue for the OCFA was the exit only driveway, which will
now be available for entrance by OCFA emergency vehicles, eliminating the need for
internal turnaround of the vehicles. Commissioner Deaton added that the PC had taken
Mr. Durby's comments very seriously and had adequately addressed these concerns.
Page 4 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
Mr. Durby insisted that his concern is with the shrinking roadway making it difficult for
the OCFA vehicle to turn around.
Keven Loza, owner of the property, stated that the currently existing building on the
property is exactly the size of the proposed new home and there will be no further
encroachment.
Mr. Durby stated that although the current structure is the same size, it was built the
wrong way with no easement and was never corrected. He indicated that the new
home would not be the same size. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Staff and
Commissioner Deaton met on the property with an OCFA Planner with dimension maps.
He noted that the OCFA Planner knows the size of roadway needed in order to
adequately make turns, and he found that the roadway is more than adequate for their
needs. Mr. Durby stated that vehicles could not make a turn from one road to the other,
and this is probably the reason the Anderson Street gate is to be made an ingress and
egress gate. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the proposal to remove the road spikes was
made by Surfside Colony and not by the OCFA, as this would improve safety for the
entire community.
There. being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Roberts asked where the fire hydrant is to be relocated and how far from
the property line the entrance to the maintenance building entrance is. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that the fire hydrant is to be relocated to the landscaped planter area opposite
the gate and the maintenance building entrance is inset approximately 6 inches from the
property line. Commissioner Roberts confirmed that there would be no further
infringement upon the public access road than what is currently there. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that there would be a 2-3 foot infringement on the access roadway for the
landscaped planter area. He noted that the aisle of the access ways on both sides of
the property will maintain the required width for residents who have to back out of their
garages on the A-Row homes to provide the required 24-foot turning radius.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the access road near the first house on the westerly
end of B-Row would be "choked down." Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would be
reduced by the width of the planter area.
Commissioner Deaton requested clarification of the changes to the roadway. Mr.
Whittenberg explained that the landscaping would be on the exit driveway side of the
maintenance building and directly behind the garages of the A-Row homes. He said
that currently as these residents back out of their garages they back out toward the
garage doors of the maintenance building, and the proposal is to have a 2-3 foot strip of
landscaping in this area, which will still maintain the required turning radius for A-Row
residents to back out of their garages. He noted that for a single entry roadway the City
only requires a 12-foot width, and the current width of the roadway is 20 feet. When the
Page 5 of 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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
width is reduced by the 2-3 landscaped area, this still leaves a 17 -foot wide single drive
aisle, which is more than sufficient for both City and OCFA standards. The Director of
Development Services then noted that fences for the existing homes on the west side
behind the proposed new homes extend approximately 3 feet onto Surfside property
and they will be required to move these fences back, which will also increase the width
of the roadway for the cross-connection driveway between the current entrance road
and the exit road. He noted that Attachment 4 of the Staff Report is an e-mail message
from Dave Evans stating support of the project. Commissioner Deaton then referred to
the e-mail from Jaime Harrison and noted that Staff has conveyed that there is
adequate parking for the two new residences. She asked if this is garage and apron
parking. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the plans call for two required garage spaces per
housing unit. Commissioner Deaton then stated that she believes all concerns have
been adequately addressed and noted that the PC is granting this Variance because
this property has unique characteristics in its size, shape, and location that are
completely different from any other homes in this area, and there is no granting of
special privilege.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Sharp to approve Variance 05-3 and adopt
Resolution 05-18 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-18 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4. Conditional Use Permit 05-5
209 Main Street 0Noody's Diner)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Erik Johnson / Fran Trostler
To expand hours of operation for a restaurant in an existing
commercial building. Specifically, the applicant proposes to pen
for breakfast at 7:00 a.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. Sunday
through Thursday and to close at 11 :00 p.m. on Friday,
Saturday, and Holiday evenings. The request includes small
jukeboxes at each of the tables to play music selection on
existing restaurant-wide sound system.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adopt Resolution 05-17.
Page 6 of 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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
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
noted that the applicant wishes to extend the operating hours from 11 :00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. to open at 7:00 a.m. daily in order to allow for breakfast service and to close at
11 :00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, and on holiday evenings. He stated that this property
has had a restaurant use since approximately the 1950's. He indicated that the PC was
provided with a comment letter received from Wesley and Mercedes Cleary. He stated
that Staff has also proposed two additional conditions as provided by the Department of
Public Works as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter
9.25, Fats, Oils, and Discharge Control, which include the requirement to install a
grease trap.
2. Business Operator shall steam clean the public sidewalk in front of the business
location on a quarterly basis and shall participate in any City-sponsored sidewalk
cleaning program that the City may establish. Business operator on a yearly basis
shall provide proof of compliance with said sidewalk steam-cleaning program to the
Department of Public Works.
The Director of Development Services then indicated that another proposed condition is
that parking on the alley cannot be used between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. to help
protect the residential uses behind the restaurant.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Roberts asked if the seating arrangement is to be the same as for BJ's
Pizza. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would be the same. Commissioner Roberts
then asked if the parking approval goes back to the previously approved Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Whittenberg stated that when the CUP for BJ's was approved
the City had two separate parking programs in place, one of them being the in-lieu
parking program established in the 1980s, which required a payment of $100 per space
per year ad infinitum in return for the inability of a business to physically provide the
required parking spaces. He explained that when BJ's application for a CUP came
through the City was going through a process of conditioning approvals based upon
development agreements where the applicant was required to pay an up front, one-time
$3,500 fee per parking space. He noted that once this fee has been paid for the
property, it cannot be charged again to a new operator when the business changes
hands.
Commissioner Deaton asked because Woody's Diner would be using a fryer, would
there be any air quality impacts. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) controls all emissions. He noted that the previous
restaurant had prepared fried food, and if Woody's chooses to use a different system,
Page 7 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
they will have to apply to the AQMD for permits to allow this. He indicated that the City
is preempted form dealing with this issue because of the State authority through the
AQMD.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing.
Mr. Erik Johnson, the applicant for Woody's Diner, stated that there would be no
changes to the kitchen at all. He indicated that the only revision to the former seating
floor plan would be the addition of the wall jukeboxes at each of the tables.
Commissioner Deaton asked if there is a noise level standard for the interior of the
building. Mr. Johnson stated that the volume is kept low to allow clients to hold a
conversation while dining. He said that the music basically serves as background music
-and the system plays only one song at a time. Commissioner Shanks asked if the
electrical transformer in the rear of the property is to be renewed to increase electrical
supply. Mr. Johnson stated that everything is to remain the same, as there will be no
additional electrical load. Commissioner Roberts asked if speakers are to be included
on the patio. Mr. Johnson stated that BJ's did have speakers on the patio, but Woody's
does not intend to add more speakers, and will use the existing speaker system.
Commissioner Roberts asked if all the speakers would be connected to the same
volume control. Mr. Johnson stated that the patio speakers have a separate volume
control and if necessary can be left turned off. Commissioner Roberts asked if there
would be any changes to the restaurant fagade. Mr. Johnson stated that the only
change is to be the addition of a wood sign with no neon lighting.
David Rosenman stated that he lives directly behind the restaurant and two weeks ago
he was without power for approximately 18 hours while Southern California Edison
(SCE) installed a new transformer with vents directly behind Woody's. He said when he
asked the workmen they said the transformer was being installed because Woody's was
moving to this location. He commented that the agenda for tonight's meeting shows
Staff recommending approval of this application, and he feels this is "lamentable" as
nearby residents were not consulted regarding this. He stated that although this may be
a use that is allowed under the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP), it does not mean it
has to be approved. He noted that both BJ's and Walt's Wharf opened at 11 :00 a.m.,
but Woody's is applying to open at 7:00 a.m., which is an intensification of use. He said
he supports the facts as presented in Mr. Cleary's letter, and he is also speaking on
behalf of Brett Matthews and his mother, Reva Olson at 218 8th Street. He indicated
that this home has a rental unit at the rear of the property and the resident has voiced
frequent complaints of noise related to BJ's. Mr. Rosenman added that he also speaks
on behalf of another of his neighbors who is currently out of town. He referred to
Attachment 4 of the Staff Report under Attachment B, Mitigation Monitoring, Item 4, and
noted that for the past year and one-half there has not been a sign posted prohibiting
parking between the hours of 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. He commented that as everyone
already knows, in this town "we do not do Code Enforcement worth beans." He
continued by stating that because a CUP runs with the property, once a CUP is
Page 8 of 22
.
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
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
approved to extend the hours, if Woody's does not stay at this location the door has
been opened to allow a Hennessey's type business to go into this site. He added that
he would be happy to prepare a preamble to Resolution 01-17 that goes into detail
regarding the interface between residents and this business property. He suggested a
condition be added that instructs Staff that when an applicant request an application for
a public hearing that he/she also be provided with the Code section on Noise. He
recommended leaving the hours of operation as they are, as the neighboring residents
have already lived with this, and if the PC does not do this then they have placed him at
a greater risk for noise and have reduced his property value. He then recommended
the following conditions:
1. No deliveries should be allowed before 8:00 a.m. and before 10:00 a.m. on
Saturdays and Sundays.
2. No dumping of trash between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, and
10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. on weekends.
3. Except for deliveries or exiting of employees, the rear door of the restaurant is
to remain closed at all times.
Mr. Rosenman then noted that the Alcohol & Beverage Control (ABC) approval for BJ's
includes specific language with regard to nothing being allowed out the back door after
8:00 or 9:00 p.m. He said he was not clear on which one it is, but he does know that it
was included as a part of an agreement with the owner of BJ's, if Mr. Rosenman would
not oppose BJ's application for a liquor license. He indicated that this should be
incorporated into this CUP approval. He said he is in favor of not allowing use of the
jukeboxes before 10:00 a.m. on any day, as the structure of the building provides no
sound deadening, but rather amplifies noise. He added that Walt's Wharf also has
background music, and at some point the PC will have to consider how much noise it
wants to allow on Main Street. Commissioner Shanks asked if part of Mr. Rosenman's
concern was about having food delivery service like BJ's had provided with the delivery
of pizzas and with having the delivery vehicle parked in the rear of the restaurant. He
confirmed that Woody's would not be providing this service. Mr. Rosenman stated that
the pizza delivery was part of the problem, but it was also employees entering and
leaving the business, or BJ's just leaving the rear door open to allow for fresh air.
Commissioner Shanks noted that a pizza oven required higher temperatures and would
generate more heat than the oven temperature needed to prepare standard restaurant
food. Mr. Rosenman countered that this was still a source of noise and none of the
homes on his block have air conditioning so they rely on opening their windows to let in
cool air during the summer months.
Mr. Erik Johnson stated that Woody's has no delivery service and they do keep their
rear doors closed, as all employees enter and exit via the front door. He noted that the
back door is kept locked to help prevent theft. Commissioner Shanks asked if the
restaurant had air conditioning. Mr. Johnson stated that it is air-conditioned.
Commissioner Roberts asked if Woody's would be willing to provide the parking signs
that should have been posted to the rear of the building prohibiting parking between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Mr. Johnson stated that he would have the sign
Page 9 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
posted. Commissioner Roberts recommended that a sign stating "Keep Door Closed"
should also be posted on the door. Mr. Johnson said he would agree to this; however,
he would prefer to be able to empty the trash by 9:00 a.m. on the weekends rather than
having to wait until 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Deaton asked about the jukeboxes. Mr.
Johnson stated that it would be quieter than BJ's was. He said that Woody's does not
"blast" the jukeboxes, but prefer to have the volume low enough to allow for
conversation at the dining tables. Commissioner Roberts asked if the Woody's Diner in
Sunset Beach is located near residences. Mr. Johnson stated that it is, but that in 17
years they have never had any complaints from the neighboring residents.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Roberts requested that the condition for posting of the signage as
discussed be included in Resolution 05-17.
Commissioner Deaton stated that the issue appears to be the hours during which
parking in the rear would be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff has
recommended that a sign that reads "No Parking from 7:00 a.m. to 10:a.m." be posted.
She then commented that because there appears to be the perception that the PC is
not being responsive to the neighborhood, it might be appropriate to ensure that all
applicants for CUPs for businesses along Main Street understand the close proximity of
the neighboring homes. Mr. Whittenberg explained that whenever an application is
received for a CUP on Main Street, Staff meets with the applicant to discuss the issue of
the interface between a commercial use and a 15-foot separation to homes by an alley.
He stated that with land uses like this, restaurants would have a lot of conditions
imposed upon them for operating characteristics before they open for business. He
explained that Staff does make applicants aware of these conditions and even if
Woody's were coming in to simply take over the business and not apply for a change in
the hours, the applicant would still have to sign an Acceptance of Conditions affirming
agreement to abide by all the previously assigned Conditions of Approval before
receiving authority to receive the ABC License. Commissioner Deaton stated that the
preamble suggested by Mr. Rosenman might be a good idea for those businesses that
do not have to come before the PC, so that they know that they are backed up to
residences and need to be cognizant of the noise issues. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
Staff could work with the PC at another time to come up with an information sheet
covering this information.
Commissioner Shanks asked if the requirement to keep the back door closed at all
times is included in Resolution 05-17. Mr. Whittenberg noted that it could be found in
Condition No. 26, which imposes this restriction between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. Commissioner Deaton interjected that the condition should specify that the
doors be kept closed 24-hours a day. Commissioner Shanks agreed. Mr. Whittenberg
confirmed that what the PC wished to do was to have the rear entrance as an
Page 10 of 22
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
it
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 May 4, 2005
emergency exit only. He noted that to be in compliance with the Building and Fire Code
requirements the door must allow outside access. Commissioner Deaton stated that
the door could be unlocked but not open.
Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the final Conditions of Approval would comprise all of
the conditions as listed in the Staff Report, with the exception of Condition No. 26, which
will be revised to state that the rear door is to remain closed at all times, except as
required by Building and Fire Code requirements. Commissioner Deaton asked if a
condition regarding deliveries is included. Commissioner Roberts noted Condition NO.5
approaches this issue. Commissioner Sharp stated that it is difficult to try to regulate
deliveries, as the restaurant owners don't always have control over when deliveries are
made. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the conditions prohibit any parking/loading/unloading
off the rear of the property up until 1 0:00 a.m. and any deliveries made before then must
be made at the front entrance. Commissioner Shanks asked if the resolution includes
the proposed conditions for the grease traps and steam cleaning of the sidewalks. Mr.
Whittenberg confirmed that it does.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 05-5 and
adopt Resolution 05-17 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-17 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
At 8:43 p.m. Commissioner Sharp requested a 5-minute recess.
The meeting reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
5. Conditional Use Permit 99-3 (Indefinite Extension)
140 Main Street (O'Malley's On Main)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Brian Kyle
To continue to permit a fully enclosed, uncovered outdoor dining
area of approximately 300 square feet at the rear of the existing
restaurant structure between the restaurant and an existing
detached two-car garage/apartment above structure.
Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions as recommended by Staff, and
as may be further revised by the Commission after considering
public testimony.
Page 11 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
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 noting
that this item was considered in April 2004, with the PC making a determination to allow
continued operation of the business, to limit the hours for service on the patio, and
requested that the applicant work with the City to attempt to mitigate the noise issues
from the outdoor patio. He referred to Attachment 3, the Rear Restaurant Patio Noise
Study prepared in May of 2004, which reflected that the general noise levels at that time
did exceed the City's noise standards and proposed modifications by extending the
height of the wall along the southerly side of the patio area to help reduce the sound
levels. He indicated that the wall was constructed in November 2004 and a sound study
was conducted before the wall was approved and completed to ensure that the wall did
reduce the noise levels as anticipated. He noted that the most recent noise study
reflects that the noise levels are now reduced to a level that complies with the City's
noise standards. He reported that Staff has provided copies of letters received from
Michele M. Nipp and Maury J. Nipp speaking in opposition to approving the Indefinite
Extension of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-3. Photos of the patio area as it appears
today are also provided. The Director of Development Services then referred to
Attachment 2, the October 2004 Noise Study, noting that the readings were taken on a
Friday and Saturday and in most cases noise levels were reduced between 10-17
decibels from the May 2004 readings. He cautioned that the noise readings are directly
related to the number of people that happened to be in the patio at any given point in
time, and although one could assume that there might be more people on the patio in
May than in October, the noise levels still show a substantial reduction.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked if the address for Michele Nipp at 960 Central Avenue
would be equivalent in distance to the two apartments inland, or would it be further
away. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would be further to the north. He approximated
that O'Malley's would probably be 150-175 feet away from 960 Central Avenue.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing.
Brian Kyle, owner of O'Malley's On Main, stated that they had contracted a sound
consultant who had completed the noise study and based upon the results he had
constructed an 8-inch thick wall for soundproofing of the patio. He indicated that he has
monitored the situation carefully and has visited the surrounding neighbors to ask them
if the wall had reduced the noise levels. He noted that all of the neighbors polled had
responded in the affirmative and he is confident that this issue has been resolved. He
said that he is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Roberts
asked about addressing the concern of the patio door being open. Mr. Kyle stated that
a fire door has been installed at the rear of the building and does not allow exit without
Page 12 of 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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
the alarm going off. Commissioner Shanks asked how smokers are being handled. Mr.
Kyle stated that patrons who smoke use the patio, as it is the designated smoking area.
David Rosenman stated that if you walk down Main Street there is a "wonderful tree" in
front of O'Malley's that was the subject of extensive discussion among the Tree
Committee, City Engineering Staff, and Mr. Kyle. He said that thanks to Mr. Kyle the
roots of the tree were trimmed, pavers were put in, and the tree was salvaged. He
thanked Mr. Kyle for this.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Deaton commended Mr. Kyle for doing such a good job of taking a
difficult situation and making it better, and at the same time taking a nice patio and
making it nicer by adding the sound wall. Chairperson Ladner stated his agreement
with these comments.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Indefinite Extension of
Conditional Use Permit 99-3 and adopt Resolution 05-19 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-19 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
STUDY SESSION
6. Main Street Specific Plan Sign Standards
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 noting
that at the last Study Session the Commission had requested that Staff return with draft
language for some issues the PC felt needed to be addressed. He referred to
Attachment 1, the initial draft of the ordinance language to amend the provisions for the
Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Area. He briefly described the MSSP area as being
the area from Ocean Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), which includes the
businesses on Central Avenue between the alleyways; on the 8th Street side, it includes
Page 13 of 22
.
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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
the businesses all the way over to 8th Street, including City Hall, the Fire Station
property, and the 8th Street parking lot. He noted that generally the sign issue is related
to the businesses directly on Main Street, and is a result of concerns expressed by the
Commissioners and members of the public regarding the signage installed on the new
Main Street Square building. He indicated that in looking at this issue the discussion
expanded to include monument signs, courtyard signs, and neon signs, etc. Mr.
Whittenberg then stated that at this point Staff proposes that a section be separated
from the overall City commercial sign standards that deal specifically with Main Street
signs, which differ significantly from sign standards for Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) and
PCH. He briefly reviewed the previous discussion on monument and courtyard signs,
and noted that other major changes would be provision of standards for:
1. Permanent window signs.
2. Neon signs
3. Illumination of signs
4. Additional review of proposed new signage or conversion of existing signage for
multi-tenant buildings on Main Street using the Minor Plan Review process with
all business owners, residents, and property owners within a 100-foot radius
receiving notice of the Consent Calendar item. A Planned Sign Program is to be
required of all new or conversions to multi-tenant structures of 4 or more tenants.
5. Temporary window signs.
He then referred to Page 18, which presents a second set of standards for Proposed
Sign Provisions with Revisions To Apply To All Signage Regulations, which presents
the proposal for the calculation of sign area. He noted that on Pages 19-20 picture
examples show how this is done, with Maintenance and Administrative Removal of
Signs, Legibility of Signs, Materials, and Changeable Copy addressed on Pages 22-23.
The Director of Development Services then introduced the lighting Consultant for
Downtown Solutions (OS), Mr. Mark Brodeur, who provided a PowerPoint presentation
of the Seal Beach Sign Illumination Study. (Presentation is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) Mr. Brodeur introduced Ray Swartz, of Konsortum1, an
electrical engineering firm that assisted with the illumination study, and explained that
on the night of April 19, 2005, between the hours of 8:00 - 9:30 p.m. Mr. Swartz had
used a luminance meter, which accurately measures the sign area by eliminating light
from outside of the measurement area. He noted that neither distance from the sign nor
the size of the sign would make a difference in the luminance measurement levels. He
indicated that many times the perception is that a sign ;s bright, but many times it is the
type of illumination that is used that makes the sign appear brighter than it might
actually be. He stated that internally illuminated "can signs" are being prohibited in
many downtown areas because they are not in keeping with an Old Town type of
environment. An example of this would be the City of Carmel that allows signs with
illumination from a lamp source and not a fluorescent light source. He explained that
OS looked at how other cities codify sign illumination by luminances. Mr. Swartz added
that OS is providing recommendations that were done by the Luminating Engineering
Society of North America, which is a body of people who get together to make
Page 14 of 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
,
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
recommendations for things that many cities adopt and that engineers use for design.
He referred to the Recommended Sign Luminances Table and Mr. Brodeur then
proceeded to provide a presentation of the luminance measurements taken for various
signs along Main Street, noting that higher readings. resulted with the internally
illuminated signs. Mr. Brodeur then reviewed the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance,
Section 20.67.025.1.3, which presents the ranges of acceptable sign luminance and the
categories of measurements limits for an acceptable ambient light environment within
that city. He then followed with a comparison of the luminance readings in Seal Beach
with the ambient light environment standards for Newport Beach. He commented that
he was surprised to find how low the luminance for Seal Beach Main Street signs was
relative to the Newport Beach Ordinance, which reflects the low category readings to fall
between 10-45 candelas/square foot. He noted that these types of low luminance signs
would be allowed within residential areas of Newport Beach. He then indicated that
the highest reading in Seal Beach was for the Corner Drug Store, which reflected a
maximum candelas/square foot reading of 50.52. Mr. Brodeur stated that he was not
certain that the issue was brightness or luminance, but rather the type of signage and
illumination and whether it appears to have "hot spots" on it, or it may be that there is a
proliferation of signs on a building.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Mr. Brodeur's presentation had helped Staff get a better feel
for the definition of luminance levels and for the signage currently on Main Street. He
said that it also helped in preparing the proposed language for the section of the
ord inance on sign illumination, as it appears on Pages 15-16 of the Staff Report. He
reviewed the proposed standards and noted that anything under consideration for a
future Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) should not be for the purpose of imposing these
new standards on existing business signs, but would apply only when there is a change
in ownership and the new owner applies for a new sign. He indicated that what the PC
must agree on is whether it wants to allow only externally illuminated signs, like the
signs at Walt's Wharf, Hennessey's, and O'Malley's, and whether signs without channel
letters or channel logos should be externally illuminated. He stated that based upon the
analysis provided for illumination levels, and looking at the Newport Beach and
Huntington Beach illumination standards, Staff suggests that the PC establish a
standard of between 5 and 55 candelas/square foot, excluding those properties that
front PCH. He noted that this is only slightly brighter than the brightest sign currently
on Main Street. Mr. Whittenberg then explained that Staff is also recommending that a
luminance analysis of all installed neon signs must be completed by a licensed engineer
and submitted to Staff to ensure that the sign does meet the standards. He stated that
if the PC wishes to have a final study session, Staff would provide notice of this to all
Main Street business operators and property owners, or if the PC wishes to direct Staff
to proceed with preparation of the Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) , this can be done and
formal notice will be provided to all Main Street business operators and property owners
and also to all residents within 300 feet of the Main Street area.
Page 15 of 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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Shanks questioned the use of the term "shopping center" as shown on
Page 11, Item 4 of the Staff Report. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a property with 4 or
more tenants would be categorized as a "shopping center."
Commissioner Deaton asked if public input could be taken during a Study Session. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the PC could allow this.
Commissioner Roberts stated that there is a delicate balance between the varieties of
intensities in lighting along Main Street. He noted that the quantitative data does show
that there is a good mixture of lighting. He asked if the consultants could provide
suggestions for language to attempt to solicit the cooperation of businesses in using a
variety of candela levels for lighting on signs. Mr. Brodeur stated that this is the first
time a City has asked this question. He said that most cities that limit neon lighting
have already done a lot of the things that are proposed in the Staff Report. He noted
that if the PC were to allow only externally illuminated signs, like the City of Carmel,
then it wouldn't have to be concerned about candelas/square foot. He stated that
experience has shown him that as soon as someone knows what the limits are, they will
usually go right to that limit. He indicated that by implementing some of the
recommendations made by Staff, this would probably result in all signs safely falling
below 25 candelas/square foot and helping preserve the Old Town atmosphere.
Commissioner Shanks noted that the analysis has shown that all of the neon signs in
Old Town are very mild. He asked if this could be maintained or the intensity of the
neon lights lowered. He commented that he enjoys the variety that the existing neon
provides, but brighter neon would not be good. Mr. Brodeur stated that the great thing
about luminance is that it does give you a true measurement of how bright something is
regardless of the size or color. He said that that he was very surprised to find that all of
the neon signage in Old Town measured in at very low levels. He noted that neon
could be dimmed very inexpensively to help lower its intensity.
Commissioner Roberts noted that Staff is recommending %-inch diameter tubing for
neon, and asked if this is the dimension of most of the neon signs in Old Town. Mr.
Brodeur stated that this is a pretty standard size. Mr. Swartz interjected that some cities
will prohibit neon altogether and others will limit the percentage of the overall sign
package that can be neon. Mr. Brodeur stated that many signs will use neon as an
indirect source, where the neon tube cannot be seen. Commissioner Roberts noted
that the light bulbs on the Hennessey's sign appear to be facing the street rather than
facing and illuminating the sign. Mr. Brodeur explained that the sign has a piece of
plexiglass, so what you see is a reflection of the lights that are actually facing towards
the building.
Commissioner Deaton stated that it appears that the biggest problem is that what the
eyes see and the measurements taken don't seem to line up. Mr. Brodeur stated that
this is why the measurements were taken from across the street, as sometimes when
Page 16 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
you are up close to a sign the brightness can be misleading. He noted that when seen
in context with the other signs around it, the contrast in the brightness could be seen.
Commissioner Deaton noted that from Walt's Wharf, Main Street Square looks like Las
Vegas, yet none of the luminance readings would indicate that the signs are this bright.
She said that she would be opposed to making the maximum limit 55 candelas/square
foot. She stated that comments from the community and from City Council favor the
use of externally illuminated signs. Mr. Brodeur stated that he would highly recommend
setting some sort of upper limit that people could go to, because if there is nothing
specific, it will be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Deaton stated that the City could go
to all externally lit signs. Mr. Brodeur stated that this may help, but brightness on
externally lit signs is also a result of how the sign is designed.
Commissioner Shanks stated that he is an optometrist and once the eye adapts to the
darkness lights can appear to be much brighter. He noted that there is a huge human
adaptability to what appears to be bright or not bright, and the lower measurements
would make it look like some of the signs would not be very clear, but if it has been dark
for half an hour, the chances are people could read these signs very well. Mr. Brodeur
stated that this is another reason why cities have a "level of competition" for signs, and if
the levels are lowered for everyone, no sign stands out as being brighter than the other.
Public Comments
Chairperson Ladner opened for the public comment period.
David Rosenman stated that although this was a nice technical study, if Mr. Brodeur
had used Laguna Beach instead of Newport Beach, the comparisons about how bright
or dark things were would have been totally different. He noted that he used to live in
Laguna Beach and they have a Carmel type ordinance prohibiting plastic signs, and all
lighting is external, which gives the town a very different feel. He said that this would be
another option. He referred to the planning sessions for the Main Street Specific Plan
(MSSP) and noted that there were approximately six different vendors who presented
their concepts, but it was Mr. Dave Zucker from San Diego who encouraged cleaning up
Main Street a little, but basically leaving it as is, which the community agreed with. The
MSSP reflects the sense of City Council, the PC, at that time, and of the community.
He said that he has heard comments from the community saying that although they
appreciate the problem of amortizing, looking ahead 5-7 years, at which point many of
the signs would be due for replacement anyway, it might be worthwhile to look at a
phase-in of the new and phase-out of older signs. He encouraged visiting Laguna
Beach to see what they have done.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public
comment period.
Page 17 of 22
.
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 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Deaton referred to Page 12, Item c. of the Staff Report and stated that
allowing each business in a multi-tenant building to have internally lit signs creates a
huge impact on the environment. She said that although every business needs
signage, the PC must find a way to get away from such an impact. She then referred to
Page 15 and stated that although she was not in favor of neon, it does provide a nice
relief from everything else, but what sold her on the neon is learning of its adjustability.
She suggested allowing the neon, but making sure that a low rating is assigned to it so
that it stays soft and warm, not garish like the channel letters. She favors getting rid of
the channel letters and the internally illuminated can signs, as this opens the area up for
creativity and a little bit of an eclectic feel, but does away with the Vegas look that Main
Street Square has. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 25 square foot minimum is an
existing provision of the Code, and would apply to all businesses. He said the way to
address the concerns regarding multi-tenant buildings is through the MPR process or a
Planned Sign Program (PSP) or by additional review by the PC. Commissioner Deaton
stated that this is all right because businesses do need signage, but although the MSSP
was designed to help keep the Old Town feel, the sign ordinances were not specific
enough. She said that she favors going to exterior lighting for signs only on Main
Street, with a provision for the neon as long as it calibrated to the number determined
by the PC. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that what he is hearing is that for new signs on
Main Street the PC prefers the external illumination or neon. He suggested a maximum
level of neon lighting similar to Cafe Lafayette and Alternative Surf. Mr. Whittenberg
polled the Commissioners to see if they were in agreement. There being no objections
or added comments, the Director of Development Services stated that Staff would
return with the final ordinance language with maximum illumination levels of about 25 .
candelas for both types of signs and the prohibition of channel letters. He noted that
language related to reflectivity of the external signs would also be included to prevent
the use of plexiglass to reflect the lighting.
Commissioner Deaton inquired about temporary signs that are left up permanently. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that there has been nothing regulating these types of signs. He
referred to Page 14 where the proposed standards for permanent window signs are
listed and to Page 17 for the proposed standards for temporary window signs.
Commissioner Deaton asked that a prohibition of illuminated window signs be added.
Commissioner Roberts asked about the stringed lights around windows. Commissioner
Deaton stated that this had previously been discussed as being permissible during the
holidays. She noted that the PC had discussed leaving the stringed lights up year
round if they were clear lights. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this could be added.
Commissioner Deaton asked if the stringed lights were used as an architectural
element, would this take away from the allowed signage. Mr. Abbe interjected that the
PC had previously determined that this would count toward the total amount of signage
permitted. He referred to Item h(5) on Page 15.
Commissioner Roberts asked if it were possible to install a dimmer on a neon sign. Mr.
Brodeur stated that this is very easy to do. Commissioner Roberts asked if this would
Page 18 of22
.
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 May 4, 2005
extend or diminish the life of the neon tube. Mr. Brodeur stated that it would extend it
and does save energy as well. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would like to
consider limiting the amount of neon allowed on a business frontage.
Commissioner Deaton asked if an externally lit sign uses all of the square footage
allowed could it then be outlined with neon. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would not
be permissible. Mr. Abbe added that when re-drafting the sign measurement standards
the size and spacing between lettering was considered, but the width of neon tubes was
not.
Commissioner Roberts stated that in looking at the sign presentation he is not certain
that softness and lumens is the same thing. He said it is less bright, but the softness of
the colors used would also determine the brightness. Commissioner Deaton stated that
if the lumens are kept lower, this should help alleviate the perception of brightness. Mr.
Whittenberg added that he has never seen a sign ordinance that regulates the colors
permissible in signage. He stated that eliminating the channel letters and can signs
would probably address 80 percent of the issues related to sign brightness and glare.
He said that Staff has never had complaints about the signs at Cafe Lafayette or
Bogart's.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she believes people are confused about the
difference between neon and channel letters, as she was. She said that after the
presentation tonight and her participation in the study sessions, she has become more
aware of the differences.
Commissioner Roberts stated that neon for neon's sake does not take us out of the
1930's, but there is certain neon that puts us into the 21 sl century, and differentiating
between the two is an issue.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could develop a standard that limits the overall amount
of neon used to a certain percentage on a particular block face.
Commissioner Deaton questioned whether this might create issues of prejudice, and
stated that if it appears easier to eliminate all internally lit neon and can signs and
channel letters, this would be fine. Mr. Abbe referred to the Charo Chicken sign and
asked if the Commission had any preference regarding how close together the neon
tubes should be. Mr. Brodeur suggested limiting neon to a single strand of tubing per
letter. He noted that in working with cities on neon sign ordinances, the PC should
proceed cautiously. He said that experience has shown him that if sign standards
require all externally illuminated signs, then the City will begin to see more neon signs
on Main Street than what currently exists. He stated that when cities have considered
allowing neon with externally illuminated signs, they reduce the size of the allowable
sign in neon versus the incandescent sign. He noted that many signs will have a
reflective background as shown in the Alternative Surf signage to make the sign stand
out as opposed to a dark, non-reflective background as shown on the Bogart's sign. He
commented that if the community wishes to maintain the Old Town flavor, the PC
Page 19 of 22
.
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 May 4, 2005
should promote incandescent, external lighting, and use neon as an accent rather than
seeing a proliferation of it. He noted that limiting the size of neon signs could do this.
Commissioner Roberts stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Brodeur's suggestions.
Mr. Abbe asked if the non-reflective background on the Bogart's sign is what contributed
to the 7.72 candelas/square foot reading. Mr. Brodeur stated that this is probably
related more to sign uniformity and the neon on this sign is dimmer than that used at
other locations.
Commissioner Sharp stated that the discussion was becoming redundant and
suggested that another study session be scheduled to continue this discussion.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would return at a future study session with more
revised ordinance language. Commissioner Deaton stated that she would like to meet
with the merchants and residents together to prevent this becoming a factious
discussion. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would provide notice to both merchants
and residents at the same time.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Panattoni Development had submitted an application for
the commercial portion of the Boeing site for a 100-room hotel and 20,000 square feet
of restaurant and retail uses that will require amendments to the current Specific Plan
on the Boeing property, so there will be future public hearings on this project.
He then stated that permits have been issued for the first phase of 14 homes for the
Heron Pointe project, and the remaining archaeology fieldwork is now being completed.
He indicated that John Laing Homes would be returning to the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) to get the final release for the remaining 50 homes.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Sharp briefly reviewed his history serving on the Planning Commission
for approximately 14 years, and stated that he hopes that during that time he made
some good decisions, but now it is time to quit. He conveyed his intent to formally
resign from the Planning Commission effective tonight.
The Commissioner Deaton expressed her regret at hearing of Commissioner Sharp's
resignation and thanked him for his assistance during her tenure on the Commission.
She then thanked the representative of Downtown Solutions for their presentation and
the Director of Development Services for his work preparing the information for the
study sessions on sign standards for the MSSP Zone and City Council for appropriating
the funds to make this presentation possible.
Page 20 of 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
..
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
Commissioner Shanks inquired about the town meeting on the Seal Beach Center. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that on April 26, 2005, Mayor Yost had conducted a community
meeting and invited the shopping center owners (Regency Centers) to present their
concept for the shopping center. He explained that the plans are to demolish the car
wash facility and construct a new Sav-On at this location, expand Vons Pavillions into
the current Sav-On area to create a larger store, and to eliminate the service station
from the corner and create a new service station between The Shorehouse Restaurant
and the Vons building. He noted that the new service station would offer fuel sales only
and would have no service bays. He stated that neighboring residents expressed their
concerns over noise from loading docks for both Vons and the new Sav-On, and also
about relocating the service station to a more internal portion of the shopping center.
Commissioner Shanks asked if the shop building at the rear of the property was to
remain. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this building would remain and the new Sav-On
would adjoin this building.
Commissioner Roberts requested an update on the Rossmoor Center. The Director of
Development Services said that today he met with the owners of the Rossmoor Center
and they introduced a new joint partner they are bringing in. He said that at this point
the City does not really know what they have in mind. The new company is Madison
Marquette and they do a lot of shopping centers in the western United States. He
indicated that they would be looking at designs for the entire center.
Commissioner Roberts then thanked Commissioner Sharp for his service to the City,
and noted that if this Commission makes half as many good decisions as he has made,
it will be doing well.
Chairperson Ladner thanked Commissioner Sharp for his service and for his assistance
with learning more from him about serving on the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Ladner adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~A^-~~ ~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive SeBetary
Planning Department
Page 21 of 22
.
3
4
.
.
APPROVAL
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2005
The Commission on June 8, 2005 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, May 4, 2005. ~ .
Page 22 of 22