Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-03-17 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 17,1993 Director Whittenberg stated that Comcast had not set up to broadcast tonight's meeting. He indicated that Chairman Fife and Vice Chairman Dahlman were unable to attend tonight's meeting. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Soukup to nominate Commissioner Sharp as Acting Chainnan to preside at tonight's meeting. It was so ordered. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Sharp. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Law led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Sharp said a 3 - 0 vote was needed on all Public Hearing matters. Because of that, a straw vote would be taken before an official vote. If there is a dissention, and not a 3 - 0 vote, the Commission will ask the applicant(s) to carry over their item to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to have a full slate of Planning Commissioners present. No one had any questions. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Sharp Commissioners Law and Soukup Staff Present: DeDartment of DeveloDment Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Chairman Fife and Vice Chairman Dahlman The Commission deemed excused the absences of Chairman Fife and Vice Chairman Dahlman. Commissioner Dahlman had emergency surgery to perform and Commissioner Fife had a commitment he could not cancel. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of March 3, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Soukup; SECOND by Law to approve the March 3, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Soukup, Law, Sharp ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman Page 2 - PIanniDg CommiuiOll Minutes of March 17, 1993 . SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Approval of Resolution No. 93-10 901 Ocean Avenue. Kinda Lahaina Restaurant Conditional Use Pennit #93-2 MOTION by Law; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 93-10 for Kinda Lahaina Restaurant at 901 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach, as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Law,Sharp,Soukup ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman PUBLIC HEARINGS Director Whittenberg indicated the applicant Clancy's Saloon, Inc. requests to be placed first on the agenda because tonight (St. Patrick's Day) is one of their busiest business nights. The Commission determined to allow #7 to be heard first. #7. Conditional Use Pennit #93-5 111 Main Street · Clancy's Saloon, Inc. . Staff ReDort Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Clancy's Saloon, Inc., requests the continued provision of coin-operated amusement devices in conjunction with Clancy's Saloon at 111 Main Street. This application was filed in response to City Ordinance #1348. The applicants request permission for the continued provision of five (5) video games as a secondary use in conjunction with an existing bar, Clancy's Saloon. Pursuant to the Public Notice, the City did not receive responses for or against this application. Staff recommended approval subject to eleven (11) conditions of approval. Commission Comments The Commission again noted this application was filed in response to Ordinance #1348. Public Hearing The applicant was present but did not wish to speak. No one in the audience wished to speak for or against this application. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Law; SECOND by Soukup to approve Conditional Use Pennit #93-5 by the adoption of Resolution #93-14 and to include the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. This requires the applicant/establishment to comply with all conditions of CUP #92-19, approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Law, Soukup, Sharp ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman . . . . 3. Page 3 - Planninc CommissiOll Minutes of March 17. 1993 Conditional Use Pennit #93-7 350 Main Street · Seal Beach Chevron Staff Reoort Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Ralph Williams, requests to operate an automobile service station between the hours of2:oo a.m. and 6:00 a.m. This application was filed in response to Ordinance #1348. The City has not received any complaints against this business. Staff recommended approval subject to five (5) conditions of approval. Commission Comments Chairman Sharp asked if there was anything new in these conditions? Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant has not had any conditions on operating his business until this time. Two other service station CUP applications have been considered by the Planning Commission with the same conditions; one was appealed to the City Council. The City Council deleted the provision re late night operations for the G & M station at 13th Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Public Hearinl! Raloh Williams ... 350 Main Street. Seal Beach Mr. Williams introduced himself as the owner/operator of Seal Beach Chevron. He was concerned with Condition of Approval #5, whereby he would not be permitted to receive deliveries or to perform outdoor maintenance between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He stated his deliveries of gas, 8800 gallons, normally occur about 4:00 a.m. It is a safety factor to have gas delivered in the early morning hours because the large delivery truck can negotiate more easily without traffic and cars parked at the station don't have to be moved to allow the delivery truck to maneuver. He stated Chevron will deliver at any time but he prefers the early morning hours for safety. Thomas Stevens'" 240 16th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Stevens said he orders the gas from Chevron for Mr. Williams. Chevron's deliveries are in six hour segments: 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. He has had no complaints in his 28-year association with Seal Beach Chevron. Charles Antos ... 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said he has been aware of Seal Beach Chevron station and its operation for 21 years and has never heard complaints about the business or fuel deliveries. He suggested the Commission delete Condition of Approval #5. If a problem should arise, the Commission could call a Public Hearing and further condition this CUP. No one wished to speak against this application. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he agreed with ,Mr. Antos' comments and there have no complaints about this business. Mr. Colantuono suggested removing only the first sentence of Condition #5. . . . 4. Page 4 - PIaJmiDg Commission Minutes of March 17, 1993 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Soukup to approve Conditional Use Pennit #93-7, through the adoption of Resolution #93-15, subject to the five Conditions of Approval as stated in the staff report and with Condition #5 being modified by removal of the first sentence: 5. The pemliltee shall R8t he pemliKed te Peeeift deliveries 8F te perf8PIR 8utd88F lRaiRtenaBee aeliviiies helween lite 118111'S 8f ls00 a.lR. ad 'sOO IbIIIn The applicant is reminded of its obligations pursuant to Chapter 13D municipal Code regarding noise control. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Sharp, Soukup, Law ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman Conditional Use Pennit #93-8 1430 Ocean Avenue. Dolphin Market Staff Reoort Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Kenneth and Linda Zoelle, request permission to sell off-sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing market located at 1430 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. This application was filed in response to Ordinance #1348. The market has none (0) of the five (5) required off-street parking spaces. The market is in a residential high density zone (RHD) --- it is a commercial structure on residential property. The requested hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. daily. StaWs concerns centered on removal of the lighted alcoholic beverage signs in the window areas. Staff recommended changing the date in condition #6 from December 31, 1993 to April 1, 1994 to allow a one year time period to remove the signage. Staff recommended approval subject to seventeen (17) conditions outlined in the staff report. Commission Comments Commissioner Soukup asked if the liquor signs in the windows advertised specific brands of beverages? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. Commissioner Soukup said the applicant should be allowed one generic sign advertising the sale of alcohol. Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant could place a non-lighted sign on the building to accomplish this. Public Hearine: The applicant was not present. David Simms · 1316 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Simms said the Dolphin Market was a great asset to the local community. No one wished to speak against this application. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Soukup to approve Conditional Use Pennit #93-8, through the approval of Resolution #93-16, to include the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and with the following corrections to the conditions: #6. Change December 31, 1993 to April 1, 1994. #9. Delete sub paragraph (a). MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Law, Soukup, Sharp ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman . . . PIle S - Planning CllIDIDissiOll Minutes of March 17. 1993 5. 6. Conditional Use Pennit #92-15 Conditional Use Pennit #93-6 12311 Seal Beach Boulevard · Brunswick Rossmoor Bowl Staff Reoort Mr. Whittenberg asked the Commission to consider CUP #92-15 and CUP #93-6 simultaneously since they cover the same establishment. Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Leiserv, Inc., requests (1) through CUP #92-15, the continued on-sale service of beer, wine and distilled spirits at the Brunswick Rossmoor bowling alley and (2) through CUP #93-6, the continued provision of coin-operated video games at the bowling alley. Commission Comments Commission Soukup asked staff about the Super Saver Cinema 7 versus this bowling alley, specifically questioning why a movie ticket had to be purchased to play the video games in the theater? Chairman Sharp explained you don't need a theater ticket to use the restrooms or to buy snacks but you do have to have a ticket to use the video games. Mr. Curtis said the theater was the first request to the City for a large amount of video games. Based on Public Hearing testimony and Commission concerns the application was conditioned to control the video games and to prevent children from playing the video games when they should be in school. Mr. Whittenberg said another concern was the entrance to the theater was closer to a residential area. There was a concern that the theater could become a gathering place to play video games and then hang around in the parking lot afterwards. The main entry to the bowling alley is on the street side of the shopping center, not the back parking side. Public HeariDl! Marv Ouinn ... Officer of the Brunswick Corooration and Director of Real Estate Ms. Quinn corrected the proposed resolutions: (1) the address is 12311 Seal Beach Blvd.; (2) the operating hours are 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. [their leagues bowl to 11:40 - 11:45 p.m.]; (3) Condition #5 states no video games are allowed on the premises. She said that under California liquor laws their entire bowling center is the licensed premises which includes the area where the games are. The games are in clear view of the counter control; they can be seen and monitored. Mr. Colantuono said the effect of Condition #5 to CUP #92-15 is to require the issuance of CUP #93-6. If both permits are approved, Condition #5 would not have any remaining effect. Ms. Quinn said they have video games in 126 facilities. They will not open a center unless they have a full liquor license and a game room. The game room provides additional revenue to their corporation and to Rossmoor Center. There have been no problems with the games, no loitering or congregation. Their clientele is primarily senior citizens from Leisure World. Children can walk in, buy a soda or bowl a game and they're a patron. She said the management constantly monitors the game area. She stated it would be very burdensome and costly to monitor a rule of no one under the age of eighteen playing those games during school days. It might necessitate hiring someone to monitor that area. There could be problems with someone who was 17 and was out of school legally or with families on vacations. . . . Page 6 - PIlmniDa CommiBIiOll Minutes of March 17. 1993 Don McBrain ... Relrional Traininl! Manal!erlWest Coast'" Brunswick Bowl'" 12311 Seal Beach Blvd.. Seal Beach Mr. McBrain said the Brunswick Corporation has been serving alcohol responsibly throughout its history. Since 1985, it has developed a .Serving Alcohol Responsibly. training course which addresses all of the issues addressed in the CUP. The bowling center has 2,300 adult league bowlers who, in many cases, bring their children to the bowling alley. They actively and consistently enforce the 10:00 p.m. curfew if the child's legal guardian is not with him. The game area is well monitored by experienced staff. The food manager has been at this location for the 26 years they have been there and the bar manager has been there 19 of those years. He said he had a concerned with proposed Conditions #5, #6 and #7 of CUP #93-6. No one wished to speak further and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Chairman Sharp said it would be very difficult for the management to know when all the public and private schools were in session. Chairman Sharp expressed his concern on voting for this issue with Commissioners Fife and Dahlman absent. He suggested holding this over if the applicant had no objection. Commissioner Soukup said he was in favor of both CUPs but wanted Conditions #5, #6 and #7 deleted as being too restrictive. Chairman Sharp and Commissioner Law agreed with Commissioner Soukup. MOTION by Soukup; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Pennit #92-15, through the adoption of Resolution #93-17, with changes to (1) Condition #4: the week-day closing time to be 12:00 a.m. and (2) correct the address to be 12311 Seal Beach Boulevard. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 A YES: Soukup, Sharp, Law ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman Motion by Soukup; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Pennit #93-6, through the adoption of Resolution #93-18, with changes to (1) Condition #4: the week-day closing time to be 12:00 a.m.; (2) correct the address to be 12311 Seal Beach Boulevard; (3) removal of Condition #5; and (4) removal of Condition #7. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 A YES: Soukup, Sharp, Law ABSENT: Fife, Dahlman RECESS A recess was called from 8:40 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. . . . Page 7 - Phmni1Ig Commission Minutes of March 17, 1993 8. Negative Declaration #93-3 Conditional Use Pennit #92-23 Variance #92-3 209 Main Street · BJ's Pima Chairman Sharp indicated there would be no vote on this item tonight; three Planning Commissioners are present and there is no video tape of this meeting. Additionally, people who give public testimony at tonight's meeting will be asked not to testify at the April 7th meeting. He asked for a show of hands as to the number of persons wishing to testify; there were two. The site requires 26 parking spaces and provides three (3). Staff Reoort Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, B J's Seal Beach, L.P., is seeking: CUP #92-23 - A permit to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption and to perform a seismic retrofit at 209 Main Street. V AR #92-3 - To vary from the commercial parking requirements in conjunction with the re- establishment of a restaurant at 209 Main Street. Mr. Curtis stated three letters had been received in opposition to this request: [Attached to Minutes] (1) Board of Directors of the Seal Beach Homeowner's Association: Gordon Shanks, President, Georgianna Brown, Vice-President, Mitzi Morton, Treasurer and Joe Palmer, Member Board of Directors. (2) Elouise Shanks, President, Seal Beach Historical and Cultural Society. (3) Geraldine West, 1201A Electric Avenue. Mr. Whittenberg said the City received a letter from the applicant regarding parking. The applicant asked adjacent property owners if they had parking to lease to them. They received one response involving parking in the alley area behind a building on Main Street. This was an undesirable situation which was too far from 209 Main Street. [Attached to Minutes] Mr. Whittenberg commented the applicant has stated they will not be making a presentation tonight; it will be made April 7th when a full Planning Commission is present. For tonight, persons speaking to the Planning Commission should make their point(s) to the Commission. The Commission should ask for clarification or additional questions generated by testimony but that should be the extent of Commission involvement. On April 7th there will be testimony by the applicant, persons in favor of or in opposition to the request, and rebuttal by the applicant. He cautioned the Commission members to hold all their comments until they have received all the public testimony on April 7th. Mr. Colantuono clarified that it is staff's recommendation the Commission not begin its deliberations until after it has heard all the evidence. The Commission discussion should be held until the meeting of April 7th. Page 8 - Planning CClII\IDissioo Minutes of March 17. 1993 . Public Hearinl! Geraldine West * 1201 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mrs. West stated she submitted a formal comment on Negative Declaration #93-3 to the Planning Department on Monday, March IS, 1993. She presented the Commissioners with a copy of her formal comments on the Negative Declaration and her comments tonight. [Attached to these Minutes for the Record]. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said two needed Variances have not been advertised for Public Hearing nor addressed in the staff report --- (1) the substandard loading zone and (2) the substandard landscaping. Both are required by the municipal Code. He asked where the loading would take place? On Main Street and take public parking places? In the alley, blocking the alley, making those three parking spaces unusable? Mr. Antos asked if the seismic retrofit has been completed and if so, when? Mr. Whittenberg said the retrofit has not begun. Mr. Antos said, according to the staff report there's a violation, that this retrofit was to have been completed by January 1992. For a year no one has bothered to do anything about the retrofit and that seemed to him to be like a 14 to 15 month self-imposed hardship. He didn't see how staff could "bide behind" closing down for more than sixty (60) days. because the site hasn't been retrofitted. . Mr. Whittenberg said staff is not trying to bide behind an issue. Staff has clearly indicated the business has been closed for a number of years due to a number of different problems. The seismic retrofit, considered as part of the Renaissance Cafe's application, was approved by the Planning Commission. The Commission did not approve entertainment for Renaissance Cafe. Those applicants decided not to proceed any further because of the disapproval of the alcoholic beverage sales and entertainment; they did not proceed to do any work. State law requires occupied buildings have the seismic retrofit done. The building obviously is not occupied. This application is back before the Commission for the seismic retrofit because State law requires the retrofit. The initial approval was for one year and that one year has expired without the work being done. Mr. Antos amended his comments by stating the applicants for the Renaissance Cafe chose not to perform the seismic retrofit when the applicant had the right, a one year time period, to perform the seismic retrofit with Planning Commission approval. The site has been vacant more than sixty (60) days. On a 2S foot lot it should not take more than a year to seismic retrofit a building and therefore the 60 day time limit, he felt, is valid. In order to reopen, the Planning Commission has to look at all non-conforming aspects of that property and not just say because there was a seismic retrofit requirement all time stops. Mr. Antos said there are two issues. First, parking. If, as staff corrected, two additional parking spaces are required based upon the upstairs area, then the staff report for the April 7th meeting should be modified to reflect this. Instead of dealing with 21 spaces with 3 spaces on-site, it should be 23 spaces with 3 spaces on-site. The City does not have a valid in-lieu parking program. He has never heard anything to give validity to a Parking Mitigation Program because the City has nothing adopted at this point. He suggested that to provide 21 parking spaces at the current cost of lots, it would take (at $100 per year) 350 years to pay of the principal only on one parking space. For 21 spaces it would take $700,000 plus dollars. If any program is adopted it should be at the real cost of providing parking spaces. If the applicant cannot provide the parking on-site, then the real cost of the parking should be determined, the City should collect the monies and go out and buy lots and provide the parking. Instead of the City collecting money for . 1 Referencing Q!!!!l Scctioo 28-2401. Time Limit on Abandoned Nooconfonning Use. If a DODCllIIfonning use is diSCOlltinucd for a period of three (3) COI\8CCutive months, such use shall be cClII8idercd abandoned and shall thereafter be used ooly in accordance with regulatioos for the district and zone in which the property is located. (Ord. No. 948) Page 9 - l'IaIIning Commission Minutca of March 17. 1993 . spaces that don't exist. The argument is invalid and unfair to the residents to say there's some parking available on 8th and 10th Streets. There is not enough parking for government use right now for those people who come to City Hall. There is not enough parking on 8th Street for the church. The residents and the other established area uses should not be providing public parking for commercial uses on Main Street when the municipal Code says the businesses are supposed to provide so much parking on site. The purpose of the parking on-site is to provide for their parking generation and the street parking is extra. The second issue is historic. The City does not have an adopted Historic Element to the General Plan. The Planning Commission did take an action to accept a list from a group that made a list and said "these things look historic so I guess they are". The City Council has not validated that. He said he did not know who appointed this group to compile this list. At the time they did provide the list they were not recognized by the State. Because a building is fifty years old does not mean it's historic. He has reviewed the list and it doesn't include some of the older buildings with more historical integrity --- like the first City Hall. It still stands and is occupied as a residence. Until such a time as the City Council has validated some sort of a list and the Planning Commission has taken a step to deal with a Historic Element or a Preservation Element to the General Plan he didn't think that just age along (over 50 years for example) would make that building historic. . Mr. Colantuono clarified (1) with respect to the two parking spaces required for the office space above, those spaces are relevant to the Negative Declaration because the need for those spaces is a reasonably foreseeable result of retrofitting the entire building. For the CEQA analysis those spaces must be considered. However, with respect to the CUP and the Variance, the land use permits, the Commission doesn't have to consider those two parking spaces because the applicant is only asking to use the restaurant space not the office space. When and if there is an applicant who wants to use the office space, that applicant will have to address the need for parking. Also (2) for the Record, the applicant's letter on parking that Mr. Whittenberg referred to forms the basis of stafrs conclusion that it is not possible for this applicant to provide parking within a 300' radius of its site as required by Code. Mr. Whittenberl! commented Mr. Antos said two other Code Variances would be considered. Staff concurs with this. Staff will re-advertise the Variances for the April 7th meeting to indicate the additional Variances on the loading zone and the landscaping if it's not possible to provide the landscaping as part of the development proposal. Staff would recommend this Public Hearing be continued to April 7, 1993. As a continued Public Hearing it will be the first item on the agenda. Chairman Shaql asked if the Commission members present had any objection(s) to continuing this Public Hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 19931 Commissioners Law and Soukup said they had not objections. It was SO ordered by the Acting Chainnan to continue the Public Hearing on CUP #92-23, Variance #92-3 and Negative Declaration #93-3 to April 7, 1993. Mr. Whittenberl! said a Public Notice would be sent to all property owners within 300' of the site. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks said his comments now go beyond the application for 209 Main Street. He referred to the communications from the Seal Beach Historical Society. His wife is President and he is past President. Mr. Antos said "that list has inferences beyond 209 Main Street". He does not understand any legal basis for being able to apply municipal Code Section 2-2403(1) ExceDtions for Non-conforminl! Historical Buildin~s deriving from a list sent from the Commission to the Council and not part of the General Plan, without any Public Hearings, or any other reference. This list has no validity in law at this time. He asked for Mr. Colantuono's comment on this. Page 10 - PIanJ1iJJB CllIIIIDi..ioo Minutes of March 17. 1993 . Mr. Colantuono said the list is only the recommendation of the Planning Commission. His wife's letter reflects a misinterpretation of the Code section. As Mr. Colantuono reads that Code section it requires the Commission to make findings to justify its conclusion on the very permit application that the building for which an application is filed is historic. If there were never a list, we could still process permits under that section, so long as the Commission were convinced by the applicant that there was a showing of historic significance with respect to that property. If this goes forward, he would recommend any resolution set forth the Commission's finding as to why this property merits treatment as a historic site. Mr. Shanks said he would go with those comments because he has no option. But, first, it was based on a list. The did not say they had a separate finding. Mr. Colantuono said, it is true that stafrs recommendation was based on a list, but the Commission's finding will have to be based on its conclusions. Mr. Shanks said he did not accept this basis. However, even it were accepted that this site is a historical building, one reason for deeming a site historical is maintaining it as a historical site. The minute the building is changed, which is this case is creating a patio, totally makes a felicitous action out of claiming this is a historical site. If a claim is made that this is a historical site then it should be restored to the shape it was in, say, 1925. It makes no difference how nice a change may be or whether a change is an improvement. If it's going to be historical the City has an obligation to come in a restore it some sort of historical architectural element that existed in the past. At the least, maintain it to what it is at this date. Putting a patio in destroys the historical argument and make this "a laughing matter". "Historical is historical and it must be based on some historical model, not some new model ...". . Mitzie Morton * rNo address l!iven 1. Seal Beach Mrs. Morton said she, as a resident and a taxpayer, is very angry and upset at the City and staff. In-lieu parking fees are being taken in at $100 per space per year knowing full well what the costs of parking are. The City makes the business owners sign in-lieu parking agreements that says in the future the fees can be changed. She didn't think this would hold up if the City were sued by the business owners because the in-lieu parking agreement is not what an actual parking space would cost. "As far as I'm concerned, this City has never, and still doesn't have, any intentions of enforcing that, enforcing greater payments because we have an chance every year to do it and we've never done it. And as a resident, and other residents in this community, we are really going to be up in arms over this thing if you think that the taxpayers of this community are going to end up having to find and pay for parking spaces for these businesses. And we don't want to wait ten years from now. This thing is compounding every year and I'm just upset over it". Reva Olsen * rNo address l!ivenl. Seal Beach Ms. Olsen said she is upset and does not like having to subsidize business. She said her family has a history of being in business for themselves and they expected to pay for their own parking. They did not expect to get socialized parking. She thinks the City's in-lieu parking program is going to be challenged in court. She resents the money the City is spending for litigation. "I think a lot of it is just the carelessness that is going into our planning process. I mean, where is the planning in this body of government?" In 1985 the City had a parking problem and was looking for a solution. She said the problem has only been exacerbated. She thinks the City residents are going to rise up, especially in Leisure World because "they were down here one night and they got shut out of the Public Hearing at the League of Women Voters". Everyone is concerned about the over-concentration of alcohol, the crime, the costs to the City, the litigation and potential litigation. "We kept getting nickel-and-dimed but we're letting hundreds of thousands of dollars get through the cracks for neglect". . Chairman Sharp asked for clarification that someone was barred from one meeting. Ms. Olsen clarified that it was not a League of Women Voters meeting but a City Council meeting. Chairman Sharp said he could speak for Planning Commission meetings and indicated that no one was ever barred from a Planning Commission meeting, noting that television monitors were placed in the outside vestibule to accommodate an overflow crowd. Ms. Olsen said the City Attorney had prepared an ordinance for the City Council that . . . .. Page 11 - Planning CommisaiOll Minutes of March 17. 1993 evening which would have had a Public Hearing and maybe if the Commission could review that ordinance which was subsequently changed to a resolution it did give some instntctions on this particular issue to the Planning Commission. David Rosenman * 8th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman said he was sharing the general dismay at Comcast's failure to be present tonight's meeting. He suggested the Commissioners go back to the City Council and ask that Comcast be shaken up a little. Brent Matthews * 218 8th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Matthews said he is very concerned that the staff report suggests that there may be a new shell game for parking spaces. He was also concerned that the issue of parking is continually put off. He hasn't seen anything new for parking problems over time. The residents have seen in-lieu parking, leased parking, mitigated parking, re-striping of the beach lot and now an attempt to use a historical context to pierce the parking code. He stated the Planning Commission and staff has an obligation to the community to address the parking issue. It's unfair to the residents and the applicants to put up with "bunk" because we haven't established a plan, we've only talked about it. "The time has come. We're creating a tremendous liability for the citizens of the community. You're creating a non-existent parking stntcture. I don't have the right words for it. We can't continue to grant businesses, and particularly high use businesses '" every business on Main Street is not suitable for a restaurant". He said he was also concerned that the staff report findings appear to suggest that the building in question had no commercial use if it weren't suitable for a restaurant. He thought that was a little of context. There are a lot of other retail commercial uses that, by Code, require less parking and would require less mitigation. STAFF CONCERNS Leaninl! Wall Mr. Whittenberg said he has had several discussions with the City Attorney's Office and the City's liability attorney regarding the leaning wall at Rossmoor along Seal Beach Boulevard. This issue is still not resolved. The City has prepared draft letters to be sent to a number of interested parties in dealing with that issue. This would include the Supervisors Office, Rossmoor Community Services District, the Rossmoor Homeowners Association and the individual private property owners whose rear yards abut that particular wall. The City is waiting for survey information to confirm that the wall is not on City property and is beyond the City limits. Staff hopes to have this issue resolved by April 1st. Chairman Sharp asked when the sidewalk work would be done'? Mr. Whittenberg said it will be done at a later time, but did not know a specific date. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Planning Commission concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sharp adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted ~o=+..._~-~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary Approval: The March 17, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes were approved on April 7, 1993. ~ . . . March 17, 1993 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By r;.'. W ~.s1:;. Date.3:!.t -: 9 ~ Planning Commissioners, my name is Geraldine West and I live at 1201 Electric Avenue. . First, this evening I wish to address you as respects CUP 92!'jf the request for a permit to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption at 209 Main Street. Last year you were provided with a staff report on the subject of ABC licenses in the City of Seal Beach. I want to point out that this document informed you that City's Chief of Police made a request to the ABC that the City be placed under Regulation 61.3 of the Alcohol Beverage Control Act. This was to give the ABC~ basis to deny license requests in .#\ DI~T^' C, I-f/WING Seal Beach in a, which... .... both high crime and over concentration of ABC licenses. Under these circumstances the ABC can automatically deny an application. CUP 92-~S ... within a census tract which falls under Regulation 61.3 in that it has both high crime and an over concentration of ABC licenses. - refer you to the staff report of August 19, 1992 for amplification and verification of this fact. In addition, Regulation 61.4 forbids approval for licensing a premises which is (a) located within 100 feet of a residence, or (b) the parking lot or parking area which is maintained for the benefit of patrons of the premises, or operated in conjunction with the premises .. located within 100 feet of a residence. If the application falls within the provisions of these sections of Chapter 1, Title 4 of the California Code of regulations, a granting. of license would be con1rary to the publi c welfare and morals by reason of HAR17. . . . Article XX, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of California, and Section 23958. 23985 and 23986 of the California Business and Professions Code and California Government Code Sections 6060. 6061 and 6065. Now to the v~iance, which is to vary from the parking requirements in connection with this restaurant. The on site parking required is 24. The staff report states that if the trash container is located along the rear of the building as shown in Exhibit 1, 3 parking spaces (two standard and one compact) could be provided on site leaving a balance of 21 not provided. I contend that whether the building is or is not an Mhistoric ... structureD is irrelevant to the issue at hand. which is the granting of a variance and the legal basis for this grant. The fact that the building has remained vacant due to a state mandated requirement for seismic retrofit is also irrelevant as to the issue at hand which is the legal basis for granting a variance. The city is not responsible for this requirement. The City is not responsible for the fact that the requirements have not beenm met and the building and was therefore vacant. If I leave my building vacant for some reason. can I use this as a legal basis for a variance? The fact that this was a restaurant in the past is also irrelevant. The building has been vacant since July 1991 (almost two years) and has no right to grandfathering for parking requirement purposes. As to the .parking survey" conducted by the applicant. Gee, now we can make up our own evidence and present it in an administrative hearing. This is really neat. Can we all do this now in Seal Beach? 1"m sure we can be as least as creative as the applicant has been. MAR 1 ., 'Ili). . - - ~ - . . . . Finally. as a property tax payer in this city I object to underwriting appliocant's business. If the applicant had to provide 21 parking spaces' estimate the land and improvements would cost around $400,000 to $500,000. conservatively. In addition, each year the applicant would have to pay taxes on and maintain the property. If the applicant rented spaces the rent would have to be enough to cover and amortize this amount plus provide a fair return to the investor . I don't know about the rest of the people in town, but I can' think of any benefit I as a taxpayer am getting from this deal to mak.e me want to make them this kind of a gift. In closin g. the granting of this variance would be in violation of Sections 28-2401. 28-2407, 28-2500. 28-2501, 2t-2502. (1), (2). and (3) and 2&-2504 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Thank you. ~--II/N- Geraldine West MAR '\ ., tm) .- c. TO: Department of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 ~ FROM: Geraldine West 1201 A Electric Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBr\~mED FOR RECORD By G. We~r: Date .3fs/!s-- -l>+ . SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 93-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-23, VARIANCE 92-3 209 MAIN STREET, SEAL BEACH The following is comment as respects the captioned negative declaration as contained in Planning Division Memorandum dated February 17, 1993. INITIAL STUDY COMMENTS: I wish to comment as follows as respects the following items under II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 2. AIR. a; 6. NOISE. a and Long Term; 8. LAND USE; 9. NATURAL RESOURCES; 10. RISK OR UPSET b; 12. HOUSING; 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. a. b. c, d, e and f; 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a, . b. e and f; 15. ENERGY. a and b; 16. UTILlTlES. f; 21. as b, c, and d. An of the answers contained in the subject Negative Declaration as respects item should be properly answered either YES << MA VBE. The reason is this proposal is part of ONE PROJECT: MAIN STREET. Ans the intensification of use of the properties on Main Street over time has had a significant effect on the environment, including all the above elements. According to CEQA, an agency cannot avoid an EIR requirement by chopping up one project into several negative dedarations. Main S1reet is one project and this has been 80 acknowledged by the City over and over again and on many occasions. Evidence is the city has continually made reference to this fact in its official pronouncments and actions. A few examples of this are the 1973 Land Use Element adoption, twenty years ago; the 1976 council adoption of the Main Street Specific Plan; the 1984 Parking and Urban Design Task Force Study and Committees from which arose the mythical parking spaces developed in the "In Lieu Parking Program". Even to this date the . I'IAR , 7 ~l l' . , . Planning Commission acknowledges this once again by recommending as of December 12, 1992, a -Main Sireet Cumulative Environmental Impact Analysis.1I I submit that there is substantial evidence that the Main Street Project, of which this is only one part, has a significant effect on the environment, and you as the lead agency, must therefor prepare an Environmental Impact Report. CEaA Guidelines give a broad definition to the term "significant effect on the environmentll so that any project that will cause a .substantial or potentially substantial, adverse changell in any aspect of the physical environment will require an EIR. Guidelines allow the agency to prepare a negative declaration even if the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, so long as two conditions are met. I submit that neither of these conditions have been met. The Court has rejected arguments made by agencies defending a negative declaration deciding that an agency cannot avoid an EtR requirement by chopping one project into several smaller projects and issuing separate negative declarations. CEaA does not permit an individual project to be considered in a vacuum. The statute specifically directs the development of guidelines for the consideration of the possible significant effects of a project in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects. The agency must find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, and prepare an EtR, where the particular project may have significant environmental effects which are aindividually limited but cumulatively considerable: As to mitigation, CECA requires the public agency to mitigate significant effects of a project if it is approved. The agency must find that adverse environmental effects must be substantially mitigated and findings must be accompanied by supporting facts and substantial evidence. I submit that this is not the case in the issue at hand. On page 28 under Mandatory Findings of Significance, item .c"the city HAft 1 1~: ~ . . . admits that -approval of this request may have significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable." Whether or not the building mayor may not be a .'ocaUy recognized historic structure," what ever that means, is irrelevant as to the issue at hand. Also, the fact that the property was formerly a restaurant is also irrelevant. Staff concludes, based upon the analysis of the relevant data, that the project will not result in the creation of significant cumulative impacts. By reading carefully, one notes that per page 18 paragraph 1, there is no dllta for four of the past seven years. How does one justify conclusions from data covering only 43 percent of period examined? And including none from the recent past or present? On what data ..e based the contention that there has not been an increasing demand for parking or a decrease in the supply when one admits to having data for only 4 of the past 7 years and none for the most recent three? Traffic patterns are presented only for the hoU"s between 10:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M.. what is the Significance of this data? As to the Cri me and Arrest Activity data, thJl significance of this is that it shows that 43 percent of the entire aime and arrests in the city occur in the district at issue. One of the mitigation measures proposed on page 37 is that the property shall participate in the city's interim mitigation parking program of which there is recent documentation of official statements made by city staff that such a program does not exist. - ~~:<- ~ Geraldine West C4AR111893 . . . Seal Beach Homeowners Association Seal Beach, California 90740 "City of Seal Beach Planning CommIssion SUBMITTED fOR RECORD 81~~4- March 16, 1993 ~ , .' TO: Seal Beach Planning Commission 211 Eight Street Seal BEach, CA 90740 ;" re: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-93 AND VARIANCE 92-3 209 Main Street . ; I .. The Seal Beach Homeowners Association has a number of problems with this CUP and its impact on Old Town, Seal Beach. 1. Assuming 209 Main St. is a recognized historical structure the proposed remodeling (13ft by 18ft patio) will totally destroy its past historical architectural elements. This is inconsistent with the purpose of a historical element. 2. The Staff Report makes no menti.on of the 900 sq. ft. office above the restaurant. The remodeling plans call for the retention of the office entrance off the sidewalk. This indicates future use as a rentable office and a requirement of three (3) additional parking spaces. 3. The report states that of the 24 spaces required for the pizza parlor three (3) are available in the back. With two trash bins there would only be room for two (2) cars. (see Attached pictures) This twenty-five foot wide parcel thus is actually short twenty-two (22) spaces for the restaurant and three for the office for a total of twenty-five (25) non-conforming parking spaces. 4. The report shows results of a parking survey made by the applicants. This survey is unclear but does conclude that available parking is at or very near 100;' capacity during the highest restaurant utilization hours. The Staff Report states that early results of the city~s Parking Study show a surplus of parking places on 8th and 10th Streets. Using data from a study the Council, Planning Commission or the Pubic has not seen the staff concludes, "City staff believes that adequate parking facilities exist along Main Street and its Alleys, Tenth Street, Eight Street and the beach and Main Street public parking lots to accommodate the reestablishment of a restaurant in the historic structure." The city staff has been working for months on this Main Street parking study with special references to in-lieu parking. This report was due out in February but now is expected by March 20, 1993. This major parking study should be the most current survey on Main Street parking and should have been available to the Planning Commissionand the public. .. 5. BJ~s Ch{cago Pizza has six locations in Southern California. At least two of them, including Belmont Shore, have ~11'iiJ . . . ~ 2 delivery of Pizza. The Staff Report makes no mention of traffic generated by pick-up of Pizza let alone the activity generated by home delivery. With home delivery, one of the parking spaces in the back would have to be reserved for this purpose. There would. be significant coming and going traffic until closing time that . would effect noise in the alley. This condition did not exist with the Green Pepper. .~ 6. The Staff Report states that the seating will decrease by ~8-25X with the Pizza Parlor. They do not actually know the ~ 'amount of seating with the Green Pepper but are making 'assumptions. As a rule, Pizza Parlor~s do not have larger tables .\~nd booths than a dinner house. With pick-up of pizzas, and 'customer waiting, there could very well be a significantly .greater utilization and need for parking in comparison with the Green Pepper. 7. This property has been vacant for 1 3/4 years. The state requirement on restructuring unreinforced masonry buildings took effect of January 1, 1992. Thus 1 1/4 years have passed since restructuring was required. No major work has taken place in the last year so to blame the state for this site loosing its grandfather status is not tenable. 8. The report states that, "failure to grant the requested variance will render the property unusable for en~_~gmm~~~1ei e~t!y.!t!~~, as there is insufficient on-site parking for any commercial use of the property. II While the present parking requirement for commercial use can not be meet the commercial use that is allowed does not have to be that requiring a maximum amount of parking, 24 or 25 spaces. There are five Pizza serving places within a quarter mile radius of 209 Main Street. If BJ~s Pizza goes in, on Main Street, and Ginna~s Pizza or Johnny~s Pizza or Dommino~s, all with adequate parking, go broke what has Seal Beach gained. I assume there is a maximum saturation for pizza in a given community. There must be some other type of commercial business that could use this property without the parking needed for restaurants. For the above stated reasons the Board of Director of the Seal Beach Homeowners Association would recommend that the Seal BEach Planning Commission deny the Variances requested on 209 Main Street. ~/&f ~r~ Vice-President ~4J Joe Palm Member oar of Dire s President .~~~ Treasurer HAR17~ ~ Seal Beach Plann1ng Comm1ss1on 711 ELECTRIC AVENUE SEAL. BEACH. CAL.IFORNIA 80740 11arch 16, 1993 re: bggabbY_8~gQQ~!~5~_ti!EIQB!g_~Y!b~!~Q_Q~_EIBygIYB~_b!EI Conditional Use Permit 92-23 and Var1ance 92-3 (209 Main Street) 1S based on the assumption that Seal Beach has a recognized list 0+ bQgabbY__B5ggQ~I~5~__~I~IQBIg__~Ylb~I~Q~_g~ 9IBygIYB59 that can be used in Mun1cipal Code ~~~t~QQ_~1Q~~1 5~~~Qt~QQa_EQ~_~QQ~QQig~ID~Qg_~~atgC~~_~~~iQ~Qga~ Seal Beach City Council Resolution Number 308~ dated September 14. 1981. establishes the Seal Beach Hictor1cal and Cultural Society as the ass1sting agent to the Plann1ng Commiss1on on development of any histor1cal element. Th1S resolution has not been resc1nded or supplanted. (Attachment #1) On Jl\ile 5, 1991, the Seal Beach Planning Commission adopted the lis~ ot 21 historic structures and forwarded it to the City Council. (Attachment #2) At no time was the Historical Society contacted for input. Neither was any announcement made to the public for input or requests for deletion or inclusion on this list. (Note. The Seal Beach Inn and Gardens, 5th and Central Ave., have recently contacted the Historical Society on actions to be put on the National Register of Historical Buildings.> The Seal Beach Inn was not included on the historic list. The list includes 342-44 12th Street - Historical Society. The Historlcal Society has been glven the structure only at 342 12th St., to be moved at some future date, but has no interest in 344 12th St. and was not contacted on this incluslon. On June 24, 1991, the Seal Beach City Council heard the staff report and considered the list of twenty-one historlcal sites. This item was not voted on and held over. There is no record ln City Hall that this list was ever brought back and approved by the City Council. (Attachment #3) For this reason there is no official city list of historical sites and thus Code Section 2403.1 can not be invoked. One other comment. The purpose of an histor1cal building list is to glve guidance in maintainlng worthwhile historical sites 1n their architectural elements. In totally changlng the front 0+ a building (addlng an open 13ft by 18ft patlo area) you are destroying whatever historical features may have eXlsted. J thank you for you time and consideratlon ln thlS matter. Yours sincerely. ~~~~.~ Elouise Shanks. President ALL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTABLE l!1AR 1 7 1993 . WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, . RESOLUTION NUMBER 3~88 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING THE SEAL BEACH HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY AS THE CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE TO ASSIST THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN PREPARING AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN. it is the desire of the City Council to acknowledge that our own place in time has special character and cultural benefit; and the benefits of historical preservation are as real and important as educational or aesthetic values; and surviving historical resources establish that a community has had a life of its own; and a major cultural benefit is "attachment to place"; and historical preservation provides a community with the opportunity to learn history, architecture, pride and to care for their place; and the appreciation and preservation of the City's historic places can best be accomplished through the preparation of an Historical Preservation Element to the General Plan; and the Seal Beach Historical and Cultural Society can assist the Planning Commission in developing the element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Seal Beach Historical and Cultural Society is hereby appointed as the citizen's ad hoc committee to give input to the Seal Beach Planning Commission in developing an Historic Preservation Element to the General Plan. Upon completion of the Historical Element, this ad hoc commlttee shall be dissolved and diSCharged. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City CO~~il of the ~tylof Seal Beach, California. at a meeting thereof on the ~<V~~ day o~,,~::;:..t':::h~~~~ , 1981, by the following ~tj/ I /7 ( /I AYES, councilmembers~(C,~ 3~ (' / "'-/J NOES: councilmember~4~llt~, _/ ~A/.l. k-. ABSENT: Counci lmembers 1/ ~ .<~ ... =>,~/ fi!. ;rt- Mayor ~TEST : ,/ J' i / ,'. / \./~~ ./ )l. CLo ITty Clerk ...... . I - t7gm ( ) 1/4 ,/, "-t!~ 'f * / J . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COJlMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 1991 vas called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. M.1mr.E OF AT.T.RGIAMCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. ROLL rAT.T. Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini, McCurdy Department of Development Services staff: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Michael Cho, Intern Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Present: CONSENT CAT .P.NnAR 1. APPROVAL OF MAY 15, 1991 JllMUTES MOTION by Dahlmm: SECOND by orsini to approve the Planning commission Jlinutes of May 15, 1991 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, McCUrdy, Orsini *** 2. Staff Report on Historic Buildings Staff Report Director Whittenberg presented the staff report which listed twenty-one buildings thought to qualify as recognized historic structures within the City of Seal Beach. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Seventeen of the structures were listed in the "Historic Walking Tour of Seal Beach" prepared by the Women's Club of Seal Beach and four structures were identified by staff. The staff report indicated this list can be amended, the City doesn't have a listing of recognized historic structures at this time, the municipal ~ sets findings the Commission would have to make in approving a Historical Conditional Use Permit. This Historical Conditional Use Permit process includes notice to ( 1J1/<tdo., ....7'.....<) MAR 1 7 1iml . . i i f ~ . I f ~ , ~ t . . P~ge 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 adjoining property owners within 300 feet. A property owner who felt his home should be on this list should contact the Department of Development Services and,"staff would evaluate that structure. Any staff recommendation would come before the Planning Commission and City council. Staff has not processed a CUP under Section 28-2403.1, most likely because there is no list of recognized .tructures. Staff proposed the Planning Commission review and consider this list. If it accurately reflects the extent of the City's historic structures at this time then the list should be forwarded to the City Council for their review and consideration. Hopefully the list would be adopted as the official policy listing of historic structures in Seal Beach which would then qualify those buildings under the municipal ~ provisions for the Historical Conditional Use Permit process at the time any mOdifications/alterations are proposed for those structures. Commissioner Orsini asked staff how the proposed remodeling of the Green Pepper Restaurant on Main Street would affect it's historic nature. Mr. Whittenberg said the new owner is proposing to leave the structure's exterior walls and upgrade to meet seismic standards. Additionally they are proposing modifications to the front of the building but the general overall design of the structure will basically be the same. This will come before the Planning Commission as part of the CUP process because of a change in their liquor license among other things. Chairman Fife noted this would not make it more difficult for the owner of a historical structure to demolish and rebuild a new Ftructure but it would encourage him to preserve it by granting him '. deviations from the municipal ,Cgsk. MOTION by Mccurdy: SECOND by Sharp to adopt this listing of historical structures and forward it to the City Council for review and consideration. r . ~ , MOTION~CARRIED: 5 - 0 "- AYES:"""ZFife, Sharp, Dahlmm, Mccurdy, Orsini *** 3. Proposed Develop..nt Guidelines: seal Beach Boulevard [Between Blectric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway] Staff Report Director Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr.~' Whittenberg indicated the issue of planning for Seal Beach Blvd: has come back before the Planning Commission based on prior direction from both the Planning ~ 1 '11'ffi) . June 5, 1991 To: STAFF REPORT From: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: Historic Structures Recommendation: Determine the listing of Historic structures to be the locally recognized historic structures within the City of Seal Beach, and forward to City council for concurrence. Backaround: Below is a listing of Historic Structures within the City of Seal Beach as indicated in "Historic Walking Tour of Seal Beach", prepared by the Woman's Club of Seal Beach. A copy of the referenced pamphlet is attached for your information. . 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) . RED CAR - Heritage Square 227 10TH STREET - Proctor House (1905) 160 12TH STREET - Krenwinkle House (early 1920'S) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 12TH STREET - Zoeter Elementary School (mid 1930'S) 1400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - Glide'er Inn (1930, enlarged 1944) 1515 SEAL WAY (1910) 111 13TH STREET - Morrison House (1910) 141 13TH STREET - LUfberry House (1910) CENTRAL AVENUE AND 10TH STREET - First United Methodist Church (1915) 202 10TH STREET - Ord House (1920) 404 OCEAN AVENUE - COBaander Sleeth House (1938) [Extensively re-.odeled, 1990] .I.Ta~.PC/LW/6-5-.1 ~f'1'& . 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) Lacally a.cD9ft1-~ .1a~r1c Bu1ld1",_ Plaftft1ng ca.a1aa1Dft .~_tt ..por~ .JImII t, llt1 413 OCEAN AVENUE - Mance House (1910) 117 OCEAN AVENUE - Lothian House (1905) 112 CENTRAL AVENUE - Krenwinkle House (1924) ELECTRIC AVENUE AIfD 7TH STREET - Girl Scout House (1946) CENTRAL AVENUE AND 8TH STREET - Old City Hall (1929) 223 MAIM STREET - Post Office In addition, the followinq locations have been identified throuqh other staff resources as structures havinq potential historic value: 1) 241 5TH STREET - Deckner Residence 2) 209 MAIN STREET - Green Pepper 3) 342-44 12TH STREET - Historic Society . 4) 1 AlfDERSON - Water Tower structures: Ordinance provisions reqardina Historic Section 28-2403 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach states: . "Section 28-2403.1. Exceptions for Nonconforminq Historic Buildinas. A. A locally recognized historic building or structure may be substantially preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. B. In reviewing the application for the historic building or structure, the Planning Commission shall evaluate and make findinqs on the following: 1. The local historic significance of the building or structure. C. 2. The existing structure. In approving a Historic Conditional Use Permit, the planning Commission may authorize such deviations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code necessary to preserve the structure and its historical significance. Before approving such change, it must find: 2 ~,\f(l~. KI8TBLDG.PC/LW/6-5-91 . . . LDaall, a.aoqn11.s a11tar1c 1u1141n98 Pl8M1", -.1111on lUff ..port .rw.1 I, 1111 All deviations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code, necessary to preserve the existing structure architecture: including but not limited to: zoning, building, engineering and fire. All needed agreements, contracts or conditions between the owner or lessee and any public agency which involves said building or structure are executed to insure compliance between all parties. Any other appropriate conditions deemed necessary to the approval of the application are required. 4. The waivers from Code must still render the structure safe and sound." 1. 2. 3. If the Planning Commission determines to adopt this listing, or a revised listing, as the locally recognized listing of historic buildings, and the City Council concurrs, then those properties listed would be eligible to apply under the provisions of Section 28-2403.1. of the Code for remodeling, alteration or expansion requests. * * * * For: June 5, 1991 Attachments: (1) ATTACHMENT A: "Historic walking Tour of Seal Beach", Woman's Club of Seal Beach, no date. * * * * .%8~8LDG.PC/LW/6-S-.1 3 ~'\1~ . CITY OF SEAL BEACH - yC'OUNCIL POLICY '\ _oJ! 'V ~/ . - \~ 9.IJ fr,J ~I J. CrIY-<COUNe'( POLICY - MUNICIPAL SERVICES P1.-ber. , AadIority: A&:Uan: S1Ibjeet; , Eft'edln: 'hac', SOl CC Appruwe Mul\oSvc 6/91 MS1.MSJ 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT - HISTORIC BUILDINGS INVENTORY , This City Council policy shall establish the "Locally Recognized Historic Building or Structure" listing for the City of Seal Beach in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-2403.1 of tbe Code of the City of Seal Beach. 2. ISSUANCE By approval of City Council on June 24. 1991. 3. CRITERIA FOR COI\'TENT . The "Locally recognized Historic Building or Structure" listing for Seal Beach is as follows: I) RED CAR - Heritage Square 2) 227 10m STREET. Proctor House (1905) 3) 160 12TH STREET - Krenwinkle House (early 1920's) 4) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 12TH STREET - Zoeter Elementary School (mid 1930's) 5) 1400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - Glide'er Inn (1930. enlarged 1944) 6) 1515 SEAL WAY (1910) 7) 111 13TH STREET - Morrison House (1910) 8) 141 13m STREET. Lutberry House (1910) 9) CENTRAL AVENUE & 1011-1 STREET - First United Methodist Church (1915) 10) 202 lOTIi STREET - Ord House (1920) 11) 404 OCEAN AVENUE - Commander Sleeth House (1938) 12) 413 OCEAN AVENUE - Nance House (1910) 13) 117 OCEAN AVENUE - Lothian House (1905) 14} 112 CENTRAL AVENUE - Krenwinkle House (1924) 15) ELECfRIC AVENUE AND 711-1 STREET - Girl Scout House (1946) 16) CENTRAL AVENUE AND 811-1 STREET. Old City Hall (1929) 17) 223 MAIN STREET - Post Office 18) 241 5TH STREET - Deckner Residence 19) 209 MAIN STREET - Green Pepper 20) 342-44 12TH STREET - Historic Society 21) 1 ANDERSON. Water Tower ",51 . d1'18 (IIthJ.~~) ~ . . . Page Fourteen - City Council Minutes - June 24, 1991 AYES: NOES: VACANCY: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None One Motion carried PARK and RECREATION FEES The Director of Development Services noted that the current park and recreation fee in conjunction with a residential subdivision is $10,000 per subdivided lot of subdivisions of fifty lots or less, the option of dedication of land or fees for sUbdivisions of fifty lots or more, also a $327 park and recreation fee for new non-subdivision residential units when development results in a net increase of dwellings. He offered that the Council may wish to consider increasing the park and recreation fee for new residential non-SUbdivision construction to equal that of subdivided lots in an effort to offset some of the General Fund costs for maintenance of existing park facilities in the City as a result of new residents in the community. He explained that the fee would only apply to construction of the maximum allowable number of units, as an example if two units were proposed on a residential lot where only one unit presently exists, the fee would apply to only the second unit which results is a net increase of the number of units on a property, and confirmed that there are a limited number of existing lots to which this would apply. A suggestion was made that application of a similar fee be looked into with regard to commercial/Office construction. staff confirmed that a General Plan amendment fee currently exists, also that establiShing fees on a time and material basis is being looked into. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to direct the staff to initiate the process to increase the non-subdivision parks and recreation fees to the same level as those for newly subdivided lots, also to explore similar fees relating to other categories of construction. AYES: NOES: VACANCY: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None One Motion carried HISTORIC BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES - POLICY STATEMENT The staff report set forth a proposed policy statement, adopted by the Planning Commission, listing locally recognized historic buildings and structures as indicated in the "Historic Walking Tour of Seal Beach" prepared by the Woman's Club of Seal Beach and properties located at 241 _ 5th Street, 209 Main Street, 342-44 - 12th Street, and 1 Anderson Street, and if adopted those properties would be eligible to apply under the provisions of Section 28-2403.1 of the Code for remodeling, alteration or expansion requests. Councilmember Forsythe pointed out a statement in the minutes of the Planning Commission that this would not make it more difficult for the owner of a historical structure to demolish and rebuild a new structure but it would encourage one to preserve it by granting deviations from the Municipal Code. The Development Services Director noted that there is currently provision in the Code that allows an owner of a locally designated historic structure to apply for a historic conditional use permit to remodel or renovate the structure without meeting all of the current Code requirements for such things as setbacks and building construction standards, and that the properties listed would be allowed to apply for such permit and be considered by the Planning Commission under public hearing. Staff cited an example of a recent situation where the existing dwelling is two feet from the property line yet current Code requires three feet, and although the Commission granted a variance in that case, that body felt it would be more appropriate to be granted through a conditional ~17. / . . . Page Fifteen - City Council Minutes - June 24, 1991 use permit process. Some concern was expressed with regard to liability on the part of the City should a structure not be required to meet earthquake standards as an example. council indicated a desire to look more closely at the twenty-one properties proposed, and by consensus held this item over. AGENDA AMENDED Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to consider Item "FF", the report from the Housing Element Advisory committee, at this time. AYES: NOES: VACANCY: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None One Motion carried REPORT - HOUSING ELEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE The City Manager stated the report was being presented to the council through staff, and that no action is recommended at this time. Mr. Charles Antos, committee Chairman, noted his memorandum to the Council summarizing the changes made to the adopted Housing Element which consisted of simplifying language, elimination of extraneous wording, tailoring the Element for Seal Beach needs, and addressing vacant land potential for housing, also that the Committee had eliminated as suitable for housing all of the Hellman land lying below the ten foot contour, and all of the Bixby land excepting about five acres lying along the northerly boundary. Mr. Antos suggested the Council either receive and file the report or receive the report and refer same to the Planning Commission, and if there are no further requests of the Committee, that it be disbanded with appreciation. Mayor Laszlo indicated his desire to refer this matter to the planning Commission at the earliest possible time. He requested that page forty-six of the document from the Committee be amended to delete all reference to the AICUZ study thus deleting the first sentence of the second paragraph, the words "clear zones and accident potential zones" from the second sentence, change the word "zones" to "areas" in the third sentence, that the last sentence be amended to replace the words "clear zone" with "by flight pattern" and that the portion of that sentence reading "(an area where the accident potential is so high that few land uses are acceptable) and "Accident Potential Zone 1" (an area with less accident potential, having progressively less restrictive land use guidelines)" be deleted. Hastings moved, second by Wilson, to refer the Report of the Housing Element Advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: VACANCY: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None One Motion carried Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to disband the Housing Element Advisory Committee with appreciation. AYES: NOES: VACANCY: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None One Motion carried ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVE TAX The City Manager noted that since the Environmental Reserve Tax was established prior to Proposition 13, to increase that tax would require a vote of the electorate, however an alternative option would be to establish a fee for environmental impacts under AB 1600 where Proposition 13 would not apply. The Director of Development Services explained that the Environmental Reserve Tax presently f.tAR 1 ., - June 24, 1991 . STAFF REPORT Subject: Mayor and Members of the city council Jerry Bankston, city Manager Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Adoption of Historic Buildings and Structures Policy Statement To: Attention: From: Recommendation: Determine the listing of Historic Structures to be the locally recognized historic structures within the city of Seal Beach, and adopt the proposed Policy Statement regarding determination of "Locally Recognized Historic Buildings and Structures". . Backaround: During the planning Commission consideration of Variance 5-91 staff was requested by the commission to prepare a listing of "Locally Recognized Historic Buildings and Structures" which would then be eligible to apply under the provisions of Section 28-2403.1 of the Code of the city of Seal Beach for a Conditional Use Permit for renovation, preservation or reconstruction. The Planning Commission determined to adopt this listing as the locally recognized listing of historic buildings and recommend consideration by the City Council. If the City Council concurs, then those properties listed would be eligible to apply under the provisions of Section 28-2403.1. of the Code for remodeling, alteration or expansion requests. The proposed policy statement is a listing of Historic Structures within the City of Seal Beach as indicated in "Historic walking Tour of Seal Beach", prepared by the Woman's Club of Seal Beach. A copy of the referenced pamphlet is attached for your information. In addition, the following locations have been identified through other staff resources as structures having potential historic value and are included within the proposed policy statement: 1) 241 5TH STREET - Deckner Residence 2) 209 MAIN STREET - Green pepper 3) 342-44 12TH STREET - Historic Society . /WPS1/HISTBLDG.CC/LW/6-24-91 MAR f 7 ~ . . . Locally Recognized Historic Buildings city Council Staff Report June 24, 1991 4) 1 AHDERSON - Water Tower Ordinance provisions reqardina Historic structures: Section 28-2403 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is also included as part of the policy statement to provide information as to the provisions of the Code relative to the Historic Conditional Use Permit process, required findinqs, and modifications to development standards that can be allowed. If the City Council determines to adopt this listinq, or a revised listinq, as the locally recognized listing of historic buildings, then those properties listed would be eliqible to apply under the provisions of section 28-2403.1. of the Code for remodeling, alteration or expansion requests. * * * * For: June 24, 1991 NOTED AND APPROVED: Jerry Bankston city Manager Attachments: (1) ATTACHMENT A: "Historic Walking Tour of Seal Beach", Woman's Club of Seal Beach, no date. ATTACHMENT B: Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 ATTACHMENT C: Planning Commission Staff Report of June 5, 1991 ATTACHMENT D: proposed City Council Policy statement Number 101, Historical Buildings Inventory * * * * /WPS1/HISTBLDG.CC/LW/6-24-91 2 e1fJ1l 1 7 ii}' I , . . March 17, 1993 Via Facsimile Mr. Lee Whittenberg Director of Development Services CITY OF SEAL BEACH 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Re: 209 Main Street Seal Beach, California Dear Lee: In accordance with your request, we have concluded an analysis of the potential for leasing non- utilized parking spaces during the evening operating hours for our prospective new tenant for the subject property. The following is the summary of our results. In response to our correspondence (sample attached) to the ten commercial property owners within the closest vicinity of the subject, we have received one written response. This potential site does not adjoin the property, represents a limited number of spaces behind an existing building, and is accessible only by the alley adjoining residential properties. It is our opinion that this potential site is logistically inappropriate due to location, the encouragement of commercial traffic to a residential area, and would create a potentially severe economic hardship due to increased costs for rent and liability insurance. In summary, our survey provided no acceptable off-site parking sites. Please do not hesitate to contact me to further discuss the foregoing. Sincerely, 0@M1/ Gregg A. Herbert GAH:dk 77Ie licit.., Companill 41100 M.cArthur 'OII'W.rd Suit. 3000 ".potf B..ch, CaHfof7ll.'1160 714151.85110 FAX 714 '5'.1I4SC