Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-04-07 . e . --~' CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MtNuTES APRIL 7, 1993 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1993 was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Soukup Also Present: Department of Development Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 17, 1993 MOTION by Soukup; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of March 17, 1993, with one correction at page 11: The City is waiting for survey infonnation to confinn that the wall is not on City property and is beyond the City limits. Staff hopes to have this issue resolved by April 1st. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: 3-0-2 Soukup, Sharp, Law Fife, Dahlman SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters. . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commissioo · Minutes of April 7. 1993 PUBLIC HEARINGS Director Whittenberg indicated the applicants for Agenda item #3, Height Variation #93-1 and Variance #93-3 (1305 Sandpiper), stated they had not received the mailed copy of their staff report. Therefore, the applicant's have requested this matter be continued to the April 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Fife polled the audience to see how many persons wanted to speak to this issue who could not be present at the April 21st meeting. One man raised his hand and indicated he would be willing to put his comments in writing and forward them to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Soukup suggested this item could be put at the end of tonight's agenda to give the applicant the opportunity to read another copy of their staff report. Commissioner Dahlman said he felt the applicants might like to review the staff report with their attorney. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to continue Height Variation #93-1 and Variance #93-3 for the property at 1305 Sandpiper Drive to the April 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup Mr. Whittenberg indicated no additional Notices would be mailed out to notify area residents e of this continuance nor any Notice printed in the local newspapers. *** 2. Negative Declaration #93-3 Conditional Use Permit #92-23 Variance #92-3 209 Main Street Proposal: B J's Pizza Chairman Fife stated he and Commissioner Dahlman had both listened to an audio tape of the April 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. This tape contained only that portion of the meeting concerning this application. Staff Re.port Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, BJ's Seal Beach, L.P., request Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #92-23, to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption (beer and wine only) and to perform a seismic retrofit to a structure at 209 Main Street. Additionally, the applicants request Variance #92-3, to vary from the commercial parking requirements, loading zone requirements and landscaping requirements in conjunction with the re-establishment of a restaurant at 209 Main Street. Staff .. recommended approval subject to conditions. . e . Page 3 - City of Seal BelIcb Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 Mr. Colantuono added comments to the staff report due to the legal complexities of this application. First, resolutions for this proposal will be provided at the April 21st Planning Commission meeting, allowing the City Attorney's Office time to re-examine them pursuant to the Commission's discussion. Secondly, three different types of approvals are before the Planning Commission tonight --- a Variance to allow this use to vary from the on-site parking, loading and landscaping standards, a CUP for the alcohol-related land use and the unusual Historic CUP. He explained the Historic CUP is more like a Variance than a CUP, as it allows an applicant to deviate from zoning, building and other technical City codes thus allowing a historical structure to be maintained in its historic form. If the Commission approves this application, the City Attorney's Office would recommend a traditional CUP be granted for the alcohol use, a traditional Variance be granted for the parking, loading zone and landscaping and a Historic CUP be granted solely regarding deviations to the technical codes required to allow this use. This would include the Building, Electrical, Mechanical Codes. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Colantuono if a Historical CUP process is intended to be limited to deviations from the technical building code requirements or is it broad enough to allow deviations from parking requirements? And, from the enactment of this Ordinance did the City Council intend it to restrict its application to technical building codes? Mr. Colantuono replied the Ordinance says that in approving a Historical CUP the Planning Commission may authorize such deviations from the Seal Beach municipal Code (zoning, subdivision and building ordinances) necessary to preserve the structure and its historical significance. It's broad enough to cover any topic, but a relationship must be shown to the preservation of the historic structure. Chairman Fife said, with that in mind, he could envision an owner of a historical structure indicating that unless he could get deviations from parking requirements enabling him to rent the property at a high enough rate to justify the rehab and maintenance costs, his only other option is to rip it down. Mr. Colantuono replied other cities have granted Variances in that context, however, he did not feel this Planning Commission needed to take that route. The appropriateness of the use should be evaluated under traditional CUP standards. He recommended the Commission evaluate the general use itself under the traditional standards and not look to the Historic CUP process to address those issues. Chairman Fife felt it is much more difficult to meet the restrictive requirements of a Variance than to meet the seemingly broader authority of Historical CUP. Mr. Colantuono said a parking Variance could be legally defended in this context because it's physically impossible to provide on-site parking for any use without demolishing the building. Mr. Colantuono said "I don't believe the City has the power to forbid any use of the property without buying it". Mr. Whittenberg said that when talking about a parking Variance, it is noted a Variance will be necessary to allow the building to have a use. The Commission's determination on this Variance will decide if the use is a restaurant or, if that finding cannot be made, the Commission would need to determine an alternate use of the property or wait for an alternate application to be submitted for a less intensive use per the amount of parking. If the application was for a retail non-food, non-alcohol use, with an office on the second floor, it would require approximately ten parking spaces; it would be seven to eight spaces short. Mr. Colantuono said cases encourage the Commission to consider the CUP issues first. For example, is this use appropriate for the site and can it be accommodated . . ~e Plgc 4 - Cil1 of Seal Beach PIaoning Conuni88ion · Minulc8 of April 7. 1993 without undue detriment to the neighborhood? Once that determination has been made, then, when the Commission reaches the parking Variance stage the Commission can import that CUP finding and be consistent. The Commission need not force the parking Variance to the least use if the Commission makes the finding in the CUP that this is an appropriate use for the site. The CUP should drive the Variance. Chairman Fife said a restaurant is a more intense use than a dress shop and, if under the Variance requirements, the Commission is restricted to not depriving the property owner of any use of the property then does it follow that the Commission is required to make those fmdings to provide the property owner with the highest and best economic return? Mr. Colantuono replied neither set of considerations arises as part of the Variance consideration. Both sets of considerations arise in the CUP context. In the CUP context the Commission must determine whether or not the proposed use is appropriate for the setting. When making that determination the Commission will make it with reference to the alternatives. If there is no economically feasible alternative then that might lead the Commission to find that a particular use is appropriate for the setting. At the Variance stage, it is simply assuming this use is appropriate for the site, is there something different about this parcel as opposed to other parcels which justifies a Variance? If you would have to tear the building down, the Commission could make that finding --- even though the Commission would face a similar problem with every building on Main Street. PUBLIC HEARING .Terry Hennessey * 4160 Beach Boulevard. Yorba Linda. CA Explaining the operation, Mr. Hennessey stated he and his partners own BJ's Chicago Pizzeria with six restaurants in the communities of La Jolla, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, San Juan Capistrano and Belmont Shore. BJ's has been in business fifteen years, is family oriented, is not a franchise, and is operated by the owners. BJ's attempts to fit into the various communities. This will not be a bar; their alcohol sales equal less than 10% of their total sales. Referencing the Historical CUP, Mr. Hennessey said they are not trying to get around any building codes, this plan would bring the site up to current electrical and handicapped codes. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the Planning Commission were to approve a Historical CUP, staff would recommend wording for a condition that would allow only those modifications to the building, plumbing and mechanical codes that would be absolutely necessary. Referencing the seismic retrofit, Mr. Hennessey said the cost of the retrofit is approximately $40,000. He added the exterior and interior brick and the "1" beams will be left exposed. There will be four large "1" beams, two will be placed in the interior dining area and two at the building's face. Page S - Cily of Seal Beach Plannin, CoounissiOll · Minutes of April 7. 1993 . Regarding the design. All six restaurants have a different look but retain a Chicago theme of exposed brick. BJ's will not be leasing the upstairs but the entire face of the building has been designed to tie together the upper and lower floors. This proposal has less seating than the Green Pepper restaurant because they propose a larger kitchen and area is taken to meet the handicapped code requirements for larger restrooms and wider aisles. Regarding the operating hours, Mr. Hennessey said the application asks for closing times of 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday however, they will agree to stafrs recommendation to reduce the hours to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 :00 p. m. on Friday and Saturday. All their restaurants open and close at different times in an attempt to fit into the various communities. Regarding the concern of becoming a bar, Mr. Hennessey stated BJ's would accept any conditions on the application to say it will never be a bar. The Commission asked Mr. Hennessey if, at their other restaurants, they are required to keep the kitchen open to closing to prevent the service of alcoholic beverages only? Mr. Hennessey said no, if they close at 10:00 p.m. the service of food and beverages ceases at 10:00 p.m. e Regarding their open house on Sunday. April 4. 1993,99% of the people said finally, somebody is doing something with this building. Other people, who know BJ's, were saying BJ's would really be an asset to Seal Beach. He presented the Commission with a 250-signature petition in support of this proposal; attached for the Record. On the parking issue, Mr. Hennessey said "It seems to me it certainly is a technicality as to why we're here before you, when you look at what's taken place here. We've got a place that was a restaurant for forty years. You have a State mandate that says this building has to be retrofitted. The owner decides that's not economically feasible for him to do. He sells the building. And basically what happens is time elapses as a result of --- certainly there's the Renaissance Cafe issue, which just added to time --- the time elapsed, and all of a sudden it loses all of it's grandfathering ability. It seems absurd --- "technicality" might be a little too soft a word to say. In essence, you've got forty years of a restaurant use versus one year of the thing staying open and then losing everything that ever would have or should have been ... I think that when the Green Pepper closed down there wasn't some all of a sudden like zillions of parking spaces available. I doubt that anyone actually noticed any difference". Regarding the parking Variance, Mr. Hennessey said this site can only be supported by a restaurant. BJ's would spend in excess of $300,000 on this building. He felt the alternative would be a vacant, condemned, unsafe building in terms of the seismic work needed. He said BJ's could put a beautiful building on this site and could offer jobs to local citizens. Commissioner Soukup said Mr. Hennessey stated BJ's would do anything to fit into the community and asked if BJ' s would be willing to carry a bigger burden on the parking mitigation e fees? Mr. Hennessey said BJ's had been presented with a figure of $100 per year but if . e e Page 6 - Cil1 of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 something else is presented they would look at that. Commissioner Soukup asked if Mr. Hennessey would agree that $100 per space per year was a good deal? Mr. Hennessey agreed. Commissioner Dahlman added BJ's is really not entitled to pay any fee, whether it's $10,000 per space or $100 per space, to get around the parking Variance. He added paying a fee really doesn't solve the problem because the City doesn't have the parking spaces in Old Town. He said it seems to him there is no grandfathering here, the site has exceeded the time limit for grandfathering. If a restaurant is closed for more than three months then the non-parking spaces can no longer be passed to the next CUP applicant. ~r. Whittenberg explained the length of time the building has been vacant is because the Renaissance Cafe's application was denied and another application had not come forward to design the seismic retrofit. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the Renaissance Cafe was short twenty parking spaces and BJ's pizza is short twenty-three spaces because the second floor is being considered in this application. He added the parking portion of the Renaissance Cafe's application was approved. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not certain on this point and would like to research this point and clarify it later. Mr. Whittenberg commented on the $100 in-lieu parking program. The first time a fee was established was when Hennessey's was approved by the City Council. That approval established a new restaurant use to replace an existing retail sales location on Main Street and the non- parking was assessed $100 per space and was indicated to be an interim fee and at some later time a parking program would be developed and the fee would most likely be increased to provide the necessary funding to implement a parking program. Since that time the City has not developed a parking program but has continued to collect fees from those establishments which are part of that program. The initial determination of the fee was based on a change in use to allow a new restaurant with an alcohol license on the street; this was not the transfer of an existing license to another operator. Regarding Conditions of Ap.proval, Mr. Whittenberg asked Mr. Hennessey if he had reviewed the Conditions of Approval for both the CUP and the Variance and did he have any objections other than the Condition regarding no pizza delivery which had been dropped? Mr. Hennessey replied he had reviewed all the Conditions, and as long as they are allowed to deliver pizza, there are no objections to any Conditions. Regarding site selection, Commissioner Soukup asked Mr. Hennessey if it were correct that he sought out this site versus the property owner seeking him out? Mr. Hennessey said yes. Regarding traffic generation, Commissioner Soukup, ascertaining traffic generation, said BJ's press release says $1 million per year in revenue per restaurant and based on an average of $10 per person it would be 270 people per day frequenting BJ's pizza; this is a lot of activity. Mr. Hennessey said Seal Beach would be the smallest restaurant they have, seating 64 people. Their Balboa store seats 115 patrons. Page 7 - City of Seal Beach P1anning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 . Regarding historic structures, Commissioner Dahlman said he was not certain this site is a historic structure, although it is included on a list of seventeen City sites submitted by the Women's Club. He noted City staff added four additional sites to the Women's Club list, saying they derived these four sites "from other sources" and they had "potential historical value". The Planning Commission subsequently submitted this list to the City Council and the Council was not sure if there were some sites on that list that shouldn't be. Commissioner Dahlman was therefore glad the historical site issue is not now part of this application. Regarding a City parking mitigation program, Commissioner Dahlman disputed the staff report's claim that the City has an interim parking mitigation program. Commissioner Dahlman explained that initially, when persons who possessed grandfathered parking spaces came before the City, the Commission added the fee of $100 per non-space to equalize what other businessmen in town were already paying for their non-spaces. It was a level playing field to have everyone who didn't have parking spaces paying the same amount per space that they didn't have; that's where the $100 comes from. It is not a program. The City tried to enact an in lieu parking program which was struck down by the Coastal Commission, who said the physical spaces could not be provided in the City. e Regarding over-concentration of ABC licenses in the City, Commissioner Dahlman said the Negative Declaration makes reference to a non-existent City parking program and on page 31 lists the restaurant operations on Main Street in 1985 and 1992 and which establishments had ABC licenses. In 1985 there were sixteen ABC licenses and in 1992 there were sixteen ABC licenses not counting the Green Pepper. The number appropriate for the Main Street area is about twelve ABC licenses and the City is four licenses over in 1985 and 1992; the question is, why does the City want to add another license? Mr. Hennessey said 10% of BJ's sales is alcohol and urged the Commission to look at the makeup of these ABC licenses. Mr. Colantuono said that when the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control counts existing licenses, they count licenses issued, that people own, whether or not they are actually operating those licenses. The rules about over-concentration of ABC licenses apply to newly existing licenses and not to transfers of existing licenses. The reason for this is nobody owns a newly issued license, nobody has investment-back expectations in a newly issued license. Existing licenses are property; people own them. There rights can be regulated but not taken. Commissioner Dahlman said the Green Pepper restaurant was one of the sixteen licenses in 1985 and it was not one of the sixteen licenses in 1992. And if he understands Mr. Colantuono, the Commission can't make a finding that the City already has enough alcohol-serving locations and deny this permit. Mr. Colantuono said the Planning Commission never has the authority to deny an ABC license, but they always have the authority to make a determination that it's not an appropriate site for the alcohol related use proposed. Regarding the Renaissance Cafe, Chairman Fife, referencing Commissioner Dahlman's comments on the vote for Renaissance Cafe, indicated every motion made for the application . failed for lack of a second or it was withdrawn except for a final motion to deny the CUP . e Page 8 - Cily of Seal Beach P1anning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 without prejudice. Mr. Hennessey asked if the Renaissance Cafe application pivoted on the entertainment issue? Chairman Fife said he was not certain entertainment was the whole issue regarding denial but there was more energy directed at that aspect of the application. Chairman Fife polled the audience and counted twenty persons wanting to speak on this application. Commissioner Sharp asked the audience to get together and pool their comments to avoid repetition but the audience responded negatively. Commissioner Soukup said the public is entitled to their say. Chairman Fife called a recess. RECESS: At 8:55 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Chairman Fife suggested a three minute time limit on each speaker with the applicant having a ten minute rebuttal period. Chairman Fife indicated there are eight other Agenda items, many of which are controversial. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to invoke a three minute time limit on each speaker pro or con and to allow the applicant a ten minute rebuttal period. This is subject to adjustment in the event fewer speakers wind up speaking. Commissioner Dahlman said he would support that Motion only if the persons who felt three minutes was inadequate get a subsequent chance to talk prior to the Commission's vote. Commissioner Law offered to Second. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that would be out of order because he was offering to Second with his amendment added. Commissioner Sharp disagreed, saying you either have a time limit or you don't and he restated his Motion. Commissioner Soukup said if the Commission had started sooner they could have heard four people by now and a time limit is unheard of. AMENDMENT by Soukup to keep the speaking period open. Director Whittenberg suggested polling the speakers again and limiting the time for the pro side and the con side. Chairman Fife said he was not inclined to do that as it would unfairly cut off the side with the most speakers. He asked the speakers to indicate to the Commission that, if true, they have ten minutes of remarks and perhaps they could be accommodated at the end. VOTE: A YES: NOES: 3-0-2 Fife, Sharp, Law Dahlman, Soukup PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS IN FAVOR Tom Charara * President. Seal Beach Businessmen's Association Mr. Charara said as President of the Seal Beach businessmen's Association he speaks for the 140 e business owners of the Seal Beach Businessmen's Association. They merchants feel this e e e Page 9 - City of ScaI Beach Planning Coounission · Minules of April 7. 1993 application is an appropriate use for this site and the Association supports this application as an excellent addition to the community. BI's pizza would add to the atmosphere on Main Street and is a family-oriented restaurant. The business would provide tax revenue for the City. He said any parking problems on Main Street are because the City does not have a parking program and urged the Commission not to penalize this applicant for the City's not having a parking program. He urged the City to approach the business community and say the City has a parking problem and we need to assess you so much per parking space and the business community would respond to the City. The City has not come to business community for solutions, has not placed business owners on planning committees nor asked for their consultation. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Charara what he would recommend charging per non-parking space? Mr. Charara recommended the City issue bonds and perhaps put two-story parking on the City's Eighth Street parking lot, .or perhaps open the beach parking lot and have meters and the merchants would support that. He said he would be willing to donate money to buy parking meters for the beach lots or Main Street to limit parking. .T ohn Baker * Nip 'n Stuff Liquor. Main Street Mr. Baker said he is a business owner and City resident. In 1984 a study was done declaring the types of businesses that should be on Main Street, it had various designs and various parking plans. One suggestion was recessing the fronts of buildings for open air dining. This application is the first plan for Main Street that has met those requirements. He said BI's would be spending a lot of money to rehabilitate 209 Main Street. He would not want to see that site tom down and become a vacant lot. He said the City doesn't have a parking problem on Main Street, it has a signage problem. He suggested additional signage to indicate there's parking behind the buildings. Sol .T ohn * Seal Beach Mr. John said give BI's pizza a chance to put this site in good shape. He suggested parking could be found by putting meters on both sides of the greenbelt from the library to Fifteenth Street. Parking meters would give the City more revenue. Ron Sessler * SeaSide Grill. Seal Beach Mr. Sessler said he owns the SeaSide Grill and is a City resident. He said BI's pizza will invest a lot of money to locate in Seal Beach and will be an asset to the City. He urged the Commission to allow this application to have longer hours. Renee Lyons * Main Street Merchant Ms. Lyons said she has worked with BI's pizza in their support of local schools. She said she has been in a BI's restaurant at closing and has been told it's time to close. She added there are transients living in the empty building at 209 Main Street. She felt the community needs a positive influence like BI's pizza. The parking has always been a problem, it's not because of BI's pizza coming in, and parking problems need to be addressed on a different level. Page 10 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conuniasioo · Minule8 of April 7. 1993 . Hank Lucera * 1758 Coastline Drive. Seal Beach Mr. Lucera said he was the owner of the Green Pepper restaurant. He said he hopes to see a restaurant such as Green Pepper at that site and BJ's fits that criteria. The site was a sausage factory a one time, a bank at one time, Louis Averett had a restaurant there for 23 years and he was there for 20 years. Walt Thurner * 326 Seventeenth Street. Seal Beach Mr. Thurner said his property backs to commercial property --- the Shore Shop, a bait store and a liquor store. After 13 years he has learned to live with these businesses. He knew they were there when he moved in. They have come to a very peaceful co-existence. He said the newspapers cite governmental regulations as a reason why businesses are leaving the State and here we have have an entrepreneur who is willing to spend a lot of money to locate in Seal Beach. Seal Beach needs money and is not getting money from a vacant building. He felt the City should be finding ways to make this happen instead of looking at road blocks. He said "I would hate to see a very small minority of the community rule Seal Beach to the detriment of the majority and that's what I see happening right now". Lisa Haney * California SeaShell Co.. Seal Beach Ms. Haney said BJ's would be an asset to Seal Beach. e .T oan W olfelt * Sixteenth Street. Seal Beach Ms. Wolfelt said she owns a business in Seal Beach. There is a parking problem on 16th Street. This is a beach community and you know when you move here you're going to have a parking problem. When she goes to a restaurant on Main Street she walks. She is pleased to see a well- known restaurant trying to establish themselves on Main Street. Nader Tahvildari * Papillons Restaurant. Seal Beach Mr. Tahvildari said he fully supports BJ's pizza. Liz Bennett * Seal Beach lNo address ,ivenl Ms. Bennett said she supported this application as a life-long Seal Beach resident. Mr. Whittenberg presented a letter in favor of this application from William and Theresa .Tones * 129 Yale Lane. Seal Beach. The Jones' own Bay Hardware, Main Street. They are in favor of the request; attached for the Record. Chairman Fife entered, for the Record, the applicant's petition; attached. SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION e Bill Ayres * Seal Beach lNo address eivenl Mr. Ayres said the Planning Commission should address itself to Old Town parking problems. He said there may be dormant ABC licenses in Seal Beach which will surface and dramatically impact the quality of life in Old Town. No mention of dormant licenses was considered when - e e Page 11 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commisaion · Minutes of April 7. 1993 these statistics were compiled. How many are present in Seal Beach now? The staff report does not consider employee parking and he has observed the employees park blocks away from Main Street and displace Old Town residents. He noted that while there may be the same number of drinking establishments in 1993 as there were in 1991 business has increased and this means more people on the street. Referencing prior remarks, he said the type of customers on Main Street at 8:00 p.m. is "just pitiful". Mr. Whittenberg commented on the number of dormant ABC licenses, saying, the only dormant ABC license in the City of Seal Beach is the license for the Green Pepper. Reva Olsen * Seal Beach lNo address eivenl Ms. Olsen objected to any in-lieu parking permits because she said the City's in-lieu parking program is illegal. Ms. Olsen asked if in-lieu parking was included in this Variance? Chairman Fife said no. Ms. Olsen asked when was the parking mitigation program adopted? Commissioner Dahlman said it was adopted on July 17, 1991. He read from those Minutes, stating the California Coastal Commission would not accept any more in-lieu parking unless it is physically provided within a certain proximity to the site. The City has no more available in-lieu parking at this time unless parking structures are built. Those Minutes reflected Commissioner Dahlman stating it was inequitable for a new business with a new structure to come in and not pay in-lieu fees while other businesses are paying those same fees. The City tried to have an in-lieu parking program but it didn't work out and it wasn't approved by the State so the Planning Commission doesn't approve an applicant who wants to open a business that requires excess parking by having him pay a certain fee. He has to get a Variance and that's why this applicant is applying for a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg said the question for this application, regarding Coastal Commission involvement, is irrelevant. In 1991, the Coastal Commission granted an exception for a restaurant use to go back into 209 Main Street. For this site any future restaurant use is exempt by previous Coastal Commission determination from having to provide any parking. That's provided as an attachment to the staff report. Ms. Olsen asked when the in-lieu parking was changed to mitigated parking was there a Public Hearing? Mr. Whittenberg explained the Planning Commission granted a parking Variance. The Conditions of Approval imposed an additional fee on that establishment ( and the fee has been imposed on several other establishments) with the result that those establishments not providing parking because they have a parking Variance are now paying a similar fee to those establishments which pay fees under an interim in-lieu parking program (approved by Variance applications by the Council and/or Commission between 1984 - 1989). The fee is imposed by the Planning Commission, it is not a program which needs to be adopted by the City Council. The City Council has requested a staff report regarding the status of parking enhancement - e e Page 12 . City of Seal Beach Planning Cammiasioo · Minutes of April 7. 1993 programs on Main Street; this was provided last week. The Council will be considering this in the future and will most likely provide direction to staff on how to proceed on how to solve the overall parking problem in the Main Street area. Ms. Olsen said she would object to the Commission's granting any in-lieu, mitigated or grandfathered parking until it is decided where the parking is going to be. She felt the stafrs argument is very weak. The in-lieu parking program should have had a EIR but did not. She wondered how staff could issue a Negative Declaration that said lack of parking would not impact the community. She said no one is paying attention to laws in this City. She felt the Commission was jeopardizing the businesses' position and inconveniencing the residents and subject the taxpayers to future liability. Commissioner Fife said, for the Record, Commissioner Dahlman was referring to the Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 1991, and at the Public Hearing Reva Olsen was a speaker. Mitzie Morton * Seal Beach !No address eivenl Mrs. Morton said BJ's pizzas are excellent pizzas and she wishes they would be going into the Security Pacific Building on Pacific Coast Highway where their parking could be accommodated. Ms. Morton asked the City to consider where they are going to put the off-street parking. Based on a shortage of 23 parking spaces, the City will be charging $2,300 per year when one off- street parking space would cost $35,000 to create. To acquire a parking lot for 23 cars would cost the City about $800,000. If the City continues to allow buildings to expand to the maximum possible use, by granting parking Variances, the Commission would be going against the intent of its own ordinances. The City has been talking about an "interim in-lieu parking program" since 1985. In 1987 the Coastal Commission said no more in-lieu parking and has required all new applicants to provide parking on-site or within so many feet. In 1987 the City's Planning Department acknowledged the problem and said we should not do any additional in-lieu parking until the City takes the step to show where the parking could actually be provided or, for the City to allocate funds and a permanent in-lieu parking program be adopted; this has not been done. It's not morally right for the City to continue to grant parking Variances which create problems for area residents and some merchants. She said "... there were merchants who were going to speak out against this tonight but they were intimidated by other merchants on Main Street not to appear and that's unfortunate". She said if 23 in-lieu parking spaces were added tonight there would be 172 in-lieu parking spaces for nine businesses. She asked the Commission to deny the Variance until off-street parking can be acquired and this problem is solved. Moira Hahn * Seal Beach !No address eiven) Ms. Hahn said neither the City's nor the applicant's survey factored in summer parking which makes a significant difference in determining whether the proposed use will prove a detriment to the City. There are three pizzerias in Seal Beach and 19 restaurants on Main Street. "If we want PJ's pizza Belmont Shore is close enough". She said she has been to their Belmont Shore location and it's a noisy restaurant and the brick walls create an echo effect. The clientele at that location is primarily college kids. From what she saw the beer was a big part of the Page 13 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 e establishment, "... it's pretty much the Hennessey's crowd". She said she did not see a lot of families, but saw a lot of college kids. Since this historical significance of the building is not a key point, she didn't see a basis for approving the restaurant. The Main Street parking system is almost non-existent and with the additional noise on the residents she didn't see any need for the services provided. Commissioner Dahlman asked Ms. Hahn if she thought this might as well be approved because it would have to be tom down as it's otherwise useless? Ms. Hahn responded that the appearance of the applicant's proposal is handsome but felt the City needs to work out a solution with the alcohol and the parking issues. A restaurant use almost triples the needed parking. She felt the Bay Theater would be a more appropriate historical building, stating there are probably 30 buildings on Main Street that have the same infrastructure as the former Green Pepper. Commissioner Soukup asked Ms. Hahn that if parking weren't an issue would she have a problem with this application? Ms. Hahn said she feels there are too many alcohol permits on Main Street. e David Rosenman * 208 8th Street. Seal Beach Dr. Rosenman provided the Commission with a three page document entitled "Criteria for Evaluating Significant Historic Sites" asking it be entered for the Record; attached. This is from the Orange County Historical Commission, Santa Ana. Dr. Rosenman felt home delivery by BI's pizza would create terrible noise off the alley. He said he was not convinced that free delivery would contribute to the services the restaurant needs to offer. Regarding the recent staff parking study, he said there are 180 in-lieu/phantom parking spaces and this application would add 23 for the restaurant and one for the delivery truck that would be over 200 phantom parking spaces. Dr. Rosenman said the Negative Declaration is deficient in its parking calculations, saying he observed parking on 8th and 10th Streets and there are about three open parking spaces at any time. He felt a study needs to be done of the carrying capacity of various streets, saying "What you have is a joke" . He said the Planning Commission has the option of putting off voting on this application and requiring a full EIR. Main Street is an entity as a whole, not just individual buildings, therefore cumulative impacts need to be studied. He noted Laguna Beach has a Downtown Specific Plan. He said the State EIR requires the City provide mitigation if it grants Variances when cumulative impacts exist. The Negative Declaration does not address that in any way and the City is setting itself up for another lawsuit. Commissioner Soukup asked Dr. Rosenman if he would prefer one delivery truck or increased traffic from a better sign program? Dr. Rosenman said it would depend on the hours of operation of the truck. Free home delivery was not included on the application's menu. No parking in the alley would be best. At BI's Long Beach location the deep dish pizza have metal trays which are a potential noise problem. He added that while he was at the Long Beach BI's it took them a half hour to get their pizza and asked what else is there to do but consume beer while you wait? e Page 14 - City of Seal Beach PIauning Commission · Minutu of April 7. 1993 e Commissioner Dahlman asked Dr. Rosenman about his reference to the Negative Declaration, the parking study and to his own observations on parking. On page 33 of the Negative Declaration it shows that on Main Street, between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue at the noon hour there were 221 trips in 1985 and 52 trips in 1989 -- generally there's a decrease from 1985 to 1989. However, the footnotes indicate the studies were taken at different times of the year. Mr. Whittenberg said in 1985 the study was done in July and in 1989 the study was in March. For this reason staff has indicated the present parking study will be a complete year of information on parking utilization on Main Street. Dr. Rosenman said why doesn't the Planning Commission/City stop, get the EIR, look at the issue and not rush anything through. On this application traffic is not adequately mitigated and the Negative Declaration needs an EIR. Additionally, the ABC in Sacramento could not tell him today if Green Pepper's liquor license was currently valid. Gail Olsen * Seal Beach !No address eivenl Ms. Olsen said has lived in Old Town for over twenty years and the parking problem has become extreme. Her tenants come home at 5:00 p.m. and can't find a place to park. She knew when she purchased property here that this was a beach community but the parking problems weren't like this when she purchased. She said "I feel my tenants have the right to have a place to park and I really would appreciate it if you would all take that into consideration ... we need some real plan to help us out down here". . Commissioner Sharp asked Ms. Olsen to explain her rental situation. Ms. Olsen said she has three units and added "I'm grandfathered. My property has been here for forty years". Commissioner Dahlman asked Ms. Olsen about building parking structures, asking if she thought they would just fill up every day? Ms. Olsen said "Well you have to have laws and they have to be enforced and they have to be enforced during the dinner hour, not just during the day --- they have to give tickets. If you have a parking structure where these restaurants could offer - --- then they would have to put it on their menu. You'd have to require that they post it --- during the night the parking would have to be regulated too". Commissioner Soukup asked Ms. Olsen asked if a parking plan was developed that served Main Street would she have a problem with the restaurants? Which comes first? Ms. Olsen said the parking problem is utmost in her mind because "I may lose tenants if they can't find a place to park. And we can't do it right now. I'm just waiting for the boom to fall". Secondly, she was concerned about the number of liquor licenses, stating Seal Beach's concentration of liquor licenses may be as high or higher than the concentration of liquor licenses in Watts and/or South Central, L.A. Chairman Fife asked Ms. Olsen if a proposed solution to side street parking problems included a requirement that off-street parking spaces in residential uses be made available and that people not use their garages for storage facilities and park on the street, what would her reaction be? e Page 15 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 e Ms. Olsen said that would be very good. She said she has three garages and none of them are used for storage, all are used for cars. Walter Miller * 7th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Miller said he has been a City residence since 1973 and owns a business in Old Town. He is concerned about the number of cars being brought into the City by the BJ's proposal. Additionally, the applicant has said his business would be from beach traffic and that could mean he would be at the beach two hours and at BJ's another hour. That clogs Main Street and adjacent streets. Mr. Miller suggested restriping City parking lots, charging the driver when he leaves the lot instead of then he enters the lot, giving one hour free validated parking (by restaurants). Limit parking on Main Street to twenty minutes. Ruby's restaurant has proved people will walk 3600 feet to get something. He felt the beach parking lot is totally locked up and never used. He suggested coupling a parking program implementation simultaneously with granting this Variance but without this he is totally against this application. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Miller to clarify his statement that he was still unable to build his project on Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Miller said it is not because of the City that he has been unable to build his building but because of the Coastal Commission's ruling. e Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Miller if his suggested program would solve his problem on Seal Beach Boulevard? Mr. Miller said he felt it would, the Coastal Commission is looking for parking places that can be used by the public. There is a $6 fee at the beach lots which a person will not pay to get a hamburger and therefore the beach lot sits empty. Mr. Whittenberg said the beach lots are closed to public access after 8:30 p.m. Mr. Miller suggested moving the lifeguard equipment from the 8th Street lot to the Ist Street lot it would open up a lot of parking spaces. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach (No address livenl Mr. Stark said the City closed (the former) Corky's restaurant by saying it had been closed for three months, the grandfathering privileges had expired, and it had to provide the required parking; what's the difference now? He said Variances apparently are for sale. He said there are too many bars on Main Street, adding Seal Beach is not a family town any more. He felt Seal Beach is following Belmont Shore and people will not come to Main Street if they can't park. He said Main Street is a high crime area, reading Seal Beach crimes from a newspaper. He asked the Commission how many liquor licenses are too many? Roeer West * 1201A Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. West said the requirements for the transfer of an ABC license are the same as the requirements for the transfer of a new ABC license. The citation is Gree v. Leege. Ltd., 1966, 64 Cal2d, 853, Cal Reporter 9415. The applicant does not have an ABC license for 209 Main Street because it was protested by local citizens and the response to those protests has not been returned yet; they will be appealed when received. e e e e Page 16 - City of Seal Beach Planning CllIIIIIliasion · Minule8 of April 7. 1993 Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks said he does not accept staffs statement that the 21 items on the historical list are legally subject to the Code; refers to the June 24, 1991 City Council meeting. This should be ironed out. Mr. Shanks said that, because the historical building aspect has been removed from this application, we are left with an open non-grandfathered Variance request for parking. The Green Pepper went out in July 1991 and could have stayed until December 31, 1991 and still have had done the work. They had six months there before the State's legal requirement was imposed. We would be setting precedent that non-historical, non-grandfathered buildings are coming in and soon the Masonic Lodge will present their request with no parking. Then what happens if an art gallery leaves and the Commission has opened this aspect up? Mr. Shanks said the business community and the residents should be friends. Within a quarter mile of Main Street there is Dominos and Gina's which deliver pizza, Johnny's which is a pick- up pizza, Bonadonna's which serves pizza plus a restaurant next to Tootsie's which serves pizza. Those merchants will be effected; what's the saturation level for pizza? The City would be giving parking to this applicant when the other pizza places have to pay for their parking. He said he visited BJ's pizza at noon last Saturday and had to ask the waitress to turn the music down; the noise was loud. .Tohn Naka2awa * 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Nakagawa said he could not find parking to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. He objected to page 9 of the CUP staff report where it indicated there is a surplus of parking spaces on both 8th and 10th Streets; this is inaccurate. He said the Planning Commission is reactionary rather than proactive. He felt the parking is out of control on Main Street and the surrounding streets. He objected to the City's saying they had no money and then charging only $100 for something that is worth over $8,000. He urged a valid parking plan be established and adopted. Wendy Rothman * Seal Beach fNo address eivenl Mrs. Rothman said everyone is here for the same reason -- they care about Seal Beach. Mrs. Rothman said the BJ's open house was basically you sign a petition and you get a piece of pizza. Commenting that it's sad you can fill up a petition for the price of a pizza. She said the petitions the Commission saw are not representative of the community's feelings on this issue. Secondly, she objected to the parking spaces giveaway if this Variance were granted. She said the Green Pepper restaurant was a Mom-and-Pop operation and it wasn't a BJ's pizzeria, which is very popular. This is why BJ's application has a larger kitchen, there will be many more employees than there were at the Green Pepper. These employees will need to park somewhere too -- it's not just customers. Mrs. Rothman stated she called the City of Laguna Beach and was told that in 1987 when BJ's pizzeria put up an aluminum storage shed behind the restaurant it covered two parking spaces and for that BJ's was charged $8,000 each for two in-lieu parking certificates as a one-time fee. The point is, the City of Seal Beach needs money and to simply give away this entitlement when this exact restauranteur has demonstrated an ability to pay much Page 17 - City of Seal Beach Planning CommiaaiOll · MinUlc8 of April 7. 1993 tit higher fees in another city is simply not good business. Most businesses pay common area fees for parking that includes lighting, landscaping and paving maintenance but in Seal Beach the residents pay those fees through their taxes. She suggested that if BJ's were approved, to approve it with a clause in the Variance that says the parking mitigation fees may go as high as $8,000 per space. The City of Laguna Beach has $900,000 now with which to do something and the City of Seal Beach has no monies. She suggested this be made a business-like contract and stop letting the Main Street landlords make all the money at the taxpayer's expense. The landlords must be brought into the loop so that we can work together to make a healthy balance of residents and business. .Joe Brown * 8th Street. Seal Beach [No address eivenl Mr. Brown said he has lived in Seal Beach about 36 years and owned three homes on 8th Street. Mr. Brown described the many problems in trying to park around 8th Street. He said "... parking is atrocious ...". He felt pizza delivery trucks drive too fast and create problems. He felt more people were against this application than are for it. . Lois Briees * Island View. Seal Beach [No address eivenl Ms. Briggs said she has lived in Seal Beach 35 years and was concerned too many of the same type of businesses are going into the same area; too many pizza shops. Belmont Shore has become an area dominated by fast food with difficult parking during the day and impossible parking at night. She has seen businesses being forced out of Belmont Shore because of the poor parking and she feels she is seeing that occurring in Seal Beach. When Planning Commissions and Councils permit too much of the same kind of business "... you get a fast, wild, kind of hot, young youthful crowd ... you can attract them to the point of insanity ... Balboa did it with their holidays for college kids ...". She urged the Commission to exercise judgement in terms of balance. Carla Watson * 1635 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Ms. Watson said she received a flier which said "Are you ready to give up your parking space? Fight for your rights ... Main Street Concerned Merchants invite you to this meeting ... ". She said "From what I understand, some of these Main Street merchants were --- well someone paid a visit and asked them not to come". She said she has lived in Seal Beach 30 years and understands the politics, "The temptation to try to keep people --- to get them not to speak out on an issue and then to try to appear to have a united front ...". She said it was important to respect everybody's right to be heard. Sol John's comments on parking on the greenbelt area disturbed her because many people who worked hard to maintain the greenbelt as open space. . Mark Hotchkiss * Seal Beach [No address eivenl Mr. Hotchkiss spoke against delivery or take-out of pizza saying it would exacerbate the parking problems. Regarding parking, the applicant's study shows 100% utilization of parking without this restaurant and without the summer months. Page 7 of the staff report states a surplus of parking on 8th and 10th Streets and this admits the problems of Main Street parking are impacting the residents. A retail or less intensive use would be a better choice. The problem of retrofitting the building to allow for something other than a restaurant is not a consideration e . e Page 18 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7, 1993 this Commission should have to deal with, that is the landlord's problem. The Planning Commission should say enough phantom parking is enough. This City needs more diversification on Main Street and we need to make the businesses we have now more successful. RECESS: Chairman Fife called a short recess at 11:45 p.m., the Commission reconvened at 11:55 p.m.. REBUTTAL Paul Monteko * RT's Pizza Mr. Monteko asked should BJ's be a part of the Seal Beach community? Many people told him to expect to leave the Commission meeting feeling badly. They heard very little negative about BJ's and quite a bit of positive even from opposing persons. BJ's is not and will not be a bar. Regarding parking, he sympathized with the citizen's concerns and felt there will be an effective solution to Seal Beach's parking problem as there is under-utilized parking. He said that if it is financially viable, BJ's would support an appropriate solution. However, this particular building should not be held hostage to a bigger issue. Regarding the issue of the necessity for a parking Variance, and the feeling that a boutique or retail store might be a better use. The economics don't make a retail use viable. A restaurant use, BJ's restaurant, is able to pay the rent and support the improvements to the building which a retail use, like a boutique, would not be able to afford. Regarding the issue of the back alley and how adjacent homes would be effected, BJ's restaurant has not gotten complaints in their other restaurants with the exact same situation as they would have in Seal Beach. In Belmont Shore BJ's has residents directly behind the restaurant and every morning BJ's cleans up the entire alley area which includes the alley area owned by the residents. BJ's wants to be a good neighbor. Regarding the issue of concerns that the Main Street area is not a family town anymore, BJ's restaurant would upgrade the area and attract the right type of people to the area because they are a family establishment. Regarding the issue of why the site was vacant for so long, it is necessary to consider the layout of the tenant in the building to put in the steel beams correctly when performing the seismic retrofit. Performing the seismic retrofit without knowing what the property will be use for is not appropriate. Regarding the issue of competition, the merchants are behind BJ's pizza "other than one particular instance". Even their direct competitors know a thriving Main Street is good for everybody. Page 19 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 e Regarding the issue of forcing people at their open house to sign their petition, BJ's did not force people to sign the petition to get a piece of pizza. They got as many or more signatures on the petition when they didn't have the pizza as when they did. BJ's got tremendous response from City residents at their open house on Sunday. Regarding the issue of parking spaces costing $8,000 per space as a more realistic figure, ifBJ's were to pay $8,000 per space times 20 parking spaces it would equal over 50% of the project's entire cost. That would not be economically viable for BJ's. "If the City, down the road, comes up with an amount that they think is appropriate and it's financially viable for the merchants on Main Street, I think you've got the support of the President of the Association that we will all cooperate with that". Regarding the issue of tearing down the building, the bottom line is no matter what's done with 209 Main Street, it's never going to meet the parking requirements. The objective should be to get a quality tenant in there that's responsible to the neighborhood and that certainly is BJ's. In summary, BJ's is asking the City to give BJ's permission to spend at least $300,000 rehabilitating and seismic retrofitting an old, rundown, two-year vacant building that used to be a restaurant. BJ's restaurant will employ community residents, young people in particular. It will bring tax revenue to the City. It will provide a friendly, family atmosphere to the community. e Sol .T ohn * Seal Beach Mr. John said to let BJ's pizza build his project. Commissioner Dahlman said he would like to hear from the property owner regarding the lapse of time because the Commission must consider this. Gree Herbert. General Partner * Bichsel Company Mr. Herbert said the building has been vacant for two years. The Renaissance Cafe project took about six months to conclude. Since the City's denial of the Renaissance Cafe proposal, Mr. Herbert has been actively seeking a tenant to fit within the guidelines of what they understand Seal Beach is looking for. This considers the use and capability to maintain their business. This is what's taken the time. lilt's been an absolute financial disaster but that's the time period it's taken II . Commissioner Dahlman asked why Mr. Lucero closed the Green Pepper? Mr. Herbert said he was not aware of the background on why. Commissioner Dahlman asked if it was due to the State's requirement for retrofitting? Mr. Herbert said no, not to his understanding. Mr. Hennessey from BJ's pizza said the retrofit must be tied to the eventual tenancy of the building. , Chairman Fife asked if they had had a hearing at the Coastal Commission? Mr. Herbert said this was in the form of a written application to the Coastal Commission who approved the grandfather provisions of the property. This is only for a restaurant use going back into that Page 20 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 e site. If a retail use was proposed, Mr. Herbert said he would have to reapply and that application wouldn't occur because economically the property cannot burden a traditional retail use. The rental equivalent is about 50% of what a restaurant can pay. Chairman Fife asked if the property ownership group concluded that a retail, non-restaurant use is not viable for this site? Mr. Herbert said it is economically impossible. Mr. Herbert said very few operators are seeking space, very few of BI's caliber. He has had over a dozen offers for this building but he didn't believe the use and the ownership would fit in Seal Beach. Mr. Herbert said he has been attempting to follow the guidelines of Mr. Whittenberg's staff. Chairman Fife asked, given the fact most Planning Commission decisions for the Old Town area are appealed to the City Council, what are Mr. Herbert's timing constraints? Mr. Hennessey said April 30, 1993 is the date at which BI's can terminate the lease with Mr. Herbert. Commissioner Sharp, referencing Chairman Fife's comments regarding appeals to the City Council, it has been brought to his attention "... at least twice, that regardless of what we do here tonight it's going to be appealed to the City Council. I think it's a sad affair when that goes on. That the environment of the City and so forth is such, and with the actions of the Council in the past is such that we almost have to look that any major decision we make that it's going to be appealed". Chairman Fife said that is his observation too and said "I wonder, what do we need it for?" e Mr. Hennessey said Mr. Lucero indicated the seismic retrofit was the major consideration in his retiring. That made it uneconomical for him to continue on. Mr. Whittenberg said the State's deadline was January 1, 1992. The business closed about June 1991. Joe Brown * 8th Street. Seal Beach [No address eivenl Mr. Brown said Mr. Hennessey was told that if he came to Seal Beach he would be treated like dirt. Mr. Brown said he did not feel the Planning Commission or the audience treated him like dirt. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Colantuono to comment on Mr. West's remarks regarding the transfer of a liquor license. Mr. Colantuono said he was unfamiliar with the particular citation used by Mr. West but he will be looking it up tomorrow. Mr. Colantuono said he did review the State regulations cited in the staff report (64.1 and 61.3) which govern over concentration, high crime areas and being within 100' of residential areas. These regulations, by their terms, apply only to new ABC licenses. The citation used by Mr. West indicates a Cal 2nd cite so that's a few years old and the State regulations are probably more recent. Commissioner Sharp said when speaking of parking fees, everyone would like to see the City Council enact an appropriate parking mitigation fee and to devise a definite plan that would lead e us into a better parking situation. In the past this situation has presented itself and the Planning . . . Page 21 - Cily of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minu1cB of April 7, 1993 Commission assigned a fee of $100 per parking space with the stipulation that when and if the City came up with another plan and/or another fee that that plan or fee would apply to that particular issue when it came up. If this proposal were to gain approval, that would be the appropriate thing to do because a decent way of handling the parking must be devised. This is not a new license, it is a transfer and it is not increasing the amount of active ABC licenses on Main Street. Commissioner Sharp indicated he frequents various restaurants which hold beer and wine licenses but many times you do not see beer and wine on the tables because they are family-oriented. Occasionally you'll see a person having a beer or wine. He did not feel it should be an issue as to whether the Planning Commission renews the ABC license. "I think it's an inalienable right of the business where it is and the fact that they have a license to have that transferred II. Commissioner Soukup requested to hold his comments to the end. Commissioner Law said she had no comments. Commissioner Dahlman said the Public Hearing proponents almost unanimously stated that parking is no problem or that it's everybody's problem, or that it's everybody but BI's problem. However, while the ABC's liquor license is property and is transferrable, the City's municipal Code says the grandfathered parking is not transferrable after three months. Therefore, the applicant can't claim the grandfathering as property rights. If this project is approved, something has to be done about the parking. Physical spaces must be provided somewhere; do something to increase the parking. Agreeing with Walt Miller's comments, Commissioner Dahlman said this should be taken care of now, at the same time the application is approved. The Coastal Commission, even though they have given approval for continuing this as a restaurant use and allowing the site to go without the required 23 parking spaces, he felt their intent is that the City find physical spaces. Commissioner Dahlman said he was concerned that in granting this huge parking Variance that the Planning Commission might be setting a dangerous precedent. Also, because the Commission was no longer a historical exception to the rule, it might apply as a precedent for other Main Street businesses wanting to do without large numbers of parking spaces. "We absolutely have to find physical spaces in order to approve this". Commissioner Dahlman said he was concerned the staff report stated there is a surplus of parking on 8th and 10th Streets, as "Everybody in town knows that that's not true". Chairman Fife said he believed there is an on-going conflict between the parking needs of the Main Street commercial district and the parking needs of the adjacent residential streets. "I think that problem needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner and not on this ad hoc item-by-item basis that we've been doing". He would like to see what the City Council has in mind for Main Street. "It seems to me that if we continue on the path we're on, we'll have a Main Street full of boarded up buildings and happier residents or we'll have a Main Street that has a greater number of restaurants and a greater number of miserable residents. Neither of those is to me an acceptable solution". He said he was distressed that many times the Commission has discussed having largely wasted, under utilized parking spaces throughout the City. "Our City Council, which I think at last count has appointed about one million ad hoc e e e Page 22. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Minutes of April 7, 1993 committees, has never appointed any ad hoc committee including commercial businessmen, nearby residents to deal with the parking problem ... we don't have anything moving forward on this issue ... and we deal with this kind of conflict every time a restaurant or any kind of business in downtown Seal Beach either has to change ownership, change operation or something like that. II He said he was not inclined to vote for this proposal because it stalls off the time when we have to face and deal with the parking problem. He suggested the City must deal with the needs of the downtown merchant and the needs of the nearby residents. The idea of doing one Variance at a time is not an acceptable solution. It's not fair to the business owners, the applicants who are led to believe that perhaps they can get a Variance through and then meet a firestorm of opposition at the Commission meetings and it's not fair to the residents to have to gear up, march down and fight this thing every time. There must be some policy. That policy might involve some sacrifice by the nearby residents such as cleaning out their garages and parking their cars in their garages and being subject to some type of discipline if they don't. Perhaps permits could be issued, so many per living unit, and that's all. Perhaps raising permit fees substantially. Something must get moving to build some actual parking in this City. Perhaps roof the City parking lot, make use of the beach parking lots. Meanwhile we are harming the residents and merchants. III think the only way we're ever going to get the Council to deal with this issue is to put it in their face and make them start dealing with it. Therefore, I am inclined, as much as it distresses me, to vote against the Variance, which is the main, central issue as I see it ... II . Commissioner Soukup said any view he has is not a reflection on W's restaurant. He said he felt W's pizza belongs in Seal Beach but the question is IIWhere do you go to service our needs? Is it in this location or is it not?1I He felt Mr. Miller's comments of forcing this issue to the City Council and linking an approval at this site contingent on the Council approving a parking program would be acceptable to him because it will address everyone's problem at the same time and not lose W's pizza as an excellent restaurant for the City. He felt utilizing the beach parking lots to help ease parking problems may be a good solution. He felt all the fees that will increase to pay for lighting, restriping the lot and to man the booth is an elegant solution but it is not a program now and III can't vote without a program ... II. Regarding the historical aspect of this site, the only historical significance is it's going to fall down with an earthquake. The architecture is not significant. It does have an old commercial area look but then all of Main Street has that look. As a whole, we want to preserve the look of Main Street and a replacement building would have to follow the look of the City. Commissioner Soukup said he would consider making a motion to approve Variance #92-3 if it were linked to a parking program. The City Council must address the use of the public beach parking lot. The Planning Commission can only address private uses. Commissioner Dahlman said, contrary to what was heard in the public testimony, the beach lots were restriped in about 1985, when Hennessey's got their in-lieu spaces. And he felt the beach lots were striped to their maximum parking capacity. As for moving the lifeguard equipment to First Street, he understood it would be too exposed and was not a viable option. e e . Page 23 - City of Seal Beach Planning CllIIIIIIission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 Commissioner Soukup said the parking impact is between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. That's the dinner hour. If there were free parking in the beach lot, or a validation program, then you're working towards a program that's going to work. If a couple of hundred parking spaces are provided by the pier and there's signage notifying the public of this that would alleviate using the surrounding neighborhoods for parking. The City Council must make this work, the Planning Commission can't make it work. He said "I don't want to lose an anchor, economic force that's going to keep Main Street healthy". Commissioner Dahlman said he understood the beach parking lots are open to 9:00 p.m. but there's a $6 parking fee. Therefore a validation program might really help. Commissioner Sharp agreed with Commissioner Soukup, that a sound parking program would be nice, but the Commission does not have the right to tie up a business or a building to try to force the City Council to develop a parking program. He said he would like to see this application granted because the City needs that building fixed up and W's sounds like a real asset. H~ suggested approval tied to a future parking program. Chairman Fife said he couldn't even begin to make the findings for a Variance. Mr. Colantuono said if you want to give effect to your position he recommended the Commission make a factual finding that this use cannot be accommodated without unacceptable parking impacts. That factual finding would support a denial of both the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance. He recommended the Commission take this approach rather than Commissioner Soukup's suggestion to condition approval of a project based on the solution of an Old Town-wide problem. "The solution is bigger than their part of the problem. So I'd recommend ... I think a straight out denial would still present the issue to the Council as long as the Minutes go with it and make it clear what your concerns were. But it would do it in a way that I could defend it in court if it came to that". He recommended the Commission address both the Variance and the CUP because if an appeal is taken only to the Variance the Council would not be in a position to address the entire project but only the piece sent on. Chairman Fife said that with the City drifting on the issue and having no parking plan and no real end in site, the parking impact is unacceptable and cannot be mitigated under the present circumstances. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Dahlman to deny Conditional Use Permit #92-23 and Variance #92-3 adding that he hoped the applicant could rmd a way to solve the problem at the City Council level and come to Seal Beach. Commissioner Dahlman Seconded the Motion, indicating the parking is insufficient. The Negative Declaration's description of the mitigation program is weak. He noted a strong argument was made in the Public Hearing that an EIR is needed. He added "We just have to have a parking program in order to approve W's pizzeria in town ". Chairman Fife added that Page 24 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commis.sion · Minule8 of April 7. 1993 . it would not be just for BJ's pizza but for every Main Street business that comes here with a need for parking and can't provide it. Mr. Colantuono recommended the Commission take no action on the Negative Declaration #92-3 because CEQA does not apply to projects that the Planning Commission denies. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 2 - 0 AYES: FWe, Dahhnan, Soukup NOES: Law, Sharp Chairman Fife re-tallied the vote because Commissioner Soukup initially pressed the wrong button and voted IINOEII when he wanted to vote IIA YEll. Mr. Colantuono noted that the Commission action amounted to a direction to staff to prepare resolutions denying the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance on the basis of the parking impacts. When the resolutions come back before the Commission, the Commission's adoption will constitute a final action which could be appealed to the City Council. The Commission has taken no action on the Negative Declaration, but in the event the Council were to address an appeal differently than the Commission did, the Council would be in a position to act on the Negative Declaration at that time. For the applicant's benefit, Mr. Colantuono advised that the resolutions will be prepared for the April 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting and the appeal . period would be ten days from that date. *** MOTION by Dahhnan; SECOND by Fife to waive reading the remaining staff reports and to get a short, one minute summary on each item from staff. MOTION CARRIES: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahhnan, Fife, Sharp, Soukup, Law *** 3. Height Variation #93-1 Variance #93-3 1305 Sandpiper Drive Item has been continued to April 21, 1993 . e e . Pege 2S - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 4. Height Variation #93-2 705 Southshore Drive Staff RqJort Staff report synopsis presented by Director Whittenberg. [Full staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, George Henderson, requests approval of a Height Variation for an existing covered roof access structure (CRAS) at 705 South shore Drive. This is one of the last two remaining CRASs to come before the Commission under Ordinance #1322. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman asked what the lIappendagesll to the CRAS were? Mr. Curtis said these are part of the tota113 square feet and are the same height as the CRAS and are actually open areas within the CRAS. Commissioner Soukup, referencing page 4, asked about the alternatives suggested by staff. Mr. Whittenberg explained that of the three suggested alternatives the first two would require modification of the CRAS. Staff feels no modifications are necessary. Commissioner Dahlman asked if all property owners within 300' were Noticed? Staff said yes. Public Hearing George Henderson * 705 Southshore. Seal Beach Mr. Henderson said he has lived in Seal Beach for 32 years. A year ago, when the house was built, it was built to Code. He said he didn't think it would be right for the City to make him spend another $10,000 to remodify his CRAS. Commissioner Dahlman asked if the CRAS and roofing materials were the same and was this built according to the plans submitted? Staff said yes. No one in the audience wished to speak for or against this application and the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Height Variation #93-2 through the adoption of Resolution #93-19. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Soukup *** Page 26 - Cily of Sc:aJ Beach Planning Commission · Minutl:s of April 7. 1993 . 5. Variance #93-2 A-t03 Surfside Staff Report Staff report synopsis presented by Mr. Curtis. [Full staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Dave and Linda Chamberlain, request to vary from the height requirements of Planning District III in conjunction with the remodel of a single family residence at A-I03 Surfside. The applicants request to use the minimum flood elevation as the base point for measuring the allowed 35 foot height of the structure. Under this proposal, the remodeled structure would measure 36.5 feet in height as measured from the crown of Surfside Avenue. Staff recommended denial of Variance #93-1. Staff recommends the Commission requests from the City Council that hearings be initiated to look at a Zoning Text Amendment that would create a flood plain overlay zone for properties located in flood zones. If approved, then this application would not require a Variance. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked how much of Surfside Colony is in the flood zone? Mr. Curtis said a large percentage. Commissioner Sharp said the City just went through hearings to determine the City would use the crown of the street as the measuring point for Surfside. e Mr. Curtis said the applicants argued that measuring from the street's crown doesn't create a fair situation because he is not allowed to have 35' of house, he's allowed to have 32 - 33%'. Commissioner Sharp said that as long as the Ordinance regarding the measurement was in place he didn't see how the Commission could vary from that. Public Hearing Todd Schooler * Architect Mr. Schooler stated he is the architect on this job and the applicant's representative. He explained the Chamberlain's have children and want to enclose the existing roof deck for their safety. They are planning to use Lexan, which is lighter than glass, and allows the design to have less structure within the skylight system. If the Chamberlain's did not use this system, they would be forced to cover the stairway to the roof deck and raise the existing roof to create a nicer ceiling situation at the upper floor. This would make the eRAS quite a bit higher than this proposal and would go almost entirely across the structure. If there were a roof deck they would meet the UBC guidelines for guard rails; the guard rail would then be at the height limit. Mr. Schooler discussed similar houses and situations in Dana Point. Mr. Schooler indicated the houses on "A" row are built on piles whereas the houses on "B" and "C" rows have been built slab-on-grade and some have basements. Commissioner Dahlman said Mr. Schooler has advanced the argument that it's an inequity that people can't build the same size total house. He pointed out that to cure the inequity Mr. e Schooler sees the Commission might be creating another inequity. The major consideration in Page T1 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 e all the height limit qebates in Surfside has been view from "B" row. If some houses build higher than others, depending on whether they are in the flood plain, then the view is adversely impacted and then there's a new inequity. Mr. Schooler disagreed with the view factor, saying the houses in "B" row are too close to be able to see the beach over A-I03. And, if this is disapproved, the applicants will want higher ceilings and this legally allowed. Commissioner Soukup asked if the encroachment of the height limit is due to the clear Lexan? Mr. Schooler replied he has designed a clear patio cover. The upper 1.5 feet encroaches into the height limit. Chairman Fife asked if shades or curtains were planned? Mr. Schooler said no, it would be clear Lexan with side windows that can open for ventilation. Chairman Fife asked from what two horizontal planes is the interior height measured? Mr. Schooler said the top of the pad and top of the glass enclosure. The current guard rail is 3' below the height limit at 32' . Mr. Whittenberg presented four letters and two telephone calls in opposition for the Record: e Pat Taylor Mr. & Mrs. Camp lohn Schubert Ella Rowe Harland Anderson Anonymous C-23 Surfside C-39 (Telephone call) A-I04 B-103 B-108 --- (Telephone call The letters indicated the City has set a standard and it should not be changed. Letters are attached for the Record. Rebuttal Dave Chamberlain * 10408 Santa Clara Street. Cypress. CA Mr. Chamberlain said it seemed odd to him, after talking to the people in the Planning Department, that they all seemed to be in favor of having a flood plain overlay. He said they are trying to get 35' of interior house like many of the other houses. Mr. Chamberlain reviewed the fmdings necessary to make a Variance and felt he met these. He felt the glass enclosure would afford his neighbors better views. The only reason he could think of for the opposition was spite by the neighbors because they didn't get their applications approved. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Curtis if an overlay approach was used, and then if FEMA recalculated and raised the flood plain, would that automatically change the height limit in that zone? Mr. Curtis said yes. e Page 28 - Cily of Seal Beach PIanniug Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 e Mr. Schooler added that he designed houses at each end of Surfside and there is quite a difference in the flood plain elevation off the ground --- from 0' to 4' . No one wished to speak for or against this application and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said it is too bad the flood plain measurement argument was not brought up at the prior Public Hearings. However, the Ordinance was passed within the last year and unless the City Council wants to change it, the Commission has no right to grant 1.5' about the height limit in Surfside. Commissioner Soukup asked about the 42' was derived? Mr. Schooler said if the ceiling is raised to the height limit, including a guard rail, the CRAS could be as high as 42' and the CRAS would be a majority of the width of the building. Commissioner Dahlman said although to deny this application may seem cruel, a crueler thing to do would be to change the rules every year. The Commission has heard extensive testimony from Surfside residents about this sort of thing happening and it must stop. Commissioner Dahlman was in favor of stopping at the 35' height limit, especially considering that the flood plain level could change if FEMA made a finding. e Commissioner Soukup said the view would be more impacted with the plan that fits what the City's municipal Code allows now. This plan doesn't meet the Code and if the Commission were to base a decision on the spirit of the Code versus the technicality of the ~ this is a superior approach and could be used as a benchmark for other designs. Commissioner Sharp said the problem he had with that is a CRAS is a very limited, small space and this covers the whole house. Commissioner Soukup said the CRAS would obstruct the view. Commissioner Dahlman said that if this proposal were below the height limit he could do whatever he wanted but he wants to go 1.5' above the current height limit and justify it by using glass. The Commission has debated whether it should allow larger square footage CRASs if they are not as much above the height limit and settled on looking at the square footage blindly. It's what's above the height limit that is to be minimized with the CRAS rules. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that staff and the Commission understands the concerns presented by the applicant. The technicality of the municipal Code must also be dealt with per Variances. The entire "A" row of Surfside is in a flood plain area and it's difficult to make a finding that this one particular property on II A II row has a different situation than all of the II A II row properties. A Code amendment would properly deal with allowing the height of structures in a flood plain to be measured from the level of the flood level versus another pre-determined elevation. It would also effect Old Town areas which are located in flood plain areas. e . e . Page 29 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 Chairman Fife said he liked the plan submitted under the Variance much more than an alternative plan but if this Variance were granted the Commission would have effectively amended the municipal Code for "A" row and Old Town. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to deny Variance #93-2 by the adoption of Resolution #93-20. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4-1-0 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman Soukup Mr. Whittenberg explained the appeal rights and process and indicated the appeal will start April 8, 1993. In the staff report it is indicated that staff wishes the Planning Commission consider forwarding a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they would like staff to explore the concept of developing a flood plain overlay zone for those areas of the City in a flood plain area regarding height measurement from the flood plain level rather than the ground level. Commissioners Soukup and Law said they would like this but Commissioner Dahlman warned that Surfside residents have been vocal on being tired of changing measurement. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Soukup to forward to the City Council a recommendation that the Planning Commission explore the concept of developing a flood plain overlay zone to allow those areas of the City in a flood plain to be measures from the height of the flood plain. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: 4-0-1 Dahlman, Soukup, Law, Sharp Fife *** 6. Tentative Parcel Map #92-261 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard Rockwell International Corporation Staff Report Staff report synopsis presented by Mr. Whittenberg. [Full staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Rockwell International Corp. requests to subdivide a lot of 2.1 acres to house Rockwell's new health facility and tennis courts. This will be leased to a private non-profit corporation. Staff recommended approval. Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked if the health club would be restricted to Rockwell employees? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. - . . Page 30 - City of ScaI Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 Public Hearing Paul Calvo * Rockwell Representative * rNo address given] Mr. Calvo stated he prepared the Tentative Parcel Map for Rockwell. They have reviewed and agreed to all Conditions of Approval set forth in the staff report. The facilities will not be open to the public. Everything is built, it is already there. No one wished to speak for or against this proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Colantuono suggested Condition of Approval #2 be changed to read "review and approval" by the City Attorney. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Tentative Parcel Map #92-261 through the adoption of Resolution #93-21, and with Condition #2 being changed to read "... for review and approval by the City Attorney's Office...". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Soukup, Law *** 7. Zone Text Amendment #93-1 Delete Section 28-2407(A)(4)(c) Staff Report Synopsis of staff report presented by Mr. Whittenberg. [Full staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Commission Comments There were no Commission comments. Public Hearing There were no comments pro or con and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to adopt Zone Text Amendment #93-1 through the adoption of Resolution #93-22. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Soukup, Dahlman, Fife *** . . . Page 31 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 8. Zone Text Amendment #93-2 Amend Section 28-1900 Staff Report Synopsis of staff report presented by Mr. Curtis. [Full staff report on fIle in the Planning Department] . Commission Comments There were no Commission comments. Public Hearing There were no comments pro or con and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Zone Text Amendment #93-2 through the adoption of Resolution #93-23. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Soukup, Dahlman, Fife *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COM:MISSION CONCERNS PARKED TRAILER Commissioner Dahlman had a concern about a trailer parked almost beneath the Water Tower at Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson Street. He said a family appears to be living in this trailer. Staff will check into this. LEISURE WORLD MARKET Commissioner Law said Leisure World Market has closed and another market is going to open. Mr. Whittenberg said that under the Commission's new standards the transfer of an ABC license does not come before the Planning Commission. The ABC license passes as property to the new store owner. If that owner wishes to change any of the Conditions of Approval they must then come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dahlman requested something formal be presented to the Planning Commission regarding the transfer of Conditional Use Permits. . . . ~ Page 32 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conunission · Minutes of April 7. 1993 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~-- ~ Fillmann Recording Secretary Note: Approval: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Commission. The Planning Commission Minutes of April 7, 1993 were approved by the Planning Commission on April~'~"'993. *- e .I3f11/7i--va/uI. 1-I~If:9I:3""" ...41f:9E: April 5, 1993 ('/I , ~q8 H/ City of Seal Beach Planning Commission 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, Ca 90740 ity of Seal Beach Planning Commis:;>~ SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By;rONSS' Date "'I-S-CJ~._ Dear Commissioners: We are writing you regarding the proposed BoJo Chicago Pizza at 209 Main Streeto First we wou.ld like to tell you abou.t our- selves and our interest in our towno e We have been in the hardware business at Bay Hardware since 195~o We live in College Park Westo Our children have attended local schools and are now active in the family businesso Bill has served the community in many wayso He has coached little leagueo He has served on the planning commissiono Served as president of the Chamber of Commerceo Was active in the Lions and the Seal Beach BU.siness Associationo Terri served as president of the Soroptimist Clu.b and was ';a charter membero She served on the Cable Communications Foundationo Was active in the Business Associationo vie are bU.siness people in Seal Beach who like many, many others live in and contribute to their communityo From what we can perceive the proposed restaurant will be an asset to Main sto The location has been a family restaurant for over 40 years, and has always been a good neighboro It is apparant that the new operators have an established businesso They seem to be willing to invest a considerable amount to restore a historic buildingo A building that now frequently has people sleeping in the doorway, and has become an eyesore on an other- wise pleasant shopping areao The proposed restoration will be an asset to the community and a preservation of a historic bulisingo We feel a family type establishment that does not keep late hours can be an excellen.t neighbor in the old town communityo We support this projecto . :;;2~ /~~J~ William "Zrt'Jones Teresa "Terri" Jones 192 Yale Lane, Seal Beach, Ca 215/217 Main sto, Seal Beach, Ca 215 Main Street Seal Beach Ca. 90740 · [310] 430-4329 · FAX [310] 594-4054 . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By-A "IlleS Date nat- ~C'.I\mecl March 17, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, CA RE: Conditional Use Permit 92-23 and Variance 92-3 209 Main Street'(Applicant: B.!.'s Seal Beach, L.P.) Dear Sir: We would request that this letter be ''Read for the Record" during the Planning Commission meeting~iscussing this subject matter. 1/.'''9~ . We have read the staff report dated March 17, 1993 and have found that several facts have been omitted from this document. 1. While the staff has been recommending additional liquor license approvals and drinking time extensions for other licenses (businesses) in the Old Town area, there may be ''dormant'' liquor licenses to "surface" which dramatically impact the quality of life for Old Town residents. What we are saying is that there has been a report published regarding the 'over subscription" of liquor licenses in the Old Town area. No one has stated that ''dormant'' -liquor licenses were or were not --taken into consideration when these -.statistics were compiled. Our question is, how many dormant liquor licenses are present in Seal Beach right now? Why hasn't consideration been made for these licenses when discussions have arisen regarding extension of operational hours and issuing of new liquor licenses? 2. Nowhere in the staff report was consideration taken for parking for the employees of restaurants and bars who sell beer, wine and liquor in the Old Town area. It is our personal observation that employees of some of these establishments are parking several blocks away from Main Street (since it is the only place that parking spaces are available to them). . . . . .. . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By AV~E S" Date Nd' 1l~^,deJ Honorable Chainnan and Planning Commission City of Seal Beach Page Two March 17, 1993 This does have an "impact" on the residents parking in the Old Town area. It is easy to identify the people that are employed at these establishments, since they do wear "uniforms" of some sort (whether it be a shirt and tie or other standard form of dress). Consistently, the staff has made reference to the parking impact by the patrons of eating and drinking establishments on Main Street, (parking on Main Street itself or in the adjoining alleys or on 8th Street). We would like to point out that there is more to the parking problem than the concern about the patrons who come_from other than the Seal Beach Old Town area (i.e., establishment employees are also causing a negative impact). For these reasons, we believe that the Planning Commission should address itself to the ever present parking problem in the Old Town area since people simply do not 'Just walk" to these establishments, as indicated in the staff report. Most of these individuals do drive into the Old Town area and must park their vehicles "somewhere." It may be true that if they do walk from their autos (where ever they park them) to the eating and drinking establishment, but our point is that their vehicles must be parked somewhere and they do displace parking places available to the Old Town residents and resident's visitors. We thank you very much for reading this letter for the record, and hope that you consider the material that we presented today. Yours truly, Bill and Gail Ayres 707 Central Seal Beach, California 310/431-7955 e . e I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J.'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. Address Phone # .?l-/,r ~ '#.-J7'z..tj'dc~'L ~"'-~3,;L7 / -- G..'-'. ~ fWT~ ~ ~ '1'-\ .<{ ~ ~~ tC.J. l>(Jl)W 3J'i1 (~JJ.JWO M~ ft,/(" ~A1/;Il) /1</9 k:/et'~'f #4 j';d ~~~ ~'("~4.. ;1),/ 1'I!-l1. St- A~ j~ _-x:~ '_ 303 ~c!L ae""",-p/IIJ iT \{ ~ C~ ~t::>~- ~~ ~. S, ~ lC4 ~-q'-('f7.s- { ~ II 1Z~c~' I~ q::~ei: Fii ~~ .2/18 /72!srs:- 6- ~ ~ 7SZJ r;?AS7Z/A/c/)e. ::s\)\~ ~ I1~D\ Los f~\os J..fl!> LJ7J c/c /AJ p Ll!f ~ 1tJI UJ J? /lfU It /1 f?:. 6... ..,,.,.cr- /.,.-~,9.~..../ ~ Y .p' 0, z I-.~ ~ 1:27 YJ1~ ~-r; ,t/3o -,95?;;; c.:..w /f..:3Q9 O(L,4/J/} 1{! ..5.13. srB-s-8/o / ~ tu~ ,C<k{~ tIP, ft'- ~ ~ u tt.30q (;G,CLVe;1 fk"e sg 5ti8-6fo16 ~~~ ~~ ~2o-Ig;J (Jy",,- C<A~ {'1~ CJ~ ;f~.(. L~?-~/?-2f'L1 Name 7~ ;r.d(. V, A _ M ~"('c:.' L.f ~ "'( '1 :!..-tGl'" ",;.,::""".1/.. .AN~ r]I'~(/~9 ~..JJ -?..:L 9S- .5 'i F -<.. "7- '7- ! ~f'l.t:.4(~/ f>9Jf, b1rl Lj.:J /. 2...'] 30- SJb--{JSJ~ 3~')-O~4j :J17~'J '/ e e e I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J.'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. ~~e Address Phone # ~ ~ ;"'3~ ~.~. S~ ~.Jh\J~ Il(),+l~ VW1T ~. , +~/C /7;>-/ ,4..,,4-----~~/~ "I,i~ ~ 1. '1... ' c. J f __ JJ 0"&-'7// 'PI I~ ,\11 ~ll~~h "VtL ~ -f1i/ <fll-Ifl?) m ~~ 7'3(J7:>cF! 19/y'~~L--..~ I ~y-o-~ 373 ~f!~!? /(~)f('/~2-~/o ~}) / ~tJ~~~ J5 'lf~~JL-vr3~? ./ t ~Qc; ~f Q ~ I <;;:.. Jl~)/ ~ '\ J-f\ 0 S.'"& ~{~\- Lllr3>~ ,~//-57' S-~. %!-'2~---- ~-7 4- S/!; . 3d--c1~ 673?11.~ 6/)1- W~ t[~~~ b7f-~1J , 3lf'fD; 1()A/Ve L,g !{D ~.l--~r'7 Y;/D ~~~ 5''i8-~'/l G J oh ~ 5 rVV"'-' L _ ~ L{ 7Jt. u f7Y'rv'l- 8- II . ~. :B ll.( ),,7 lY7- "L/ ~ ~uW- -,'-/14- ~ -'-! 1.-.r7 4Z/) oz.Z:5} .jA.,.~ ~r '1/ ot :fs Ifl.JJ V,fJ':r DQ 51~--77gt L.13: e I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J .'s will be an asset to the community of Se~1 Beach and the Main Street area in particular. e ,t - ;2-3 b ~ .1&>/" 6 n./ S'Yrr; .~-~ g{f;- ()~3h ~@).. ~~~qSl, " 4~1-5?'-l'tf ~ ~rr ~5bO ~1\1kr i.r<lc.. 5'\rS,\O 1_ '(j~ S~ \\ \\ '\ \\ '\ f? ArcJ{., . c-h-. ~ e I s-r 1:r ~C;;7 ~e13"7lf5m";{"t 11/ l~ S:,- S13 Slt-'fs;;; ~~-~~/~A~_ I/O~(p~LS./~ ~6-~~ ~~ JOJ1~Jr 1>5J( 9'/5'1 ---I~ ( I (01(1... ~r 14L ~ ~ ('2-ri~_ ~ ~ '3stl_~~ 110 .t;:;f.'t~:r@J~ vJ~ aW-i1'\ ~ 'Z."? ~ VI t"-\ * s i? y ';0 -"5 '-{. ~ L1 ~~'""" ~8 ~~4-./B.9(q--Lf3~ Address Phone # JO/~/j.; frp. 57'f-7r~' "L~~~' ~ ~-t.{~ -3~~~ l::l b'i2> '6ltJ d' I - \t.~ ~i-t.et+ ~ :i- ~ -q lt -:;- /JL ~uJ1,S<""Ct{_~~ _({lrO ~-> laKC~tiv1 sB N>ol~ r~O . [1;b~ 2'd ~ ~ ~~ ISCfd( E- '-t~ 8f-)....~~ 4Cf8 -q~~ u t.C_. ec ec ~I e e e e " I support ~he opening of a B.J.'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J.'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. ' Name ~,e ;(?o"'11!f''''fAddress /37 /~f-, 58, Phone # l./-Sd-'1l/73' '~I1!"'E t/hll/lt JIJy' l~(d IJ--rf-.. S6 ~Q& .Y't I ( f 'C-l \J Up~u(~ I. I G :tf R. "'- ~~ ~ ~ t/Jd"323~ ~f) ~ /341:;:;:-+#Y;:<;no/fJ 1%3 30107 __"'~ 1'''11<:1 7 . ~. <i.r;..Jl '" d CIA..- ~ ~ (qS ~ PI S.&"-CA.. ~ Ela<:"" ~~(L ~ AloA~ 1-<{ '" r 13 q. rQ6~~(J7?~ rfrF> ;W~~K !~ r7.P,..?:7IL;'" 4tGfJ ~~V!1L t%~3 3'3;1 If!' sr ~'l.{j-LJ~ ~qs-~t.\ C. I". {'~ 4J~~'-I7~- ~ N'(' ( ~ 6H-!L: '.'1-'7-.r/ 6 7/5rL- ~~J'.I,;:?:f "~' <1IJ7~/:VZ-~ ") 13 Pln"T fJ SV 7:),) C/un~ db t'fy-t~777 l ~s' LfA( ~\ ~ & CSqlL 1~11 \ ~ ()'2- ~~.\-~ ~ -S ~ crt b -4~ ~~~ f;fJN~: ~~e:::!:!:/la7P-d e I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J .'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. ( Address Phone # gr;.. O-Y~/c.l.iJs ~J S/brfd./J+ I ~ 10 t[.ee:J-,..~I~J)~ Sa.ai &~ ~qlf-~(crJ , 6'~/ -:z:s~~ VlLt.v 'i..j'~-SY9 9r /7#t 5i't~ //1 7(1- 1)7> ~](jo .2/<.5-41"';-"'7 ~~1'~ .--- e df();l. EA/4/J /JJ/.1-4t~/;;) -ItfJ-tt~Ff '- %?~~c; ~ IfC '7115.2- 6Vy~~. k-/jt 51(..-("ll'::>] ~. Ve--?}' 5 n".J -"'31 y... 5r.L sU-. ~~ ~/- Z- -., 7 -&f oJt-c--- is, 7 It - ["OUST 'Yf$ ~ ~? '7 l 0 ~ 'D"""J"'/C...J~ Gt,~ l~""~ ~)~ S~~1Ii).D~ 3q3~~Leb..r7 1~~~8 3(6 ~6~ "2.3 Ie ri./3 r(.~n.,/ I;- ~ 43/ ~ ~ if- 1..2.~ rr~ S 7:" s: 'e. 1r) -5} tJ rJ tf<;Lfjd)pl;,..j.J. Jrf1 't]&l~,( r ,;l~'l b"'l.~ fA {j- S~ lJ-fh-~3 d-d-; (U--5r S-~ LfJO'-?~l? ~(7 c(lJI~r-. f)lf-n?~ ~3 /7Yi sr 513 1Bo-sSJ'd ~ (f21 /<.f#c~. ~ '1St) W'Z3 _ So S~ e e I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J .'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. J ..:3/7 ~-r~~t.-- tAv. S'~ ~ to~ @(~k1A- ~'l lllQ\IWL, ~ltft vt.vLl~a~ t:14J (5bI7 ~ ~--~f,(.S ~h) \u(l 5 .. 5~ j:J-i}- /:J- r~ g/3 -::J.;J '9 / () flfvr ~ 0 J .;? . e . Address, Phone # J<Ci1 / F~~ ~tOJ1-3/-J?3i I6<JCsCfj ;-~ ~/J1QJp(sIb)L/:5r3?J I . ~o't'';)9 1JJ~;V2S ~ SV~~"4/ '1(0') ~itJ'~ ~ ~,& I{'J -lJ9?d" ~/-~(J '(E- If}/) - ( fie.! 9 ~v ~ '::;0 - 71 b3 y i ~ - d-'S-j t..... c(r I c::xs I ~ J~I.)J'-YrtJ Z- ~~~ h~~~ tL(-qS~ W~ 73 KllJZ.f'$~h.g~, 5..63. ~f) eo~Clv.e, ~.. J3 ID4. tJ~Cb&. 5B \1..6 Co11'lh-'w~ 51? 2-Z}/} 6~5+ 5fi. I . ;Id-d 1-;; .CM."5J <~ (5 /~~ //$f/A sp ~~,..~ 1 53~.r '-I s-r;-o 43J-72S1- / 1- 3'1-1 ~ 71 4-3{-tf8~ Ll:SI'"4:9;3(( LrgeoJU-1.J' sq~ -~c; ./' t~n' ??6 5 67rV/.$~ . e I support the opening of a .J.'s ChiGago Pizie--; at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I fee ,. be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. e Name Address Phone # leA 2...2- f: tU... S+ ?oJ. 41. 31 () ~~.31)1 I ".t( ~ ! 'cr w..Il.-..of(;.J ~ cull clA... 7 (t{ - '2. ~ r - 0 fs,O.s- 1171 f DDc-(;t fA~~~ /(07 FI,Pd-YIC tf30 -bOCS ~ ~~f! 4.J?d7!.V U/hJ 'f?cJ-Zf'17 cl!S( ~l~~ / ~3 ~61-1; "2~ 7 )1/)12 ilV ) r~ ct {I -Ll1~1 d.15 ~( ~ ( 1 a-if!lo:J-- .~ ~ t{-?J/-:3f?fr ~ -11&" .{r. i3' ~ \~2., ~\ l! ~ _ 43L08Q:J ~i;;~~~d~tldl tB ~!i?Y ~f(:jo..v.. ~.u~ CAS k l?~~-~.e, - 5'14 -oYl"1 <f' ~.'/9fGL~~ Z't1~.lJv ~~eJ W/-.Jd9J '()e.,......:.. ~Jl..tt.;.- C>Z/ "";.......1 (/~ lL. rJ~ 0 nri ! . fJi.kI-_!!L ~ 41%(L<~ 1- FI ~I (J .& <6'Oc.t C) 10 Lf'J,P-I~<:11 ~ fly 2...rJ,/7 ~ ~7b ~;;-,tJ&:L ~-(~~ r907 ~Q l/61-/031~ &~c:.;2/ .;.I4a/2~UjorV ,Rs9' k~~ s/G~fS ~jj~ e , - -.... I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J .'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in' particular. e e Phone # V3) -051 ~ <:/93 -/? ;;-9- 4130 '11~ AgO?? L?d-~~a..lt7, 5"". ~ 4&o-~Y~..s- . 28/ e:-~c ~ . G~fD -~S(P(:. \N' 13"~ t~"( l ~ tl-~, t\-f"T c.. $. g. <.f~ r - 3r9 iF' ILL I H~r 1"14 Av~ 5pJ ~ Y30-18o L II/)3 Gteer.e/t!-/I1"6 5,8 ~6i:J~9'd;(3 d.~~/Z7Zl1"tl~~ 1- 1;-57> c --- -~ - ,~r(o -6/ bJ' aiL 2-1 grf !Fro -5J~( t.; '0 1 ~ vrr-; ~ VJ,. 5Yf I() ,~/ 1. L./1 Ycr 7-7; /; J7~) ~~(:h.t l,v~ ~1) tk/~<,4:j Ir t e // . I support the opening of a B.J.'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J .'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. . Name ~ Address Phone # ~t-L J 15S-;{ /41.u- s. ~ ~f3 17~ S TIJY'en We.! f7rJ~re.-/4nel / ~ J 7" r:IL S" T ~ 0 - Y:2 b b ~ -~ <;J'f, ~U~ ~m:z 7 1..1"1..:3.<61. ,~~ ~l.:o)-Il L--~ l~ZD~eJ)f/r) S,B, ~ u- y}~ / 'T!'" ~ C-l- ~. ~)->~7 i' 3.'7"5? :r~~ "7( '" L1 ('1 ~/""""./J ~1UI"'ff"",''''J_ lIwu ~ d~eer\_ _ ~ 'L~~ 23rn]~~ ~~ 'tt( (1J JljoJ f)J~~.II.(~ 20~ ~Pt ~~ 8/67'9-1?3/ fVl~c;o 2D~~ t.t~S+-- 3{Sq~-'1t3L- "$ {~O /lIl~ti\..; 'f S 1- 0 7 I~ l;lBf1fv~r: bSCY~,4S tvU 1Le.f ~ I (;l~15 L.---.k--l~ ~ G~~ ~,,~~ 4~~ u~ ~ ~ Jr~~ ~~( :;:-~I: 'i ~ ~f- ~~~2o-<- AOf-M-ftJ.J:::; , 7> Z<- l.I\ M IZ?tr- 8t:J - 0 "I~ j ~?-- J~eJt?;t~~ )'jr:r-O,p7 1!J:!'?t! 7Ei<Jktu< 03/ /V/67<fJ /<. SI3 ,/3d-o"b30 t K/e.; ~ } 2.# mdr-;;;' cSA' ~3fJ -q~o I ~~;nJ Zf!j ~/~L- 7R/I~ ~,J!:\cu-e..<- 1720~~.ddtL- w" Je~ 15a-S"~ ~er (ft:d< D CfN-(X)fll e .- I support the opening of a B.J .'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J.'s will be an asset to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. Name ~ Address Phone' ~-.'V'~ ~ ::?Ia3 E-/-ecM Db ,?t?-O~ II~ 10.5[) Htvv-V/7/hc 78 0-?JI-b.S-~(p /O~7J Ih1'e VfJ7A-<M.- A&:JI-- i1 /-'hSha ~ ~ t~ClA- ~ -11+52-, ~3/1 ~ . , lff olIl( 'lIt{. S-V'} -~; 7 I ~M~~~ ~\5 't; \. ~ 610-~'6l't l V:edh~et:.V\ M..c.L~ 25 f=~ I ~. ~ L 71:>>3 .Y\\U1e.1k-V\t4wkl1:M ~ -ir;Ii5~J!;~b7~ ~~ -I \l\l (.~~~ ~ "',,~ ~IO-~~ ~ 1A c:; ,~vtw ~ <3 -ro~ UIb{!..e,(-L- t7bL{;> ~ ~ I<(~ '" ~ (!J\~ d t/ '1- / ~ ~ ~~:-tf~ , 'It) 8' ~ ~ f-". ~f /00" e:-led--n;' :1= c. 1000 trLu:tn L ilb .:J.D rs L lb vJ-.. c..:2- 82. C del- ~AOo % q )3( A/cJA e e e ~;g~ i1ff~~ ~9-lf~7(f3. 5;'(3. r/f3 0 7-€~ S0. '1 ~.- OCJ~i l(Jo - 26 'il .J S/~.-.d~~r L(.J 9-S-rIY $"33- rYJd r I support the opening of a B.J.'s Chicago Pizzeria at 209 e ,Main Street in Seal Beach. I feel that B.J .'s will be an asset . to the community of Seal Beach and the Main Street area in particular. Address Phone # ?..c ~ ~ f'P 3~O~~bV f1u( E?~~/o.; n.ri..9,f2Zjrro.}-4Cj4~'f&> ~zc, PL.,.}. ~~4Un ?;t l7 tD1tr-Dq~~ Lfq'1-u..O'8 \, ,*1..- <2Nv ~tv f~ \JL ~~J-%~~ 3dO (bP~~,~ J8 </.JI-t/to~( ot5 f1-vs~-j-~ 51Q-,'13i _~'\\r~_ ~b~~S t/71J ~H~ L I; ~ ~.4 (;-.,ror ~ ~-tR f f(,<f".v~t. IJJr= ~nJ,.\ (J'?GS-_~l ~ / ~5 c> .<5/~ . 5~~/ZJ _~ ~4-. ?,(rj; r7:W1h/ ./ ...L- 'b )1,) Lvu- v- Yts W\ e (3'rb)?9? M7 ? fjty ftdVt!ll ,( ~ , -re "', ~ SO ( / 1?edflO geT73/ ;1&1'f1el; eQ,kr/l~~7 ((~ (br . -tJ~ ~l~~ - /:;uS"Z1 ~v ~~ -___ Clrto7 e . - . /2A _ V '"'"' ~j p~- I o6..3-oJ--:r:J r1~ ~ ',)/I7J-;). ~O~ '-+'V 7. ", ~ ~ '.sO~4~ ,//.6 '7J'-( 67{,,/SI3 . i:e~2~ ,)6'1-.{ L.>4MA .4-Jf- l-. K B,tD- (.;)\),-- 739~ ~UfN ~~ 1/'1 8T.IfSr S~~d-.. 1ft) I/SI-SV'/7 .M~ . - l~o3 WaJ1 S.f3,- ~/d-.5-ft-"/if33 ~ -. /9'/;- tlfftJ4tON"P'p/' J ~ ft-a.. :lId - cn;---.?.:2~ ~ ~ /'J/I3/f;Y/?/-O/lc/ Aw-. Sy~~ fiI$ :yYlg--3;;J./j 0^u~~ /)-~ 'tik-'Yf &6.-e<'L- 3co) <f3[-eiS1J e ~ a I . .I.a: .E.r.o..m : Department of Development Services, City of Seal Beach David Rosenman, 208 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA ~J.!!?'j~ct: Comments - Negative Declaration #93-3 BJ's Chicago Pizza, 209 Main Street I disagree with the conclusions that find that there are no impacts the headings of II. Environmental Impacts: 2. a: Airj 6. a, b: Noisej 8: Land Usej 9. a, b: Natural Re- sources; lOb: Risk of Upset; 11: Population; 12: Housing; 13. a, b,c.d,e.f; Transporta- tion/Circulation:; 14. a,b,e,f Public Servicesj 15. a,b: Energy; 16. f: Utilities; and 21. a, b,c,d,e: Mandatory Findings of Significance. All of these headings are contained in Negative Declaration 92-3. All of these headings should be properly answered "Yes" or "Maybe." . Subject property is located on Main Street. There has been repetitive testimony both at the Open Sessions of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the cumulative impacts of the Intensification of Uses of Restaurants and Liquor Serving Establishments on Main Street. This position has never been refuted yet an appropriate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has never been prepared for this property nor the previous properties under consideration. According to the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a municipal agency cannot legally avoid the EIR requirement by subdividing the project into several separate Negative Declarations. This approach is procedurally and legally flawed. Main Street, Old Town. in its entirety, constitutes one "project." <This concept has been adopted by other nearby cities such as Laguna Beach which have created a "Downtown Specific Plan" to govern development of the Downtown area and weigh the appropriate competing interests. > {The Seal Beach City Council is considering this matter but has not yet acted.} Evidence to support this position comes from the various official pronouncements and actions inCluding (but not limited to) the 1973 Land Use Element Adoption. the 1976 Main Street Specific Plan. the 1984 Parking and Urban Design Task Force Study and the Committees that rose therefrom. Finally, on December 12, 1992, this Commission recommended to the Seal Beach City Council the development of a "Main Street Cumulative Impact Analysis." It is therefore my firm belief that the Main Street Project, of which this is_anJx a part, has a significant effect on the Environment, and that this Commission and Department as Lead Agency, must conform to State Law and prepare an in-depth Environmental Impact Report. CEQA Guidelines state a broad definition of this issue, so that any project that will cause a "substantial or potentially substantial adverse change" in any aspect of the physical environment will require an EIR. e Previous guidelines suggest that a lead agency may prepare a Negative Declaration even if the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, so long as two conditions are met. Neither of those conditions have been met regarding the instant project. CEQA does not permit an individual project to be considered in a vacuum. The Statute specifically directs the development of guidelines for the potential mitigation of possibly significant effects of a project considering the cumulative impacts of past projects and probable future projects. e e e .. -- As to mitigation, CEQA requires the publio agenoy to mitigate signifioant effects of a projeot if it is approved. Agenoies are directed to find that ad verse environmental impacts/effects must be substantially mitigated before approval of a project and/or a CUP goes forward. These findings must be dooumented in speoifio, detailed supporting facts and dooumentation, and substantial evidenoe. This burden has NOT been meet in the ourrent Negative Deolaration. On page 28 of the Mandatory Findings of Signifioanoe, item "c" the City staff admits that "approval of this request may have signifioant impacts whioh are individually limited, but oumulatively oonsiderable." By law, the Lead Agenoy MUST find that a project may have a signifioant effect on the environment, and prepare an EIR, where the partioular project may have signifioant environmental effects whioh are "individually limited but oumulatively oonsiderable. " B.e.s m$..!;l. lQQYito..r. Further, in its analysis of the data, one notes at page 18 paragraph 1, there is no data for four of the past seven years and it is therefore fatally flawed. The Planning Commission's attention is again oalled to the fact that 48% of the orime and arrests in the City are in the Census District where this project is proposed and no mitigation measures are set forth. Finally, on page 37, it is suggested that this property shall partioipate in the City's "interim Parking Mitigation Program" notwithstanding the fact that there is ample dooumentation from offioial statements made by City Staff that suoh a program does not exist in fact. For all of these reasons, I urge that the Planning Commission rejeot this negative deolaration and require a legally oomprehensive E.nvironmental Impact Report before further oonsideration of the CUP request for this property. ~~.:ul~(,~ David Rosenman e . -- ...... P " P 7.2.301 Attachment 9 Page 1 of 3 ,," ORANGE CDUNTY HISTORICAL CDMMISSICN . . P. O. Box 4048 City of Seal Beach PlAnniNg Cmnmi~~iQn Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 SUBMITTED roR RECORD (714) 834-5560 B.vpavid Rosen!!M 4-7-93 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING SIG9IFlCANT HISTORIC SITES (Adopted 1976) (Revised 1982) A. HISTORICAL CDNSIDERATIONS 1. Are the properties, sites and structures Connected with events significant in cultural, political, economic, military or social history? 2. Are the properties, home or places related to significant activities of notable personages? 3. Are the sites or groups of structures representative of historic development patterns such as eras of railroad, agriculture, crossroads, seaports, and early settlement developments? -. 4. Are the sites representative of a by-gone business or activity? . 5. Are the properties or sites likely to yield or have they yielded significant information in cultural and natural history? B. ARCHITECTURAL CDNSIDERATICNS 1. Do the structures represent the work of architects or builders who have made major contributions to the history of architecture, engineering or building technOlogy? 2. Is the structure one of the few remaining examples in the county of a :particular architectural style or period? 3. Is the structure a unique architectural curiosity or does the structure represent a unique or indigenous building style or form? . . 4. Does the structure have the integrity of the original design or has it been substantially altered? 5. Is/the structure part of a concentration of higher quality landmark buildings where its presence, even though it is of lesser quality, is still necessary to support the architectural composition? 6. Is the building a good representative example of a particular architectural style or period? 7. Is the ~tructure an outstanding example of workmanship or materialS? 18. Ras the structure. been moved fram its original site? AM07-1( S) 6204 - ., .. . e --- .p &. P 7.2.301 . Att.achment B pacae 2 of 3 . 9. IS the structure a reconstruction or facsimile that is historically accurate? r ~ . ._ C. SITE CONSIDERATIONS 1. Is the property a visual landmark that. establishes and embellishes the county's imacae? 2. Does the property identify a neighborhood? 3. Are the properties or buildings significant and important because they form a building grouping which, because of its collective impact, becomes more significant to the site or area? 4. Are there significant plant materials such as rows of boulevard trees, or specimen plantings of exceptional size or beauty? 5. Is the property a fixed work of art, commemorative sculpture, wall mural, graphics or items of st.reet furniture such as clocks, lamp posts, etc., that depict an era of the county and give It distinction? 6. Is the property or structure easily viewed by the public? .. 7. Do(es) the structure(s) form an important visual and aesthetic background and scene for a noted gathering place, square or plaza? 8. Is the site tmportant because of the presence of a significant cultural and natural object? D. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 1. Is preservation and restoratiQn of the property believed to be eronomically feasible? 2. Is continuing maintenance after restoration economically feasible? 3. Does the property, properties or area for preservation conflict with other planning and development proposals designed to increase city or county revenues? E. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - IS THE SITE . . . 1. A building or structure removed fram its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or is the surviving structure most importantly 'associated with a historic person or event? 2. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same associat.ion has survived? 3. A property aChieving significance' within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance? -. AM07-l (6) 6204 o ,. e-.. e e' -....-.L.. 0- _.~'-='-J: 4. A property possessini Siinificsnt.public education value cultural and natural history? p , P 7.2.301 Attachment B' Page 3 of .] _ ..~.:.~~ - .. ~ ,i'" in the are~. ~.f~ .. ,_o.q:iJ.:. ")~\ I~~ . :":. ~':'.."'" SPECIAL CONSIDBRATION IS GIVEN 1'0 PI.\QUB APPLICATIONs POll IIIS1'ORIC SI'l'BS '1'IIAT "'.. ARB TIlE FIRST. LAsT. ONLy. OR MOST SIGNIFlCAII1' OF TIIEIII 1'YPB IN TIlE COUIrrr. . ".: ". . '....:,"=' . ::".' . "'~. , 1'IIBSB CRI'l'BRIA lIAr liB USBD POll TIlE SBLEC'l'ION OF SI'l'BS 1'0 lIB llARkBD "1m IIIS1'ORICAL llARI<BRS AS WIlLL AS A GUIDBLINS POll IIIS1'ORICAL SI'i'B PRBsBRVATION. - " : AM07-l(7) 6135 City of Set' ~' . . ~1. Planning Commission Siji~ . -. L_~ fOx RECORD By H. Af\dt.Q.~D~te-.~ -(0 ..q~ _ K.G""CE:.III~ 4-(.. .<1"3 IS.C... - Harland C. Anderson B 10~ Surfside Ave., Surfside, Calif 90743 April 5, 1993 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California Gentlemen: Re: Variance 93-2 A lOB Surfs ide e I must again oppose a vari?nce request for height above 35 feet. Code amendment ZTA-7-90 was initiated to establish a consistant height limit of 35 feet measured from the centerline of Surfside Ave. Surfside Colony has worked to stand~rdize the 35 foot height limit with the full intent to set specific standards th~t apply to all construction within the Colony. The approval of this variance will encourage all remodels and new construction. on A row, to request the same privilege. This will obstruct the limiting ocean views of existing Band C row homes. Again, as has been stated at previous Planning and Council meetings, the approval of this height request would provide a granting of special privilege inconsis- tent with other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Sincerely yours, J / e Patricia Taylor P.O. Box 296 ~ Surfside CA 90743 310-592-1642 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By PAT TAVLoR. Date "I.... 5 -~ April 2, 1993 Lee Whittenberq, Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach CA 90740 RE: Variance 93-2 A-103 Surfs ide Dear Mr. Whittenberg: I am the owner of C-23 Surfside. I will be out of town on April 7 and unable to attend the public hearing. e What is the purpose of an established height requirement if variances are continually allowed? When I constructed my home: I was unable to go over 35 feet; I was unable to extend my furnace chase into the easement area; I was unable to extend any structure into the easement area at the ground level; I was unable to use a green house window; I was unable to enlarge the "doghouse" area beyond stairway requirements. Since my home was constructed in 1989 there have been many flagrant exceptions made to these building requirements. When I inquired recently about constructing a permanent glass wind protector on my roof area(similar to many already in existence in Surfside) I was told that I could not do this if it would result in a height over 35 feet. Why are you allowing any variance to be considered? Why set any standards if you continue to make exceptions? If the Planning Commission grants this Variance 93-2 I will submit plans for a permanent glass wind barrier which will conform to those already in existence in Surfside and which will be no higher than those in existence. Or, I may submit plans to extend the height of my roof top wall another 2 and one half feet which will still keep me under the proposed height variance. In other words, if the City allows one more variance the rest of us will then have carte blanche to expect the same. Enough is enough!! e Pat Taylor - e e April 7, 1993 10:25 A.M. C't Oi Seal Beach Planning Commisslorr', I Y I SUBMITIED FOR RECORD , .. ~ By c.. A M~\S Date A~ 0 7 '\99'3 ~ -.......... TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION From: Mr. and Mrs. Camp C-39 Surfside Re: A-103 Surfside Mr. and Mrs. Camp of C-39 Surfside oppose Variance #93-2. Mrs. Camp said the height limit is 35 feet and it is a waste of time and taxpayer's money to keep reviewing the same issue. The City reviewed this same issue last year with David Byrns' application. Currently Mr. and Mrs. Camp have plans to build to 35'. What is fair for one homeowner should be fair to any other homeowner in Surfside. The Camp's believe A-103 has a for sale sign in front of the building; this sign has been there for some time. .e ~ City of Seal Beach Plan . SUBMITTED FOR ~I~g Commission By Ell a Rowe 1\WfDo 7 4ftD'l Datel:r.l" - I d -- . ~. -- - _.- - - . ---- - . '. April 7, 1993 City of Seal 8aacl1 P!c.i,1~1;;/2 C'Jli1rnl~SllJ:. SUBMITIED FG~ RECORD ~"AtOlV~!late Al'tl 0 7 1!lI3 ~ TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION From: Anonymous Resident of Surfside This resident did not wish to leave her name. She said she was opposed to any over allowable height construction and against changing the form of measurement in Surfside.