HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-07-21
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.~
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES of JULY 21, 1993
Chairman Dahlman called the regularly scheduled July 21, 1993, Planning Commission meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers.
I.
ll.
Present:
Also
Present:
ID.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Soukup led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Dahlman
Commissioners Soukup, Fife, Sharp, Law
Department of Development Services:
Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney
Craig Steele, Attorney, City Attorney's Office
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant
Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of July 7, 1993
The Planning Commission reviewed the Minutes of July 7th. Mr. Colantuono
said the Motion on page 23, regarding the provision of alternate Planning
Commissioners should read:
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to recommend the City
Council ask the City Attorney to pursue a way that a provisional
Commissioner can be found to represent District 4 for the Bixby
hearings.
With regard to the provision of alterate Planning Commissioners, the Commission
discussed the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission
(FPPC) rules. The City Attorney was asked if the Commission's July 7th
discussion reflected the Commission's desire for the City Attorney to attempt to
obtain an exemption from FPPC rules for the City of Seal Beach? Mr.
Colantuono said two issues were raised on July 7th: (1) the issue of
representation for a Councilmanic district when its Planning Commissioner is
technically disqualified and (2) an issue specific to Leisure World with respect to
applications made on behalf of the Golden Rain Foundation, and the technical
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.~
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-~
interpretations of the Political Reform Act with respect to the one share in the
Golden Rain Foundation that each unit owner in Leisure World holds. The
Commission' indicated an exception to FPPC rules had been granted to the City
of Signal Hill and had hopes a similar approval could be made for the City of
Seal Beach. Mr. Colantuono explained the City of Seal Beach would not qualify
for an exemption because it's population is slightly larger than Signal Hill's and
moreover, Seal Beach is substantially larger than Signal Hill because the
corporate boundaries of the City include the entire Naval Weapons Station.
Chairman Dahlman said that in granting an exemption, the FPPC could consider
the fact that Seal Beach's largeness is due just the Naval Weapons Station, that
Seal Beach is not an expansive city. Mr. Colantuono said the City can ask the
FPPC to reconsider the rule but the City itself does not have the power to change
the rule. Chairman Dahlman thought he recalled this Motion included the
possibility of getting an exemption. Commissioner Fife recalled the July 7th
discussion the same way, further stating he was seeking a general resolution of
the problem for whenever a Commissioner is disqualified on a technical basis.
Where FPPC rules are disqualifying a Commissioner, he wanted the City Council
to instruct the City Attorney to explore and recommend ways to deal with the
problem by appointing provisional commissioners and/or the seeking of an
exemption from the FPPC rules.
Additionally, Mr. Colantuono asked lines 3 and 4 on page 24 be deleted.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND Law to accept and file the Minutes as
corrected.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup
IV.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. Resolutions To Be Signed:
The Commission determined to consider and vote on each resolution separately.
. Resolution No. 93-34
12235 Seal Beach Blvd./The Fit Stop
Commissioner Fife requested finding #2 be expanded to add: "
property, and, in view of the intent ofthefadlity to primarily serve
the members and guests of a private club, the necessary finding
that it is in the public interest to grant this application cannot be
made" because the record did not demonstrate this was
affirmatively in the public's interest.
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.i
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 3 - City or Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes or 71211!13
Without objection, the Planning Commission determined to re-
write Resolution #93-34 to include this language.
.
Resolution No. 93-35
16 Marina Drive/Grotemat Property
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve
Resolution No. 93-35.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Dahlman, Fne, Law, Soukup
.
Resolution No. 93-36
111 Main St./Clancy's
Chairman Dahlman indicated corrections are to be made:
Page 2, (c):
Page 3, (e):
Add "Commission"
"Is compatible" to be changed because the
current Code does not allow bars. Mr.
Whittenberg said the General Plan allows
establishments to conduct a business which
involves the on-premise sale of alcoholic
beverages and doesn't differentiate between
a restaurant or bar. He suggested a change
of wording could be "an alcohol-related land
use". Commissioner Fife suggested "It is
compatible with the intent of the General
Plan which permits the continuation of
existing alcohol-related land uses in the
Main Street area"; Chairman Dahlman
agreed.
MOTION' by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution
No. 93-36 with the correction in wording on page 2 and the
revised wording suggested by Commissioner Fife on page 3.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 4 - City of Seal Beacb · Planning Commi!lSion Minutes of 7/21/93
. Resolution No. 93-37
101 Main St./SeaSide Grill
Commissioner Soukup made a plea to the Commission to re-think
the vote taken at the July 7th meeting. He felt the July 7th
testimony regarding the extended hours was unconvincing because
(1) the City Council has given clear direction as to their feelings
by a 4 - 1 vote to deny a prior request for extended hours; (2)
there's strong evidence most restaurants are operating with a 10:00
p.m. closure and to break from this policy is a poor precedent to
set as it opens the City to many problems and intensification of
many restaurants; (3) other restaurants would have clear sailing to
get extended hours based on perceived economic hardship. While
this applicant complains of unfairness in operating hours, he
decides he will not operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
11:00 a.m. and go after the breakfast trade. Whereas, he would
like to have later hours to pursue a higher percentage of liquor and
food sales. Mr. Sesler had previously indicated to the Planning
Commission that he has close to a 50%/50% split on liquor and
food. COl11missioner Soukup felt late hours would generate more
liquor sales than food sales and he would be in the dangerous
position of failing the ABC criteria for a bona fide restaurant.
Commissioner Soukup added "I do not appreciate somebody
coming in front of our Commission and applying for a pub and
grille under the auspices of a restaurant. I am in strong opposition
to this". He asked for Commission commentary. Commissioner
Sharp rebutted the breakfast hours as the applicant said he had
tried to conduct breakfast trade and there wasn't enough business.
Commissioner Soukup said the applicant tried to establish breakfast
business for only two days and that was poor marketing strategy.
Chairman Dahlman indicated the minority opinions are reflected
in the July 7th Minutes and now it's appropriate to adjust technical
corrections to this Resolution. Mr. Colantuono said the vote
tonight must be based on the evidence that was in the Record when
the hearing was closed. He advised the Commission could re-
weigh the evidence and the Commissioners could change their
minds if they chose. Commissioner Fife asked if there is a
requirement the applicant be made aware the matter is being
reconsidered? Mr. Colantuono said that at the close of the July
7th hearing, the Commission directed a resolution to be prepared
and that the legally determinative decision would be when the
resolution is adopted and the appeal period would run from that
time.
-I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 5 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes of 7/21/93
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to adopt Resolution No.
93-37.
Before the vote, Commissioner Fife said he had found the July 7th
testimony convincing although he didn't vote for the full hours the
applicant requested. The applicant, being close to a mix of
50%/50% food/alcohol sales, runs a risk. If his late hours do not
generate the necessary level of food sales he will have problems
with the ABC which will threaten his entire license. He felt
there's a self-correcting procedure that comes into play at this
point. He was not concerned there will be a wave of restaurants
applying to stay open to midnight. If there is, there will be a self-
correction there from what the market will bear. There is not
enough business to support too many businesses being open quite
late. He stated "SO, I'm not inclined to change my position II .
Commissioner Soukup said he didn't understand the self-correction
with respect to a wave of applicants wanting to increase their
hours. He felt it would not stop people from trying. He felt the
City had an established policy and now the Commission is going
against that policy. Commissioner Fife said the bulk of the dinner
hour is between 6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. There is ample evidence
to show there are people who work and eat late although they may
not constitute a majority. If every restaurant in town is competing
for 10% of the trade, some of them will find they're losing money
and some will reduce their hours. Commissioner Soukup,
attempting to clarify Commissioner Fife's position, stated that
Commissioner Fife appeared to favor longer operating hours and
letting the market find its own level. Commissioner Fife said
he was in favor of operating hours being considered on an
individual basis, depending on the testimony. Commissioner Law
said she felt a lot of the restaurants would not want to have later
operating hours. Commissioner Soukup disagreed, saying he
thought there was a policy in place. Chairman Dahlman said the
question is not what is wanted but what is the appropriate land use.
That it is a matter of how a business relates with its neighbors and
the hours should be set accordingly.
MOTION CARRIES:
A YES:
NOES:
3-2-0
Sharp, Law, Fife
Dahlman, Soukup
The Commission's decision is now effective and the ten day period
to file an appeal to the City Council commences this evening.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 6 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minules of 7/21193
. Resolution No. 93-38
212 Main St./Masonic Lodge
MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve
Resolution No. 93-38.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
DahllDan, Soukup, Law, Fue, Sharp
v.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Dahlman considered item #5 ahead of item #4.
5.
Conditional Use PerInit #93-9 t~oritmued"fr:ou{~1.1919~]
. ..... ,,'.> . .... . ...... ..'...
640 Pacific Coast Highway
Taco Bell
Taco Bell Corp./Michael Johnson
Bonnie Brunson, Elizabeth Lieto,
Lori Brunson-Sterling
24 hour operation Friday and Saturday
nights through May 1, all week frolD May
1 to October 31. This operation will be
through drive-thru only frolD 11:00 p.lD.
to 6:00 a.lD.
Address:
Business:
Applicant:
Property Owners:
Request:
Chairman Dahlman said the applicant has withdrawn this application. Mr.
Colantuono stated the applicant has indicated to the City that they will cease their
24-hour operations on July 31, 1993.
***
Mr. Colantuono introduced Craig Steele. Mr. Steele, an attorney with Richards,
Watson & Gershon, will be assisting Mr. Colantuono in his work with the City
of Seal Beach and will occasionally attend Planning Commission meetings.
***
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 7 - City or Seal Beacb * Planning Commission Minutes or 7/%1/93
4. Development Agreement (~9ijtIiiu~d rto*fn7.1?~l
[Conditional Use Permit #92-23 * Variance #92-3]
Address: 209 Main Street
Business: BJ's Chicago Pizzeria
Applicant: BJ's Seal Beach, Limited Partnership
Property Owner: Bichsel 209 Main, Limited Partnership
Request: To approve a Development Agreement
between the City of Seal Beach and the
applicant as a condition of approval of
CUP #92-23.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning
Department] .
Mr. Colantuono commented the City has decided BJ's Pizzeria is an appropriate
land use and approved their applications for a CUP, a Variance and the Negative
Declaration. The adoption of a Development Agreement is necessary to
determine financial contributions from the developer to the City. These monies
would off-set the parking and traffic impacts of the use. The
approval/disapproval of this Development Agreement will be determined by the
City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded
to the City Council.
Commission Comments
The Commission questioned the parking mitigation fees and credits.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the parking mitigation fee, $23,000, is a one-time
fee only? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, the only additional fees BJ's would be
subject to are whatever the City ultimately adopts in a formal in-lieu parking
program that is in excess of what they have already paid.
Commissioner Sharp said now applicants who are short parking spaces pay $100
per parking space per year. If the City changes the $100 figure per year per
space, what will it do to this case? Mr. Whittenberg explained that if we assume
that future fee is $2000 per space, one-time fee paid per space, then this property
will have paid $23,000. They would be responsible to pay $46,000. They would
still owe $23,000.
Mr. Colantuono read paragraph 13.2 of the Development Agreement.
Commissioner Soukup said BJ's owes $3500, has paid $1000 and owes $2500.
He questioned why does the Commission talk about $2500 if BJ's are only going
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
PaGe 8 - City of Seal Beacb · PlanninG Commission Minutes of 71'1.1193
to pay $1000 and they are going to wait until the City has a parking program?
Mr. Colantuono said the City has made two judgements: (1) based on current
information, $3500 looks like an appropriate per space fee and (2) this project
should not bear that full fee because of some of the other contributions they are
making. The reason the City doesn't come out and state it's charging this person
$1000 per space is because the City wants to preserve the right to charge a higher
amount on other projects which aren't going to contribute to the City financially
in the way this project will. Commissioner Soukup asked if BJ's were paying
$1000 but getting credit for $3500'1 Mr. Colantuono said BJ's is getting credit
for $2500, as the City's only charging them $1000 per space tonight. But when
the City calculates dollar credits against future imposed fees BJ's is only getting
credit for the money they actually paid. If the City later imposes a fee of $3500
per space, the applicant would owe $2500 per space at that time. Commissioner
Soukup asked what the credits are? Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant was given
a credit for a portion of the cost of the seismic retrofit, a credit for increased
sales tax revenue over five years, and a credit for increased property taxes
derived by the City based on the pre-assessment of the property and the post-
assessment after the transfer of the property to the new owner. To maintain
consistency for all projects, staff proposes that in any future projects the same
types of criteria be used.
Commissioner Soukup asked what the equation was for the $19,000? Mr.
Whittenberg said it's in a fee resolution adopted by the City Council. It's a per
square foot charge for restaurant uses. There is an additional per square foot
charge for off-setting the cost of the preparation of the Traffic Impact Study by
a consulting firm. It's about $7 per square foot for a restaurant use and $3 per
square foot for an office use. When that's calculated out, based on the square
footage of the building at 209 Main Street, the total comes to approximately
$19,000.
Commissioner Fife asked what will happen if the projected property tax and sales
tax increases, which are the basis for calculating these credits, don't come to
pass? Mr. Whittenberg said the property tax are already realized. The sales tax
is an estimate. The City's taking the risk that they will perform as well as it
thinks they will. The City estimated the sales tax lower than what was indicated
they thought they would do. There will be slight increases in the property taxes
as a result of the tenant improvements but this is not part of the credit equation.
Public Hearing
Gregg Herbert. Applicant * 209 Main Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Herbert discussed the two primary fees in question: (1) in-lieu parking fee
directed toward additional parking facilities and (2) Traffic Mitigation Fee. He
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~;
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 9 - City or Seal Beaeh · Planning Commission Minutes or 711.JlJJ
stated he and the City do not have an agreement at this point. He said this
Development Agreement is subject to the assumption that he originally made, that
there would be some type of contribution for the in-lieu parking. He objected to
the application of Traffic Mitigation Fees to this project.
He explained the Traffic Mitigation Fee is a new Ordinance, passed by the City
a few weeks ago; it was brought in at the tail end of the negotiations. It has been
26 months since his purchase of the building. This property has gone from no
in-lieu parking fee requirements, to a lapse of the grandfathered parking rights,
to $2,300 per year in in-lieu fees and to looking at $3,500 per space with the total
fees of almost 30 % of the total project cost.
Regarding the applicability of the Traffic Mitigation Fee, he read from Orange
County requirements derived from Measure M, whereby each City was required
to draft and pass a Traffic Mitigation Fee:
"... construction or addition of commercial or industrial floor area or any
change of use of the property. When there is a change of use of the
property, liability would only be incurred if that use created additional
traffic impact".
He is not constructing or adding commercial or industrial floor area. There is no
change in the use of the property, it has been a retail structure for fifty plus
years.
Mr. Herbert felt the applicability of Measure M by Orange County and the City's
municipal Code does not refer to tenant improvements for application of the
Traffic Mitigation Fees. He felt Measure M provisions are directed toward new
construction or additions whereby the community's infrastructure was unable to
support a use or needed improvement to provide for additional density. This
property has been a retail use for fifty years and it was his opinion that there has
been adequate road support for this facility for fifty years.
He felt the application of Traffic Mitigation Fees could have a devastating affect
on some City buildings because several buildings have had extended vacancies far
beyond 90 day time periods. Traffic Mitigation Fees would have to be applied
to these buildings whenever they need tenant improvements.
He was concerned with equitable application. Assuming this has to do with
"occupancy", not "use", the fees would be incurred on an equitable basis by all
parties. The way the Ordinance is drafted, the Masonic Lodge would be liable for
Traffic Mitigation Fees because the final sentence says "When there's either
additional space, new space, or a change of use that provides for increased
traffic" .
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.;
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 10 . Cily or Seal Beacb · Planning Commission Minules or 7/21/'13
Mr. Herbert agreed with the environmental review which said there were no
increased traffic impacts. He indicated the Initial Study said this project cannot
reasonably be expected to create significant traffic impacts in isolation or in
conjunction with past projects and reasonably anticipated future projects; there is
no change of use.
Mr. Herbert said BJ's is not looking for special privileges but is asking no unfair
requirements be placed on this building. The City Council has the power to
invoke municipal Code ~22B.9, providing for a waiver of the Traffic Mitigation
Fees.
Commissioner Soukup asked Mr. Colantuono what factors could be missing from
Mr. Herbert's compelling argument? Mr. Colantuono said the City Attorney's
Office concluded that BI's Pizzeria is a change of use, which will generate
additional traffic. A key distinction between BJ's Pizzeria and the Masonic
Lodge is that BI's Pizzeria at 209 Main Street allowed their grandfathered parking
rights to lapse by leaving the building vacant more than three months whereas the
Masonic Lodge has not allowed their grandfathered parking rights to lapse. Also,
the Masonic Lodge is going from an entitlement with up to 200 people there per
night to an entitlement of less than that --- therefore the entitlements on the
Masonic Lodge will be reduced; a change of use that won't generate additional
traffic. It was his advice that the City has the legal power to impose the fee on
this case. The City can impose this fee, but the City Attorney's Office is not
saying it must impose this fee.
Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg if he was aware of other
establishments that have been vacant more than 90 days which would be subject
to the Traffic Mitigation Fee? Mr. Whittenberg said he was not aware of any at
this time. The Red Lobster was destroyed by fire, the building is not useable and
will not be useable for more than 90 days. The issue is, is the Traffic Mitigation
Fee Ordinance and it's implementing fees, designed or intended to apply to a
situation where you have an existing building that is non-conforming (Le.,
parking) that is vacant more than 90 days and is allowed to re-open with basically
the same prior uses? The imposition of Traffic Mitigation Fees could be
substantial enough to find offices empty along Main Street.
Commissioner Fife said the 90-day time period is inadequate when it involves the
forfeiture of important property rights, especially when commercial property is
involved. For example, a probate, a bankruptcy, or litigation with a co-owner
could consume 90 days while the property is in limbo. The loss of the
grandfathered parking rights would render a property almost commercially
useless. That 90 day period should be extended to six months or a year.
Regarding the Traffic Mitigation Fees, he was not inclined to rule out
categorically that a discontinued use should not, upon resumption, be the occasion
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 11 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes of 7121/93
for the imposition of those fees. He indicated the 90 or 120 day discontinued use
of 209 Main Street (it was closed two years) as a restaurant and resumption of
209 Main Street as a restaurant ought to be the occasion to tag that property with
Traffic Mitigation Fees. The California Coastal Commission has approved the
resumption of 209 Main Street as a restaurant. In interpreting the statute, the
Commission should look to whether the use has been discontinued for such a long
period of time that the City has moved off in another direction and allowed other
projects to come into the City without paying Traffic Mitigation Fees because we
have been no longer counting that property as a source of traffic. "In this case,
it was an almost hyper-technical loss of use of important right and I don't think
it should occasion the Traffic Impact Fees... " .
The following persons spoke in favor of the Development Agreement:
Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach
Mr. Shanks favored the development of a Main Street Specific Plan which would
address a logical and strict set of rules for development, making Development
Agreements unnecessary. Landowners/builders could know up front what is
required and what their costs would be and make their plans accordingly. That
approach would lower City costs of staff and attorney time to prepare
Development Agreements. He felt it was unfair that some properties have to
provide parking while others do not.
Jim Watson * 101 Main Street. Suite A. Seal Beach
Mr. Watson suggested (1) the present $100 in-lieu fee per parking space is too
low; (2) he preferred a one-time fee (that could be raised through the years) or
an annual fixed fee set when the property owner/businessman wanted to get a
change in use; (3) it's only fair the parking fees apply to the businesses currently
in place in the City who are paying the low fees.
Mr. Watson explained the cost of real estate on Main Street, saying that one
parking space could cost up to $32,500. Paying for parking spaces at that rate
would kill the businesses down town by making business unaffordable.
He proposed it's easier to compute a front end fee than worry about a changing
fee and said he would be willing to pay $3,000 or $5,000 per parking space.
He added that restaurants bring activity and people. If there were no restaurants,
Seal Beach would have a dead downtown. A third alternative would be to allow
no changes at all and in ten to fifteen years downtown would be dead and
deserted and the City would have a serious problem. Nobody on a 25' wide lot
could meet any parking requirement for any business.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 12 - City of Seal Beach · Planoiog Commission Minutes of 7121193
Rebuttal * Gregg Herbert
Mr. Herbert clarified Chairman Dahlman's question on other properties impacted,
noting there are two non-confirming buildings in Seal Beach that have office
space which have been vacant well beyond 90 days. Secondly, referencing the
Masonic Lodge, his reference was only to the reasoning behind the environmental
concerns and not to the applicability of the traffic fees.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Sharp felt the Planning Commission should recommend to
the City Council that they reconsider the $19,054.83 in Traffic Mitigation
Fees; he felt this applicant is entitled to the waiver.
Commissioner Law said she felt the parking fees, whatever they are, should be
equal for everybody.
Commissioner Fife said $3,500 in-lieu parking fee per parking space was too low,
although it is a large increase over the current fee from $100 per parking space.
With this Development Agreement the developer takes the risk that the future in-
lieu parking fees may be higher. The Planning Commission's choice is to (1)
bring everything to a complete halt while a master plan is figured out or (2) do
some interim deals until a master plan is figured out. The City is moving in both
directions. It's finally attacking the problem of what to do on Main Street on a
long term basis. This is a reasonable interim agreement. He didn't feel the
Traffic Mitigation Fee should be assessed simply because a use has been
interrupted and later resumed unless the use has been discontinued so long that
the City has done other traffic studies and allowed other development projects and
now a resumption of that use would upset the planning. He recommended
approval of this Development Agreement with the recommendation to the City
Council that they reconsider the imposition of the Traffic Mitigation Fees and
take a look at the Ordinance as to whether or not it should be clarified as to how
and when the Traffic Mitigation Fees should be applied when a use has been
interrupted and then resumed at the same site.
Commissioner Soukup said a one-time in-lieu charge of $3,500 per parking space
equals $100 per space for 35 years. He was not certain of how the $3,500 per
parking space fee was arrived at. He favored waiving the Traffic Mitigation Fee
and asked his recommendation be shown in the Record and forwarded to the City
Council. Regarding the extending the 90-day rule for forfeiture of grandfathered
parking rights to 6 months or one year, Commissioner Soukup said that has merit
and should be considered but was not certain what that time period should be.
He felt that 209 Main Street's being vacant for two years was not the fault of the
property owner, it had to do with City denying previous applications.
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
_i
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 13 - City of Seal Beach * Planning Commission Minutes of 7121193
RECESS:
Chairman Dahlman indicated that if an annuity were purchased for $3,500 it
would pay about $100 forever. The charge of $3,500 per space is not a large
amount of money and is too low for the cost of providing a parking space.
Regarding the merit of waiving fees under the Measure M implementing
ordinance, the applicant has made a good case for this. However, the applicant
may have been given too many credits and the City should meet with the
applicant and re-figure this. He supported a reduction/modification or elimination
of the Traffic Mitigation Fee in light of the applicant's testimony.
Commissioner Fife clarified that this does not entitle the applicant to 23 wavered
parking spaces for $23,000. If the City Council works out the Main Street
Specific Plan and determines the cost is $2,500 per year, this applicant is liable
for the $2,500 per year except he gets a one-time credit for the $23,000 he has
paid. He is not absolved in perpetuity for the parking spaces he is short.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to send this Development Agreement
to the City Council with the recommendation that they reconsider adjustment
or waiver of the Traffic Mitigation Fees.
Mr. Colantuono suggested the following wording for this motion:
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 93-39, with
the following sentence added at the end of Section 6: The Planning
Commission further recommends that the Traffic Impact Fee be adjusted or
waived by the City Council pursuant to Section 22B- 9 of the Code of the City of
Seal Beach.
Commissioner Sharp amended his Motion to include Mr. Colantuono's verbiage.
Chairman Dahlman suggested the word "reconsider" to be less "hand tieing" to
the City Council. Commissioner Fife asked Mr. Colantuono what courses of
action the City Council could take? Mr. Colantuono said the Council could
impose the fee in a precise number or waive it to zero. "If justice lies between
those two, the way to accomplish it is to re-negotiate the credits on the other part
of the deal". Regarding Proposition M, you either pay the going rate or you pay
nothing. He corrected himself to note that the Code said it's not a flat waiver,
it says "adjustment or waiver" in which case Commissioner Sharp's Motion
should say "adjustment or waiver".
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Fife, Soukup
***
Ten minute recess from 8:55 to 9:07 p.m.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 14 - City of Seal Beaeh · Planning Commission Minutes of 7/21/93
6. Conditional Use Pennit #92-7
Address: 99 Marina Drive
Business: Onshore Oil Separation Facility
Applicant: Union Oil Co. of CA
Property Owner: Exxon Corporation
Request: Replace and/or overhaul some existing
equipment and upgrade current industry
standards.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning
Department].
Commission Comments
The Planning Commission asked the following questions with responses from Mr.
Whittenberg and Mr. Colantuono [Not verbatim]:
Q: How deep will the archaeological pits be?
LW: The archaeological pits will be dug until they hit water level, about six
feet.
Q: Are the construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. more expanded than
the City Code allows? Could these hours be curtailed as they are too long
for nearby residents?
LW: Construction is not allowed between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The CUP
could condition the construction hours to be shorter.
Q: The Negative Declaration mentions emission levels for air pollutants, how
do we know the use will actually be at that anticipated level?
LW: The level numbers generated in the document were provided to staff by
Unocal using approved AQMD methods, using what AQMD determines
to be the maximum level.
Q: Is Platform Esther out of commission now?
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page IS - City or Seal Beacb · Planning Commission Minutes or 7/'1.11'13
LW: No. It's under a test production permit authority through the California
Coastal Commission. They have the authority, under the test production
permit, to pump up to 5,000 barrels of oil per day.
Q: When did they first begin pumping after the destruction of Island Esther?
LW: He deferred to the applicant but it was indicated this could be deduced
from the permits on pages 3 and 4, which indicate approval by the Coastal
Commission of a test production of 1,200 barrels per day on June 20,
1990.
Q: Are they pumping through an existing set of pipelines from the platform
to this facility?
LW: Yes. Their existing ten inch pipelines, one which pumps the oil emulsion
and another one which pumps gas; two separate lines.
Q: What studies have been done to determine whether those pipelines, after
ten years of relatively little use, are ready to handle a resumption of
operations?
LW: The California Coastal Commission dealt with those issues and he didn't
know exactly what types of analyses were done. It was indicated there
may have been some reconstruction of those pipelines.
Q: Regarding the hydrogen sulfide removal, is the nature of this oil reservoir
such that at no time hydrogen sulfide will ever show up?
LW: That's what has been indicated to the City.
Q: Are the emISSIOn numbers net numbers, net of the emISSIons being
generated by the processing of the same material through the Exxon
facility or new numbers?
LW: New, gross numbers.
Q: Regarding the noise allowance of 55 db on the street, is that 55 db from
anyone source or a cumulative noise level?
e1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 16 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minules of 71211!13
LW: It's a maximum noise level from whatever sources might be measured at
the residential property line. It could be road noise or an aircraft flying
overhead.
Q: What is the estimated current noise level on those streets?
LW: The City does not have any current noise measurements on the street.
Mr. Colantuono indicated 55 db is similar to what's out there now. Also,
the City's 1975 Noise Element indicates background City noise levels are
below 50 db. The median noise levels at the public park in Bridgeport
they are at 54 db early in the morning and 63 db at mid-afternoon.
Q: If the maximum noise level allowed is 50 db and you're sitting without
this facility operating, at 45 db and this comes on line, adding another 47
db -- do the 45 db and the 47 db add to 92 db or are they independent?
MC: If you have" two noise sources of the same intensities, side-by-side, it
bumps by 3 db.
LW: The City's Noise Ordinance allows the maximum noise level for
residential areas at 55 db unless the current background level already
exceeds that. In that case, the maximum level is what the current level
already is.
Q: What is the height of the current fences around the Exxon property?
LW: Eight or ten feet. Staff is proposing ten foot solid block walls. Right
now, around the Unocal facility, it's eight feet --- four feet of block and
four feet of chain link on top.
Q: Will the ten foot block wall go around the Exxon property also?
LW: The ten foot block wall would go around the Unocal facility only.
Q: Will Unocal have to have a ten foot block wall between Unocal and
Exxon?
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 17 - City or Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes or 7/21/fJ3
LW: Yes.
Q: Will the ten foot block wall block anyone's view?
LW: I don't think it will block it any more than it is now blocked by the tanks.
You won't see the accumulation of tanks. You'd see a block wall with
landscaping in front of it.
Q: Do the required plans entail safety drills?
LW: There are requirements for safety drills at specific times and a certain
number on a yearly basis.
Q: Are the drills conducted in private or does the City have some oversight
or knowledge that the plans are in place, tested, drilled and not rusted?
LW: The real oversight authority is the Orange County Fire Department. They
are very active in ensuring things get done in a timely manner.
Q: Is the Fire Department confident it has the specialized equipment it needs
to fight a simultaneous fire at both facilities?
LW: Their responses back to the Planning Department have not dealt with a
concern in response to the activities. It is more in ensuring safety of the
operation, certification of the lines and the storage capacity.
Q: Item #7 indicates Unocal will provide five days prior written notice to all
residents within 300' of when they're going to clean and perform
restoration work. Would the cleanings be toxic, to where the residents
should get out of the area?
LW: The health assessments done for a similar facility in Huntington Beach
have indicated that's not the case. The City wants the notice given so the
nearby residents will know there will be something going on out there.
Also, the City's requiring monitoring at the fence line of the property
when those activities are on-going. They will measure what is generated
and allow an analysis to be done to ensure there is not a problem with
release of a toxic material.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
tt
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 18 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minules of 7/21/93
Q:
Describe the cleaning procedures.
LW: Their cleaning of the large tanks is done with personnel going inside the
tank itself.
Commissioner Law commented that the refineries in San Pedro,
Wilmington, Carson, EI Segundo all exceed the limits, noting you can
smell the foul emissions.
Mr. Whittenberg explained that this is not a refinery. This is a separation
facility. At this facility the ten inch pipe comes in from the off shore
platform and has an oil-water mixture. The oil is separated from the
water. The water is shipped back out to the ocean. The oil is run
through a pipeline system to the refineries. There is no refining of
material done on this site.
Q: When the water is shipped back to the ocean, does it go back in a closed
circulation system?
LW: Correcting my comment, it actually goes in the Orange County sanitation
sewer system and it's treated to meet their requirements before it goes into
that system. Eventually the water gets back into the ocean through the
sanitary system.
MC: There is also an NPDES permit on this project from the EPA.
Q: Is the platform pumping water fresh water or salt water?
LW: Salt water.
Q: So we are basically pumping large quantities of salt water into the sewer
system?
LW: Yes.
Mr. Colantuono commented that Unocal is currently negotiating with the City for
a franchise agreement to maintain pipelines under the City streets. Because the
City owns the streets they are entitled to payment for the right to maintain
pipelines underneath. The franchise agreement with Unocal's predecessor expired
in 1990. There is some discussion in the staff report about the fiscal impacts of
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 19 - City or Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes or 7/211!13
this project. The revenue flows to the City are understated because the franchise
payments are not reflected in the staff report.
Mr. Colantuono commented that this oil separation facility is an existing use.
They have no grandfather rights, so they need a Conditional Use Permit to
operate. The Planning Commission has the power to deny the CUP. If the CUP
is denied, some reasonable use of the facility must be allowed. Given the specific
purpose of most of the industrial equipment at the site, he recommended that if
the CUP is denied, that the Commission schedule this for an amortization
hearing.
Public Hearing
Robert Province * Unocal * 9645 Santa Fe Springs Rd.. Santa Fe Springs
Mr. Province introduced himself as Unocal's Community Contact representative.
Mr. Province provided background information on Platform Esther and the on-
shore facility that services that platform.
Unocal would like to return to production most of the wells once the on-shore
facility is completely restored. Because the on-shore facility has been inoperable,
Unocal entered into an agreement with Exxon who operates an adjacent on-shore
facility so they could process Unocal's Platform Esther production temporarily.
Exxon's capacity is limited and they are able to process only a fraction of
Platform Esther's potential production. Unocal cannot be dependent much longer
on Exxon. Unocal's facility will be significantly upgraded and not expanded. All
new equipment will be state of the art, using today's technology, ensuring the
reduction and elimination of possible impacts. Air emissions will be very low
and the facility will be safe. The emissions will be well below levels that would
cause health effects.
Chairman Dahlman referenced a chart showing threshold levels of air emissions
which states if you exceed them an EIR is required according to AQMD. In
every case, the anticipated level of air emissions is below those thresholds. How
did you get to that anticipated level? How was it figured?
Roger Hampson * Engineer * Unocal
Mr. Hampson explained the air emission levels were based on procesing 4,000
barrels of oil per day.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 10 - City of Seal Beacb · Planning Commission Miuutes of 7/11/93
H:
Q:
H:
Q:
H:
Q:
Mr. Hampson answered the following Commission questions [Not verbatim]:
Q:
What is the maximum number of barrels of oil per day that would be
processed through this facility with Platform Esther producing at
maximum capacity?
H:
He was not certain of the maximum capacity because the wells have been
shut down for ten years. 4,000 barrels of oil per day would be optimistic.
Before Platform Esther was leveled by the storm, Chevron was producing
at 4,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak with a lot more wells.
Q:
Have the pipelines between the platform and the shore been rebuilt or
maintained over the years?
H:
Yes. The oil and water emulsion line was replaced by Chevron about two
years before the destruction of the island. During the ten year idle period,
corrosion inhibitor was pumped into the line to prevent corrosion. In
November 1992, Unoca1 ran a 'smart pig' through the line to check the
wall thickness for any pits or thin areas. The pipeline appears to be in
good condition.
Q:
Is the pipeline laid on the ocean floor or buried?
It's laid on the ocean floor.
Will the pipeline and/or Esther Island effect the movement of sand or sand
erosion along the City's shore?
Not likely. Sand movement is directly related to ocean current. The
ocean current would not be affected by a ten inch tall pipeline laying on
the ocean floor. The Esther Platform is set on a rubble mound which is
the remaining structure of Island Esther. The oc~ currents continue to
be affected to some extent by the underlying rubble island but the size of
the island is pretty small. The top of the rubble mound is 25' deep and
at that depth there would not be a significant affect on ocean currents.
As rebuilt, will Platform Esther be manned by employees?
Yes, 24-hours per day by three employees.
Will the employees on the platform be transported in and out and use the
Seal Beach pier?
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 11 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minules of 7/11/93
H: Yes.
MC: Unocal is also negotiating with the City an agreement that they have
access rights to the pier. There's a landing on the pier that they have
exclusive use of and shared use of the pier itself. They have shared use
of the parking lot and shared use of the trolley on the pier. The City
Manager's Office is currently negotiating with Unocal for an extension of
that agreement. The City derives revenue from this.
Q: Would Unocallike to contribute to the repair of the pier?
H: He couldn't speak for management but said that's possible.
Q: What is Exxon's capacity now?
H: They can handle up to 4,000 barrels of total fluid. Unocal is now at
about 2,000 barrels of total fluid. This is in addition to their production.
Q: The capacity to Exxon, except for the economic cost, would be satisfied?
H: No. With 4,000 barrels of oil you can expect in excess of 12,000 barrels
of water. There is no way Exxon could possibly handle that.
Q: With the $3,000,000 that you've spent already to try to get this entire
facility up and running, have you considered going to the Hellman Ranch
and asking to move the facility over to that parcel?
H: At present Unocal has been unable to obtain pipelines to any other
location. We have talked to the Hellman's.
Q: Could you extend your pipeline through your existing parcel, under the
streets, pay for the franchise fee to get it to the Hellman parcel?
H: It's theoretically possible if you could obtain permits to run a pipeline to
Hellman. However, none of the other operators, which includes
McFarland and Termo, can handle this production.
Q: Are trips to Platform Esther possible?
H: They can be arranged.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 22 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes of 7/21/lJ3
Q:
H:
Q:
H:
Q:
Were the SCAQMD levels generated by the 5,000 barrel processing
limits? Are you able to do more? What is reactive organic gas and what
does it do if ignited?
H:
Yes, the AQMD generated the levels. All of these gasses are secondary
emissions from burning natural gas to heat the oil/water emulsion to break
it up into saleable quality. Unocal should not exceed the 75 pound per
day threshold limit which is based on 4,000 barrels of oil per day. The
emissions are already burned natural gas so you can't bum exhaust.
There is no risk of any re-ignition.
Q:
Regarding Group II, "rare" occurances, where the frequency is stated to
be greater than 1 in 1,000,000 --- we've had more than a few "rare"
events in the past twenty years --- what's wrong, the statistics or the way
we figure it?
H:
Calculating probability is only a matter of statistics. This frequency
analysis is based on a test of occurrences versus time. Even though you
have less than 1 in 1,000,000, theoretically it's possible to have two. It's
1 in 1,000,000 based on this particular type of a facility. So if you had
1,000,000 of these facilities you'd expect to have one "rare" event per
year.
Q:
Please describe the cleaning procedures.
H:
The cleaning procedures ares done physically. The vessels are opened
and vacuumed by a vacuum truck which takes out a bottom layer. The
tank bottom waste is accumulated solids like sand. It would be like a
liquid asphalt. It is not a hazardous substance.
Are there irreducible emulsions that are also disposed of as waste?
Any emulsions which cannot be treated through the normal processes go
to a secondary tank for further treatment. This is done by re-circulating
through the system for more heat. Eventually it can all be broken down.
The scrubbed pumping water eventually goes into the Orange County
Sewage District. Where, physically, does the water go from this facility?
It goes to a sewage treatment plant. It does not go to the San Gabriel
River. Unocal is charged by the barrel by the Orange County Sanitation
District for that processing.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 23 . City or Seal Beach ... I'lanning Commission Minutes or 7121193
H:
Q:
H:
Q:
H:
Q:
H:
Q:
Regarding the condition for no hydrocarbons to be discharged into the
atmosphere, how do you interpret that?
Flaring has been seen on the Hellman Ranch. Pressure builds up and they
have to burn the gas off to relieve pressure on the system.
H:
All the tanks are closed systems and are hooked up to a vapor recovery
system. There will not be any hydrocarbon emissions into the
atmosphere. You will not see flaring on this site.
Q:
Then that does not mean that when you walk by you won't smell it?
H:
That's correct.
Q:
How is that avoided?
H:
There is direct communication between the on-shore facility and Platform
Esther. We are not permitted to flare. If a condition arose where that
would be necessary, we would shut the Platform down until the situation
is corrected.
Q:
Do you get pressure buildups at the well head that have to be vented off!
No. We have pressure sensing equipment on all our wells and on all the
equipment on Platform Esther. In the event of any excess pressures, the
system is designed to shut down.
What do you pump in to displace the oil as it is extracted?
We don't replace the produced fluids with anything. However, this
reservoir has a natural water drive which has a tendency to replace the
produced volumes to a certain extent to maintain some pressure.
Where is the water drive coming from? What kind of water is it?
It's a natural salt water production.
You propose to operate 22 wells instead of 6. Is that going to produce tar
or whatever on our beach?
No. There will be no leaks from the wells or the well heads into the
ocean.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 24 ~ City or Seal Beach · flouDing Commission Minutes or 71211!JJ
No persons wished to speak in favor of this application.
The following persons spoke in opposition:
Rita Strickroth * 343 Regatta Way. Seal Beach
Ms. Strickroth introduced herself as the President of the Riverbeach Homeowners
Association. She read a letter in opposition to this application from the eighty
homeowners [Attached]. She indicated that since the Unocal equipment is
outdated and so much restoration needs to be done, it would be a good time to
move the facility to a more compatible site. Mr. Colantuono said that the
purpose of an amortization hearing would be to figure that out. Commissioner
Sharp asked how much of a problem is the Exxon facility presently? Mrs.
Strickroth said other homeowners would be speaking to this issue.
Robert Chaffee * 302 Spinnaker. Seal Beach
Mr. Chaffee said since Unocal is applying to tear their portion down and build
something else, then they should build it elsewhere. He felt it was only logical
that a major facility producing thousands of oil and water per day that is 100'
from housing would be a problem for noise, air pollution and other major
problems. He has lived in Seal Beach 34 years and that area used to be an
industrial complex --- Dow Chemical, for example. However, the area has
changed and it is now residential.
Jim Watson * 101 Main Street. Seal Beach
Mr. Watson introduced himself as the developer and owner of the four new
homes immediately North of the Exxon facility. He presented the Commission
with photographs of the existing Seal Beach facility and the Fort Apache facility
in Huntington Beach. The facility in Seal Beach has been very poorly
maintained: the site is gravel and dirt, the entry driveway is gravel, the
landscaping has never been maintained on First Street, most of the fencing is
chain link with barbed wire on the top, pipes and miscellaneous equipment is
laying about. He suggested Unocal should be required to prepare architectural
renderings of the proposed facility. Also, they should be required to have a
sidewalk with landscaping and a wall if appropriate. Comparing the two
facilities, at Fort Apache you don't see tanks protruding above the perimeter
walls. The 24' tanks at Seal Beach are too high and should be built at 8' or 10'.
Regarding the Exxon facility in Seal Beach, there have been complaints for years
of noise and fumes. Exxon upgraded their facility a year ago. Because of a
noise factor coming from the Exxon facility and his desire to build four houses
on adjacent property, he gave Exxon $37,000 three years ago to assist in moving
one of the lact tanks, where the noise was supposedly coming from. Exxon has
been operating for just a few months. The noise now is no less than what was
happening before it ceased operation. He stated that Exxon has been very non-
responsive to him. Exxon's landscaping has died and they will not cooperate with
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 2.S - City or Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes or 7/2.1193
him in replacing this landscaping. He has sent numerous letters and telephoned
Exxon weekly and has had no response. Mr. Watson said his concern is not only
what is approved tonight but also Exxon's lack of response and concern to what
their neighbors feel. Mr. Watson took exception to Mr. Colantuono's comment
that the Commission has to approve a use here or amortize the facilities. Mr.
Watson said those facilities can't be used because their Variance has expired and
they haven't been operating. He asked the Commission to consider: (1) denying
this application; (2) postponing the Public Hearing after all testimony, ask Exxon
and Unocal to meet with the concerned residents and staff to see if something can
be mitigated, making the site more suitable for the community and possibly
moving the facilities to the Hellman Ranch; (3) approve this application but
include the requirements for perimeter sidewalks to be built, that a block wall (8'
minimum) be built along First Street with landscaping (this wall should be l' -
2' taller than any tank), that the tanks not exceed 8' or 10', allow no equipment
on the tops of the tanks, the lighting should be confined to the site, noise must
be confined to the site, the existing property, including Exxon's portion, should
be asphalt paved and the area should be landscaped, all driveways should be
paved, the operation should be confined from 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. unless the
noise cannot be heard outside the wall, a landscape and site plan (showing
elevations of the equipment) should be submitted for the City to review. Exxon
should be made to correct their noise and any fume problems and their area must
be landscaped. He said Exxon has not been a good neighbor. Mr. Watson said
Rob Schultz, an Exxon employee who used to work in California, was responsive
to community concerns. He is no longer there and anyone wishing to deal with
Exxon has to deal with people in Texas.
Gordon Labedz * Riverbeach. Seal Beach
Mr. Labedz said he is a resident of the Riverbeach Townhomes, past president
of their homeowners association. As a member of the Surfrider Foundation he
opposes off-shore oil drilling and insisted this application must be considered as
not only the reactivation of an oil separation facility but the expansion of off-
shore drilling from Platform Esther --- Esther could not pump without this
facility. He said I can tell you (this facility is) "Noisy, smelly, obnoxious ... it's
hard to play tennis there ... the bells that ring, the trucks that go in and out. I
challenge any of you to live next to an industrial facility as this was in the early
1980's". He said subsidence will occur if oil is pumped off Seal Beach shores;
CEQA was written for projects like this. There are many questions that need to
be reviewed --- noise, smell, subsidence.
Bec~ Jenks * 325 Spinnaker. Seal Beach
Ms. Jenks said that in 1986 this issue came before the Planning Commission. At
that time the Commission determined this was an abandoned property and
Chevron did not have the right to begin operation again as they had been doing.
The application was denied. And at that time, there were no legal problems as
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 26 - City of Seal Beacb · Planning Commission Minutes of 7121/93
have been suggested by Mr. Colantuono tonight.
Mr. Whittenberg said Chevron wanted to reopen without coming before the City
for any approvals. Chevron was told they would have to file an application for
a CUP to re-open the facility but to the best of his knowledge they never filed
any application. The facility continued to remain non-operational.
Rita Strickroth * 343 Regatta Way. Seal Beach
Ms. Strickroth said this was CUP #86-2.
Steven Novak * 330 Spinnaker. Seal Beach
Mr. Novak said an approval of this application would adversely effect his daily
life. He suggested that if approved, the facility should operate from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on week-days only.
Nancy Slusher * 319 Spinnaker. Seal Beach
Ms. Slusher said this property has been down graded and this is no longer good
for an industrial facility. She indicated the City itself approved the increase in
residential density --- Riverbeach Townhomes, Watson's four homes, Marina
Park.
Rob Driscol * Riverbeach. Seal Beach
Mr. Driscol said that increasing oil production from 6 to 22 wells would increase
the problems on our beaches four-fold. He indicated he is very concerned about
the facility's noise, noting he and his wife work for the airlines and their
constantly changing schedules and sleeping patterns would suffer from disrupted
sleep. He expressed grave concerns that he remain able to pilot an aircraft safely
because he was physically fit.
Bill Lazitch * 100 Electric A venue. Seal Beach
Mr. Lazitch said Exxon has been a problem for years and there is no way to
make it compatible with the neighborhood. He told the Planning Commission that
nobody else was here from the neighborhoods because no Notices were mailed.
When the original application was processed they received Notices.
Mr. Whittenberg stated staff received a letter from Glen Cardin. 332 Spinnaker
Way and a telephone call from Sharon Hammer. Riverbeach both in opposition
to this application.
Rebuttal
Mr. Colantuono asked the applicant to address the question on subsidence.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 27 - City of Seal Beacb · Planning Commi.sion Minules of 71211!13
Roeer Hampson said Unocal doesn't anticipate any subsidence due to the water
drive with the reservoir. None of the existing wells underlie anyon-shore areas.
The mile of drilling to get to the reservoir is through bedrock in the ocean.
Commissioner Fife asked Mr. Hampson to what extent Unoca1 has analyzed the
collapse of the sea floor in the event of a major incident on the Newport-
Inglewood Fault?
Mr. Hampson said there are no caverns from which oil is extracted, they are
pores in existing rock structure. They're taking fluid out of existing rock
structure. The rock would have to be crushed for their to be subsidence. In
Long Beach has a different formation, the caverns caused the collapse. Platform
Esther is designed to withstand a severe earthquake.
Commissioner Fife asked if the difference in structure, caverns versus pores, of
the oil bearing area is consistent in the sea floor drilling area?
Mr. Hampson said Long Beach was a completely different kind of reservoir.
Commissioner Law said Long Beach had to pump water into the caverns to cure
the subsidence.
Commissioner Fife questioned if taking so much out of an area and not replacing
it with any substance could result in a collapse?
Mr. Hampson said the oil and the water is 8 % - 10% of the volume of the rock.
The remainder of the rock is solid. There is a water drive in the reservoir which
is partially returning some of the volume that Unocal is removing.
Mr. Colantuono asked if it might be feasible to extend the on-shore pipelines to
the Hellman Ranch to process Unocal's products from Platform Esther?
Mr. Hampson said it's feasible but he felt the California Coastal Commission
wouldn't approve it as they would be putting in a new facility into the Coastal
plain.
Mr. Colantuono asked if Unocal wanted to comment on the newspaper article
referring to a lawsuit involving toxic risk at Fort Apache, Huntington Beach?
Jim Bray * Unocal * 1201 W. 5th St.. Los Aneeles
Mr. Bray indicated he could not comment on the litigation because it's on-going.
Ft. Apache is a very similar facility to Seal Beach. There were many community
concerns, particularly health risk concerns. These prompted the lawsuit. Due to
the concerns, Unocal instigated four separate health risk assessment studies. All
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
tt
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 28 - City of Seal Beacb * Planning Commission Minules of 7/21/93
four studies came back saying there was no health risk from that facility. One
of those studies was performed by a consultant selected by Unocal's adversaries;
the study was paid for by Unocal.
Commissioner Sharp asked if this application were denied could Exxon enlarge
its facility? Mr. Whittenberg said no, Exxon would have to come before the
Commission with a CUP. He commented that he felt reviewing CUP #86-2
would be beneficial prior to making a determination.
Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Sharp if he wanted to defer a decision
pending consideration of CUP #86-2? Commissioner Sharp said not necessarily.
Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing.
Commission Comments
Commissioner Fife commented that this application illustrates a situation where
a use has been discontinued so long that the community has moved off in a
different direction. "As much thrashing and energy as we seem to apply to the
quality of life issues when somebody wants to run his business for an hour longer
on Main Street, I'm not inclined to think that something that could be this
adversely significant to the residents who have put homes in there should be just
washed right on through the system. This seems to me like an order of
magnitude greater in serious, in terms of its impact on the development that we
have allowed to build up in the last ten to twelve years in and around this facility.
I am more inclined to lean toward saying it's time to phase this stuff out and
certainly not re-seed the problem by allowing this property owner to put $300,000
- $500,000 or $1,000,000 into doing this because it becomes that much more
difficult to ever end this use which really doesn't belong in that area any more.
We are stuck to some extent that Exxon is there, but Exxon will eventually wear
out and there will come a time when you can justify not renewing it ... maybe a
light electronics facility in that area would be necessarily incompatible, but this
is a whole different kind of thing to be that close to a residential area. Either the
City should have anticipated that this thing would be fired up some day and never
let those homes be built. But it didn't do that. It let those homes be built. And
particularly we let the Watson development. And I think I would have looked at
that a lot differently if I thought the Union Oil facility was going to fire up later.
But I agonized over the fact that it was right next to the Exxon facility. And I
don't know where I would have gone ifI'd said well, it's right next to Exxon and
there's going to be a Unocal facility fired up next to that and on top of that a
nuclear power plant next door. I would have said 'Wait a minute Mr. Watson,
do something else'...". He desired to continue the Public Hearing, review the
Minutes regarding CUP #86-2 and to allow further public testimony. And if
people were not inclined in that direction, his inclination would be to deny this
application with the anticipation of eliminating both facilities from what has
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.4
Page 29 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes of 7/21/93
become a residential area.
Commissioner Sharp asked staff what chance the City had to do anything about
Exxon if they don't have a CUP? Mr. Whittenberg said the municipal Code
requires uses established prior to the requirement for a CUP to apply for and
obtain a CUP within a specific time period. Off-shore oil separation facilities are
now required to have a CUP. Eventually Exxon will be required to come before
the Commission with a CUP application. Commissioner Sharp said he had not
come to any conclusion regarding this application. He wants to get information
on what's possible to get done and not get done. He felt if it were not possible
to see that the Exxon facility could be eliminated that would put a different
perspective on the adjacent property. It will take a long time to detoxify the soil.
Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission could request staff to do further research
and come back at the next meeting. Staff would appreciate specific direction.
Chairman Dahlman said he would be interested in that.
Commissioner Law said she believed the land usage has changed such that she
would be in favor of denying this application.
Commissioner Soukup said he is a scuba diver and understood Dr. Labedz's
comments on off-shore drilling, impacts on the ocean and health effects.
Regarding the Riverbeach Townhomes, he said they knew when they moved into
the townhomes that there was an oil separation facility across the street. He said
he was not sure how this fact effected his thinking however. He agreed that he
would like to look at the 1986 Minutes for CUP #86-2. His inclination was that
this application is not a good deal for the people of Seal Beach.
Chairman Dahlman said the general direction the City has been taking is not in
the direction for more industrial use of available space. And, the residents are
impacted here. He said he would like more analysis of what options the City
Attorney thinks are open to the Commission.
Mr. Colantuono suggested that the Chairman re-open the Public Hearing for the
purpose of continuing it. So, if information is added to the Record for which you
need to allow additional public comment you'll be able to do that.
Chairman Dahlman re-opened the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Fife said the applicant should provide the Planning Commission
with a site plan, elevations and landscape renderings.
Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification on whether the plant is operable as
it is now, and if the plant could get the permits to operate without changing its
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.~
Page 30 . City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes of 7/21/93
equipment, so the City could give it an amortization period. Chairman Dahlman
said Mr. Colantuono advised the site must have some viable use and that probably
didn't necessarily mean oil processing. Commissioner Sharp said that because it
has a history of oil extraction and because all the equipment is there, the
Commission has to give them some time by law. Mr. Colantuono said the
Commission would be amortizing two separate interests: (1) the leasehold
interest (land) which could conceivably be put to another purpose and (2)
improvements on the land. If the improvements on the land have remaining
value, in excess of the value that they would have if taken away from the site and
used elsewhere, then you'd have to amortize that value too. We don't know at
this point if those fixtures have any value either in place or elsewhere. It would
be the purpose of an amortization hearing to get that information.
Chairman Dahlman asked the applicant whether he preferred a two or four week
continuance? The applicant said two weeks was fine.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to continue to Public Hearing on
Conditional Use Permit #92-7 to the Planning Commission meeting of August
4, 1993.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
5-0-0
Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup, Law
Mr. Whittenberg advised that no additional notification of this hearing will be
given because it's a continuance. The people in the audience said the Bridgeport
residents never received a notification of this meeting. Chairman Dahlman asked
the Planning Department to check on the mailing list and mail a Notice to anyone
who might have been missed.
VI.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications from the audience.
VII.
STAFF CONCERNS
There were no staff concerns.
VIII.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Main Street Specific Plan
Commissioner Law asked when there would be a master plan for costs, fairness,
equity? Mr. Whittenberg said those issues will be dealt with as a part of the
Main Street Specific Plan. Staff is now preparing the consultant Request For
Proposals (RFP) and it will take 6 - 9 months for that study to be done. The City
Council has allocated $60,000 of funds for this study.
.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.
Page 31 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minutes of 7/21/93
Bright Light
Commissioner Sharp said there's a bright spotlight from the oil facility at Bolsa
A venue and Seal Beach Boulevard that blinds traffic from seeing the traffic
signal. Staff will look into this problem.
Chain At Bixby
Commissioner Sharp indicated the chain at the Bixby property at Seal Beach
Boulevard and Lampson Avenue now has one reflector. Staff will call Bixby to
request additional reflectors be added.
Dangerous Curve at Lampson A venue
Commissioner Fife indicated the curve by his home is extremely dangerous.
There has been one major car wreck and a power pole was taken out by a
speeding car. Mr. Whittenberg said staff will approach the Police Department
on this problem.
IX.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
go~~r-.
Joan Fillmann
Recording Secretary
APPROV AL: The Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, ..1993 were
approved by the Planning Commission on August .L!.!f993. 4--
4
July 20, 1993
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: Conditional Use Permit 92.7
Dear Planning Commissioners:
.
The Riverbeach Homeowners Association request denial of the application for a conditional
use permit by UNOCAL to institute operations of the on shore oil separation production
facility approximately 100 feet from our community.
We question the determination by Staff that there WILL NOT be a significant effect on the
environment simply because mitigation measures have been added to the project.
This on shore facility, if allowed to open, would expose a well established residential area
to possible industrial type spillage. explosions, fire, and or toxic gas releases. In addition,
the 24 hour operation would also create substantial noise and lighting nuisances for many
of our homeowners, even with the stated modifications.
Our 80 townhomes did not even exist 10 years ago when the 1983 storms destroyed the off
shore facilities and the oil company ceased production and abandoned the site. Therefore,
we have nothing to gauge the previous existing operations to, as it relates to air quality,
noise levels, light anu glare, risk of spill, etc.
This plant was built over 40 years ago when it was in an isolated area. Today, however, the
plant is now surrounded by single family homes, condominiums, apartments, and a public
playground.
.
The negative delcaration states the adverse health effects are not expected to occur from
exposure to routine facility emissions, however, the Los Angeles Times reported on March
4, 1993, that twenty-five (25) residents have filed a suit against UNOCAL charging this
.
.
proposed project's siSler' facilily "FOll Apache" near Huntington. H4ubor with environmental
negligence by allowing excessive nau~eou~ and 10xic fumes 10 escape, tbus causing breathing
and skin problems. Since the 99 Marina Facility is similar in nature and use to the Fan
Apache facility in Huntington Harbor, similar h~alth risks cuuld be anticipated by our
residents.
The residents of Riverbeach believe that the oil extraction O-E zoning is no longer
compatible to the surrounding property uses and our residenlial neighborhood in general.
We strongly urge that the City of Seal Beach repeal the current ordinance which allows such
a possible health risk and neighborhood nuisance to even be considered here.
The Residents of Riverbeach are graleful to lhe City of Seal Beach and it's Redevelopment
Committee for developing and promoting our 1.Ownhome living. We value our quality of life
we have come to enjoy.
It is a primary duty of local government to prolect the health and welf(lre of its citizens.
Therefore, we reqlle~t yOll r~coIlsider your negalive declaration on this project amI continue
to allow us to Jive with p~ac~ and ~afety. Thank you.
.
Sincerely,
RIVERBEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATJON
First and Marina Streets
Seal Beach, California
Rita V. Sf rickroth, President
9~
cc: Mayor of Seal Beach
.
. Suit Charges Petroleum Plant
i En~angers Neighbors' Health
~
\ HUNTINGTON BEACH-
: Twenty-five residents have filed
-, ~ suit against Unocal, charging that _ ____" . .. ... ., .' ,
~ the petroleum company's Fort
i Apache plant near Huntington 'r .--r-
I ~ Harbour has caused them health
'. ",problems. ';: '(', .' '
L.I '. The lawsuit, med on behalf of -
',:;-;; the residents by Santa Ana attor- .
>: i . ney ,Gene J.' Goldsman, ' charges 1
'I' that Unocal..'.'negligently owned, "
, operated :.,and maintained .F.ort ./ _
, Apache in'such a negligent manner :, J
: 'as to allow the nauseous and toxic.
; ': I' fumes to escape and cause ,seriouS ,j
~ a~d extensive injuries.'~ '. ..:....-. :~!:,._..i .'.;
, I:'. 'Goldsman 'said he ",ill present : I
", . ,medical te$timony to support ~ the
" . claims of health impairment. .;:.~.~.: i
: ' The suit, filed Tuesday in Orange' .r I
" County Superior Court, "seeks an , 1
unspecified amount~, of damages,' "
,both as punishment and as com- ;
. ',' 'pensation,for alleged health dam-
, . age. i.,. :-~:4 ~..., 'I~ .~.:f\'f" :rJ~"ie".:~'I"
" . ~ ,. .~ .",. ". "
: ,'Unocal representatives and offi- "
'" ,cials :of ':the ' state's "Air :Quality ,
" 'Management Dist~ict (AQMD) ,
'" "have repeatedly' said their tests
, have found no toxics or health-en-..
dangering fumes coming from the .
plant, ,which separates water and .
petroleum newly drilled from 9ff-
shore wells. "'H', ,; ;,::!t",1,:',r~"~" .:::":1 '"
. City j and ,county" officials ,l1so
. have said they have no evidence of
health' problems 'caused . by, ,the ~
Huntington Beach plant. :"";'i>'1,! .(...;: >.
, Some ',residents of lthe ~Fort "
..': 'Apache area," however, ,have'
. claimed that they ..have suffered
breathing .and :skin ",problems
caused by the plant's fumes. ,,(, " ,-"
" As recently as Feb. I, Ben Shaw,
a representative, of ,AQMD, ap-
peared at a City Council meeting
and said the state, agency had
found no health risks caused by the
Unocal plant. Randy Shipley, rep-
resenting Unocal,' also ..told the
council that the oil company has
repeatedly tested Fort Apache and
has found no problems. ..' " ,
,Unocal named the plant, located
t 4541 Heil Ave., "Fort Apache" ,
cause it was in an isolated area
hen it was built about 30 years
8Q. Today, the plant is surrounded
'Y homes and apartments.: ,
Unocal officials in the fall held '
Wo pubJ,.'iC 'meetings 'with, area
esidents l '.0 try to. ~eassure them
1~' ,'j~..""..q '9-
.
By BILL BILLITER
TIMES STAFF WRITER
.
.
........ t ...:I6lI..-i....~.......~.,~.... t'L .t.
about the safety lof the plant.
Another public meeting hosted by
Unocal is scheduled for tonight at
7:30 p.m. at the Meadowlark Coun-
try c,Iub, 16782 Graham St.
l
.
.
'.
7/16/93
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
re: Conditional Use Permit 92-7
This letter is to request that you deny the Union Oil Company of Califomia's application for a
Conditional Use Permit to institute operations of an onshore oil separation production facility in
our residential neighborhood.
The neighborhood surrounding the Exxon Marina Drive property has changed significantly from
March 1 '0 1955 when the oriQinal ordinance was adopted allowing for an industrial oil
pumping/separation facility on this site. We are now a residential neighborhood of families and
the industrial expansion and operation of an oil extraction facility is not compatible with a
residential neighborhood.
Concern for the safety of our families is paramount. The storage and movement of combustible
materials, Le., oil and natural gas, has the potential for disaster of cataclysmic proportions.
Explosion, fire, and oil spills are very real possibilities. There are also many quality-of-Iife issues
that render such a facility in a residential neighborhood inappropriate. They include, noise from
pumps and motors running constantly, trucks coming and going, bright lights at night, oily odors,
etc. The negative impact such a facility would have on our property values, while the least of
our concerns at this point, is, nonetheless, a serious issue for homeowners.
The public outcry against activating this oil extraction facility from Seal Beach residents, during
the summer of 1986, moved the Planning Commission to require the Exxon Corporation to
prepare a full environmental impact report. The expansion of an oil extraction facility in a
residential environment is surely in violation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. I
strenuously urge you not to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The Negative Declaration is
totally inappropriate. At a minimum, it would be only right to require that a full environmental
impact report be prepared before a decision is made in favor of the Union Oil Company of
California. Also, put yourselves in our place. Would. you want your families living next door to
an oil extraction facility? Please don't allow this it happen to our families.
~pectfUIlY'
.~
Glenn Cardin
332 Spinnaker Way
Seal Beach, CA 90740
00: Mayor, City of Seal Beach
------
..
.
.
O. ,-
~. ~ .~
~
TACO
'BELL.
Taco Beil Co:.p
179:)1 Var. Kar:11311
If'.'w,e. California 92714-6212
Telephone 714 863 450C
July 19, 1993
Barry Curtis
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379
Re: Conditional Use Permit #93-9
Taco Bell, 640 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach
Dear Mr. Curtis:
I wish, on behalf of Taco Bell Corporation, to withdraw the above conditional
use permit application. The restaurant will cease 24 hour operation on July
31, 1993.
There will be no restaurant reepresentative attending the July 21st planning
meeting. I will assume, unless otherwise notified, that this letter is the only
necessary communication.
Pleae don't hesitate to phone if there are any questions. I can be reached at
(310) 430-5412 or (310) 924-6875.
Sincerel y,
~~
Michael A. Johnson
General Manager
Taco Bell Corportion
c: Rolf Wald