Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1994-01-19 CITY OF SEAL BEACH ,e,; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA of JANUARY 19, 1994 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #94-5 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL m. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 5, 1994 2. Receive and File: Review of Final Draft AICUZ Study, Los Alamitos Army Airfield. . 3. Receive and File: Review of Draft Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 1504 (Backstop Rule) for Local Government (SC AQMD) 4. Receive and File: Orange County Transportation Element Amendment T94-1. IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 5. Adoption of Resolution #94-1 Minor Plan Review #93-8/1113 Ocean Avenue 6. Adoption of Resolution #94-2 CUP #92-26/3001 Old Ranch Pkwy.lTortilla Beach 7. Adoption of Resolution #94-3 CUP #91-15/330F Main St./Cafe Lafayette 8. Adoption of Resolution #94-4 CUP #92-25/1400 Pacific Coast HWY.lGlider Inn 9. Consideration of change of Planning Commission weekday and time. . . .1 . V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Height Variation #94-1 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 254 Sixth Street Ericksen Construction Ericksen Family Trust To construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the height limit in conjunction with the construction of a new single family dwelling at 254 6th Street. 11. Conditional Use Permit #93-15 [Continued from 1-5-94] Address: Business: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VIT. STAFF CONCERNS VITI. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT 900 Ocean Avenue Ruby's Restaurant Lee Riley/Ruby's Restaurant City of Seal Beach To remodel and expand an existing restaurant (Ruby's) through the addition of approximately 765 square feet of outdoor seating area (south end of municipal pier), a 170 square foot multipurpose room (north side of the restaurant), adding a wooden monument sign (30 square feet), a new garage to house a private tram for transporting customers, a larger trash enclosure and new landscaping at foot of pier. The remodel will integrate the existing restrooms into the interior of the restaurant and add new exterior restrooms for public access. . . . Page 3 - Seal Beach Planning CommissiClll Aaeoda for JanWll)' 19, 1994 1994 AGENDA FORECAST FEll. .. :).~-:;.:..;. FBWl~~~_.. .. . -.. . .~. . . .... :o..!> ...... . ""'0 ':. " .::!. ~ . ... . .:......... .......:. '::?:'" .........: ....~.:.:- ,. , . <<.... CUP #93-2/901 Ocean/Kinda Lahaina @ 12 mos/ABC ~"T.l"'fi".... 'x".&rn:~~' _ 1~:~~:l:~*r4>>f~:~ ". . !. ~ ~ ~ ~; . ... ::.: . . ~o)'x....."".. .~.. . ~;- ~~~~. ...... . ~Hmr_ ~M~~....:: .' ~:...' . gt'V.r>: ".":.:.1':' ........... >: ~~ ~M'Y~;' . ~!. .. ""1'0" . .L:O' "". ... .. ... ....'<(oN..... -:0....... ..... ....:v:::. ~:' . -e::w::::. CUP #9 - ~~~- ~->> ..... ....->>: .~~'t~_'" .,' t~~~,::t::tc~~I.~. .:0.. . Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman CUP #92-21101 Main/SeaSide GriWReview hours extension. 'ff.:~;~l'\~.'[~~ .. ". _~ ., . . J..g'D::'~\I:~:*....~...~ .:-' .)(.... ... .. . .. ", .10 -::. .... ........:s:;:;......::t:. ~ . , ~.u.G.:::_.:,;". ..... . .' :-'0'0"'-::>. .::. . ,'.. :.. ,,!., ..... . .. ..... ..$f....:,....... .....-.:~~....".. - : . ~." '. '; '$. -.... . . : SBPZm::'~.>~~,f!\:~~M >>;:.;.~~~~ Sm1_ -:v->.:::.:wx....... ~M . - . .... '", ," . .:0:." '. .' ':0-: '. ~~:n~.~__._ ~:. :-~.' ~~ . ::. . : ~. . . . Page 4 - Seal Beach PIanniug Commission Agmda for January 19, 1994 ~....~.u",...,.._..,.. . C. .... .. ;0' .". . "':: ... . "'. :':: ..: . ... !5 t~_~CUP #92-13/143 Main/Papillon's/12 mos entertainment STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED . ZTA #92-2 - ACTION: City-wide policy statement on entertainment. STATUS: Pending City Manager's input. . ZTA # -- - ACTION: ZTA needed. STATUS: Director to prepare staff report. . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES of JANUARY 19, 1994 Vice Chairman Soukup called the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairman Soukup Commissioners Sharp, Campbell, Law Also Present: De,partment of DevelQpment Services: Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January S, 1994 Motion by Sharp; Second by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January S, 1994 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Sharp, Law, Campbell Soukup Dahlman Chairman Dahlman arrived at 7:38 p.m. Director Whittenberg stated the following three reports have been provided to the Planning Commission for information. The reports were considered by the City Council at their January 10, 1994 meeting and the Council responded to the various agencies; responses included. 2. Receive and File: Review of Final Draft AICUZ Study, Los Alamitos Army Airfield. Commissioner Campbell, referencing page 2 of the Council's January 11, 1994 letter to LTC Ghormley, read: Page 2 - Planning COr.1mission t1inutes of January 19, 1994 . "The City is also concerned that the "Draft Bixby Old Ranch Project Aviation Impact Analysis" prepared ... by Aries Consultants ... was not referenced or utilized in the preparation of the Final Draft A.ICUZ Report. This document was provided to the Los Alamitos AFRC for review and comments many months ago, and the consultant has had many contacts with the AFRC in preparing their document. It would seem appropriate to utilized iriformation from that Draft Report, ifit is an accurate reflection of conditions at the Los Alamitos AFRC". She disagreed with this statement, saying the two documents need to be kept separate. She felt integrating the documents would compromise the integrity of each report. She said she wanted to know what Aries Consultants, Ltd. and the Air Station comes up with independently. She asked when the Commission would received a copy of the Aviation Report? Director Whittenberg said the Aviation Report would be released as a part of the Draft EIR on the Bixby project; after the EIR is complete. There is no date at this time. Commissioner Campbell said she was distressed to see that College Park East is now included inside the noise contours in the AICUZ Report. The clear zone was shortened to less than what is required for a Class B runway --- 3,000 feet is required and now it's down to the property line, to 1,800 feet. She asked why and said this is not acceptable. . Director Whittenberg explained this is why staff feels they need to utilize some of the information from the more recent Aries studies. The information referenced in the AICUZ study is from 1987 - 1989. There is more recent information available and staff feels the more recent information should be used in their document to more accurately reflect existing conditions. Commissioner Campbell said she would like to see them come up with their own data and statistics. Director Whittenberg agreed, noting the AFRC provided the City more recent information regarding numbers of flight operations, flight paths and other technical information and they are not using this newer information in their own AICUZ study. He explained the thrust of the City's response letter to the AFRC was that if they are going to lessen the required footage for a Class B runway, based on their own criteria, they need to document what steps they took to arrive at that point. They have not done this in their report. Commissioner Campbell said the Los Alamitos AFRC provides vital services to Southern California and the mission of the air station cannot be compromised. . Chairman Dahlman asked how the number of flight operation interfaced with the noise contours? Director Whittenberg explained the noise contours are generated by a combination of the type of aircraft, the number of flights that type of aircraft flies over the area and the flight paths. The AFRC is using outdated information by referencing . . . Page 3 - Sea1 Beach PIanniac Cclmmia.ioo Minutlll of JIDIW)' 19, 1994 the 1987 studies. They need to use their more current information. Between the years of 1987 and 1993 the type of aircraft using the Los Alamitos AFRC has changed dramatically, the newer helicopters have different noise-generating characteristics than what they used to model noise contours in 1987. The City is concerned that honest noise contour lines are drawn, not picking up a low usage point; the models are based on a yearly average. Commissioner Campbell said that for years the AFRC has been telling the residents of College Park East that they do not fly over College Park East, they fly through the Naval Weapons Station and Lampson Avenue. Now, the noise contours have been moved so the Bixby property is free of a clear zone and noise contours and the noise contours have been moved over to College Park East. Director Whittenberg clarified that the AICUZ study's noise contours are based on a noise assessment done by the Army in 1987. The noise contours in the Draft AICUZ study are not new. The City feels these contours are inaccurate. Commissioner Campbell asked that if this map has existed since 1987, why has the AFRC been telling the City it has not'] Mr. Whittenberg said he felt their practice is different from what this modeled map shows. If a newer map were used, he didn't believe College Park East would be in a noise impacted area. Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Campbell if there was something specific she would like done, for example, ask the City Council review this letter again, or modify it? Commissioner Campbell said she did not want the integrity of either document compromised. 3. Receive and File: Review of Draft Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule 1504 (Backstop Rule) for Local Government (SC AQMD) There were no Commission comments. 4. Receive and File: Orange County Transportation Element Amendment T94-1. Chairman Dahlman asked if the City received a response from Mr. Thomas, EMA Transportation Planning? Mr. Whittenberg said no, indicating the letter was mailed January 11th. Regarding the extension of Edinger Avenue through the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, he added the City has been making the same comments since 1989. The City has also made these same comments to the County Board of Supervisors. However the County Board of Supervisors and the County's administrative offices are unwilling to delete the proposed extension of Edinger Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. . . . Page 4. Seal Belch PIaaaio& CommiI8iClIl Minuta of ll1Dl181Y 19, 1994 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to receive and fde the above-referenced three reports. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Soukup, Campbell SCHEDULED MATTERS 5. Adoption of Resolution #94-1 Minor Plan Review #93-8/1113 Ocean Avenue MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 94-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Campbell Soukup *** 6. Adoption of Resolution #94-2 CUP #92-26/3001 Old Ranch Pkwy./Tortilla Beach Commission Dahlman stated he would not support approval of this resolution until the restaurant is in compliance with all conditions, particularly furnishing the City a copy of ABC's conditions of approval. Mr. Whittenberg said the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is behind the City in processing their approvals. It may not be Tortilla Beach's fault that they were not able to furnish them a copy of their own conditions. Commissioner Dahlman said this is an indefinite extension, after having a permit in effect for one year --- they are five months late. Additionally, he indicated the Commission may have had other comments had they seen the ABC's conditions. Commissioner Sharp suggested approval with a stipulation that if the ABC conditions are not received this CUP will be brought back to the Commission in six months. Commissioner Soukup agreed that he would not want to approve this resolution until the restaurant complied with all the City's conditions. Mr. Steele advised that if the Commission feels there is a violation of the CUP, the Commission could modify or revoke the CUP. He cautioned the Commission about holding up an approval of an existing use based on another agency's failure to expedite processing of a document. Chairman Dahlman said he was not sure this was the case. The lack of ABC conditions was discussed when the Commission heard this matter. He noticed in was not a part of . . . Page 5 - Seal Beach PIaoniua Cammi88ioa Minutcll of JmllAl)' 19, 1994 the staff report and asked for the document to be brought to this meeting. It is not here and the applicant was not present to provide it. Commissioner Sharp agreed, noting it would be better to tie up any loose ends prior to approval. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to continue approval of Resolution No. 94-2 until the February 9, 1994 Planning Commi~Ciion meeting to allow staff to contact ABC and/or the applicant. Staff will report back to the Commi~ion. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Campbell, Dahlman, Law, Soukup *** 7. Adoption of Resolution #94-3 CUP #91-15/330F Main St./Cafe Lafayette MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to adopt Resolution No. 94-3. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Campbell Soukup *** 8. Adoption of Resolution #94-4 CUP #92-25/1400 Pacific Coast Hwy./Glider Inn Mr. Steele made two corrections to this resolution: Page 1: Delete at the caption "An indefinite extension of CUP No. 92-25, permitting ..." Page 3: Delete at Section 6 "... an indefmite extension ..." MOTION by Law; SECOND by Campbell to adopt Resolution No. 94-4 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: Law, Campbell, Dahlman, Sharp Soukup *** . . . Page 6 - Seal Beach PIanninc Commiasioo Minutes of lanuary 19, 1994 9. Consideration of change of Planning Commi~ion weekday and time. Chairman Dahlman requested to defer consideration of this agenda item until after the Public Hearing. There being no objection, it was so ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Heipt Variation #94-1 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 254 Sixth Street Ericksen Constroction Ericksen Family Trust Staff Re.port Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. This is a request to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the height limit in conjunction with the construction of a new single family dwelling at 254 6th Street. Mr. Curtis introduced a letter from Laura Brecht, 242 Sixth Street, Seal Beach in opposition for the Record. [Attached]. Commission Comments on Staff Re.port Commissioner Campbell said there are no CRASs in College Park East and asked why people wanted to get out and onto their roofs. The Commission explained roof deck usage. Public Hearing Lynn Ericksen * Ericksen Construction (No Address Given) * Seal Beach Mr. Ericksen addressed his comments to Mrs. Brecht's opposing letter and presented four photographs of this house and 242 Sixth Street. He stated that Ericksen construction built Mrs. Brecht's house at 242 Sixth Street and it has a CRAS which is larger and taller than this one. The deck at 242 Sixth Street is 1.5 feet higher than this deck. The Brecht's are approximately 130 feet away from 254 Sixth Street and the proposed CRAS would obscure about 3 % of their view of trees. The height and proposed dimensions of the proposed CRAS are below the minimum dimensions set by City~. The last six houses Ericksen construction built have not had CRASs but in this house, because of the rear setback, they can't put a certain staircase to eliminate the CRAS. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of this application. Bill Brecht * 242 Sixth Street. Seal Beach Mr. Brecht spoke in opposition to this application. He said the deck and CRAS at 242 Sixth Street are not what is at issue at this time. He felt the definition of "primary view" is in the eye of the beholder. He and his wife use their roof deck a lot and they want to minimize any encroachment on their view. While the CRAS at 254 Sixth Street is not a significant . . . Page 7 . Seal Beach Planning Cclmmia.ioa MinutcB of Il11l11l1l'Y 19, 1994 encroachment on their view, it does block their view of the greenbelt, the trees and to a slight extent the mountains. He stated he wanted to bring another issue to the Commission's attention. He said he felt he should be able to bring any matter before the Commission without fear of intimidation or harassment. He accused Lynn Ericksen threatened his wife. "I must report to you a very unfortunate incident that occurred today, whereby Mr. Ericksen, Mr. Lynn Ericksen, came to my home and threatened my wife on the third floor of our home by saying essentially that if she did not or we did not cooperate by removing our objection to this cupola, that they would make life difficult for us in this town, particularly in regard to the hot tub that we have on our third floor deck ...". Commissioner Soukup asked Mr. Brecht to clarify the connection to the hot tub per the alleged threat. Mr. Brecht explained that Mr. Ericksen asked them to remove their complaint to his CRAS application or he would make life difficult before the Commission or the City Engineer because they have a hot tub on their roof deck, indicating the hot tub may be illegal. Mr. Brecht said the hot tub was there when he bought the home. Chairman Dahlman said this is a friendly small town and he wanted to consider this application on its merits and apart from any other matters. The Commission has no power to remedy problems as stated by Mr. Brecht. Mr. Steele said this matter could be referred to the City's Police Department but not to the Planning Commission. David Rosenman * 208 Eighth Street. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman spoke in opposition to this application, asking if this is a signal to revisit the entire CRAS issue. He saw no merit to the community in this application. He wondered if Mr. Brecht's testimony didn't address the potential credibility of previous persons testifying. Commissioner Sharp said he felt Mr. Rosenman was out of line trying to bring Mr. Brecht's allegation back up because the City Attorney said that should not pertain to consideration of this application. Mr. Rosenman felt this is a vertical encroachment into the skyline and didn't hear testimony as to why it is essential. Chairman Dahlman said the Commission spent two or three years working on a CRAS ordinance. The City was faced with many CRAS problems and many varying opinions. Finally, specific and minimal CRAS sizes were decided upon. The ordinance does not specify an applicant must show a need to have a CRAS. Mr. Steele agreed, stating the ordinance sets out four specific Commission-required findings. . . . PIce 8 - Seal Beach PIam1iaa CmImisaiClIl Minutel of 1anuary 19, 1994 Rebuttal Lynn Ericksen said he did go on the Brecht's roof deck, showing he what he saw in the photos. He told Mrs. Brecht he had built her house and he also thought their spa was illegal because their roof deck railing is three feet high and the space is 30 inches high. The spa is right against the railing and there is a chance of falling 25 feet down onto concrete. He was concerned for their safety and the safety of their two children. There is essentially no guard railing there. Additionally, the roof deck of the house at 254 Sixth Street is over 2.5 times stronger than the Brecht's. The Brecht's have re-roofed their house and there is a lot of weight on that third floor. Chairman Dahlman said it sounds like a dangerous situation. If the City had not known about this, the City would have no liability. But now the City is aware of this and staff will have to do something about this. Public Hearing closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Soukup said that after review of the staff report he realized the CRAS is 2' lower than necessary, the size is at a minimum and the architecture does match the building. CRASs are allowed if they fit certain criteria and that would make it difficult to deny the application. Commissioner Soukup asked the Brecht's if they have a CRAS on their home? They said they do. Commissioner Soukup said he was not sure how he felt about their complaint with respect to that information. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to reopen the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Soukup, Campbell Public Hearing Mr. Brecht said he and his wife feel strongly about the Old Town area's character and if they had an alternate way to get to their roof deck they would remove their CRAS. From their deck they can see the Huntington Beach pier, Catalina Island and the Queen Mary. He had no basis to determine if the proposed CRAS would obstruct 3 % of his view. Mr. Curtis explained the arc of view obstruction, saying the City had an complaint from a neighbor of 1514 Ocean Avenue. That was 6% obstruction and the Commission did not feel that was obstructing primary view. In this case, the structures are at similar distances although this proposed CRAS is 50% smaller than the CRAS at 1514 Ocean Avenue. The applicant did not wish to make further comments and the Public Hearing was closed. PIce 9 - Seal Beach PIanoin& CommiJsioa Minutes olll11l1181)' 19, 1994 . Chairman Dahlman stated he was sorry to see anything about view included in this application because the matter is subject and difficult to resolve. He felt the Commission does not decide on whether they can have a CRAS based on their need and architectural review is limited to matching the existing structure. He had no objection to this CRAS because it's minimum in size and matches the rest of the house. Commissioner Law said she had no objections. Commissioner Sharp said the Commission spent at least two years getting this ordinance to where it is. This application meets all the criteria and he saw no reason to deny the application. Commissioner Campbell said a denial of this application would be to deny Mr. Ericksen the use of his roof deck. The eRAS is not blocking a major portion of the Brecht's view. Mr. Steele said the applicant submitted four photographs which he labeled "Applicant's Exhibit A" and it will be made part of the permanent record. [Attached]. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Soukup to approve Height Variation #94-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Soukup, Dahlman, Law, Campbell . MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Soukup to adopt Resolution No. 94-5, which approves Height Variation #94-1 with the following two corrections: Page 2: Correct (h) to read tiThe City received one written comment responding to the Notices of the hearing on HV #94-1, indicating opposition to the requesttl. Page 3: Correct (3) to read tlThere shall be no habitable space permitted within the covered roof access structuretl. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Soukup, Dahlman, Law, Campbell Mr. Steele noted that the adoption of Resolution No. 94-5 starts the fifteen (15) day appeal period and the Planning Commission's action is final this evening. *** . . . . P8&c 10 - Sell Beach PIanniog CclmmiIlioo MioufaI of JmUll)' 19, 1994 The Commission took a five minute recess. 11. Conditional Use Pennit #93-15 [Continued from 1-5-94] Address: 900 Ocean Avenue Business: Ruby's Restaurant Applicant: Lee RileylRuby's Restaurant Property Owner: City of Seal Beach Staff Re.port Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. This matter was continued from the January 5, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The request is to remodel and expand an existing restaurant (Ruby's) through the addition of approximately 765 square feet of outdoor seating area (south end of municipal pier), a 170 square foot multipurpose room (north side of the restaurant), adding a wooden monument sign (30 square feet), a new garage to house a private tram for transporting customers, a larger trash enclosure and new landscaping at foot of pier. The remodel will integrate the existing restrooms into the interior of the restaurant and add new exterior restrooms for public access. Commission Comments on Staff Re.port Turn Around on Pier Chairman Dahlman asked if it is wise for large City maintenance trucks to turn around on the pier, rather than backing up the length of the pier? Mr. Curtis said the sewer truck has no rear view possibilities so they must turn around. Parking Requirements Chairman Dahlman indicated the seating is being increased by 58 seats and asked about the parking requirements. Mr. Curtis said the parking requirements are triggered by square footage, noting the requested increase in square footage would require nine (9) additional parking spaces. ABC Paperwork Chairman Dahlman noted that Condition of Approval #15 requires the applicant to furnish the City a copy of their ABC license and any conditions placed by the ABC. Mr. Curtis said this is the frrst time this Condition has been required of Ruby's. Chairman Dahlman requested the words "As soon as it is received" be added to this Condition. Public Restroom Maintenance Commissioner Law asked who would be responsible for maintaining the public rest rooms? Mr. Whittenberg said the proposed Conditions would require Ruby's to perform the maintenance. Windbreak and Heating Commissioner Sharp asked the height of the exterior wind protector at the outdoor seating? Mr. Curtis said it's about 4th feet above the floor. No heating is provided in the request. Pace 11 . Seal Belch PIaoniDa (Dnmiuioo Minutes of 18D1181)' 19, 1994 . The Commission felt the 41h foot wind break would not be high enough to stop the wind off the end of the pier. Garbage Enclosure Commissioner Soukup noted the moving of the garbage enclosure outward, over the water, to accommodate the trash truck. He asked if it would extend over the water? Mr. Curtis said the extension would sit over the catwalk. The City's Public Works Department wanted that catwalk covered because it was a hidden spot on the pier. Garage Structure Commissioner Campbell asked if the garage structure would be located at the end of the pier? Mr. Whittenberg said it would be located in the parking lot, at the South side of the pier in an area that is unusable for anything else at this time. Commissioner Campbell said she thought the original tram was stored at a garage on First Street. Mr. Whittenberg said this is a much smaller vehicle than the tram. . Fund Requirements Commissioner Soukup said that when the pier was rebuilt in 1983, funds were solicited from various agencies. Stipulations were placed on these monies which required adherence to requirements allowing fishing and strolling and other pier uses. He asked if the Commission could see those documents? Staff said yes. Mr. Whittenberg noted the agreements are with the Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal Conservancy. Commissioner Soukup said the Coastal Conservancy has said the original 4' spacing between the proposed plan and the end of the pier was insufficient for both fishing and strolling and the discussion was left open-ended. While the applicant increased the project by 2' there is no letter from the Coastal Conservancy that that is alright. Mr. Whittenberg said that as a follow-up to his initial letter, he had a telephone conversation with the Coastal Conservancy and was told they don't feel 4' is enough but they would not state what is enough. They indicated that this matter must go before the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission will routinely refer it to the Coastal Conservancy. If, at that time, they feel 6' is insufficient, they will so inform the Coastal Commission. Fish and Game Agreement Commissioner Campbell asked if the pier is going to be extended to accommodate this proposal? Mr. Whittenberg said no. Commissioner Campbell said the Department of Fish and Game appears to have no concerns. She wondered if they were concerned about the Commission's concerns, such as the encroachment of the general public on the fishermen. She said a copy of the lease agreement was sent to the Sacramento office of the Department of Fish and Game. They wrote back saying we should contact Richard Nitsos, Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach. He was contacted today and stated he did not have a copy of this lease and that he is concerned about this project. She advised him to contact Mr. Whittenberg. Mr. Whittenberg said he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Nitsos, which was left at the point the Department of Fish and . . . . Page 12 - Seal BeaI:h PIanniDc Cclmmiaaioa Minutes of JIIlIIaI)' 19, 1994 Game has no formal comments. If the project is approved by the City, they will make their comments to the Coastal Commission. Regarding the Coastal Conservancy, Commissioner Campbell noted they are concerned about the possibility of conflict between the public and the fishermen. The 6' of available space leaves 3' for the fishermen and 3' for public access. Concerned about City liability, she felt 6' is not enough space because the fishermen have lures et cetera which could endanger pedestrians at a close proximity. She asked if the City has guidelines on how much space the fishermen need? Mr. Whittenberg said the existing benches along the pier is 2' from the face of the pier itself. This would be basically the same distance they now operate in. Commissioner Campbell asked if the area separating the fishermen from the public is one rail, expressing concern that if the fishermen place equipment on the pier, it won't fall into pedestrian access'] Mr. Whittenberg said the separation is the back of a bench -- about 3th'. Commissioner Campbell said a simple rail, 3' to 3th' above the ground, is insufficient to protect the public. Something solid would be needed from the ground to that 3th' height to prevent fishing equipment from rolling into the path of people strolling. Coastal Commission Commissioner Campbell asked if the Coastal Commission has been contacted, or does the City need to fmalize a plan and then contact them? Mr. Whittenberg said the California Coastal Commission will not consider a request or provide any formal comments until the City has taken an action on an application. Fishermen Notified Commissioner Campbell asked if the fishermen have been notified of this proposed expansion? Has a Notice been posted at the end of the pier? Mr. Whittenberg said no Notice was posted at the end of the pier. A Notice was published in the Sun newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 300' as required by State law. Expansion to Coincide with Pier Re,pairs Chairman Dahlman asked if the work on this application would be scheduled to coincide with the pier repair work? Mr. Whittenberg said he was not certain of this applicant's schedule should it be approved. Landscaping Commissioner Campbell said Ruby's plans include re-Iandscaping the area where the sign will be placed. She asked if Ruby's plans to pay for maintenance of that landscaping? Mr. Curtis said the Public Works Department is not certain who will be required to maintain this landscaping since the City currently maintains the existing landscaping. The Public Works Department is to discuss this with the applicant. Coastal Commission's Conditions Over-ride City's Conditions Commissioner Sharp said the Commission is snagged on their concerns for the fishermen and . . . Plgc13 . Seal Belch PIaJmiDa CommiasiOll MinuteI of JIOIII1)' 19, 1994 pedestrians. He noted three agencies are involved, the City, the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy. He said no one will do anything until someone else takes action, so he felt the City must make a decision. If the City's decision is not compatible with the other agencies, they will come back to the City and ask them to change it. Mr. Whittenberg said the Coastal Commission will take an action to approve or deny a project. If a project is approved with conditions, those will be the conditions the applicant is able to get a permit under and those will be the over-riding conditions, regardless of what the City places on the applicant. Public Hearing Lee Riley * Ruby's Restaurant Group Mr. Riley introduced himself as the applicant. Regarding outdoor dining, he said Ruby's has found outdoor dining to be an important amenity in choosing a restaurant. Also, people enjoying the beach are reluctant to an indoor restaurant due to their beach attire; they are more comfortable dining outside. Additional patrons means additional tax revenue to the City. Regarding restrooms, he said the current configuration is unsatisfactory because the two restrooms are entered from outside the restaurant and are used by restaurant patrons and the public. The restaurant staff has no direct sighting of who is using the facilities. There has been an on-going problem with vandalism, graffiti and fishermen using the restrooms to clean fish. Ruby's has found it almost impossible to keep up with the strict Orange County Health Department standards for food service establishments. Their proposal is to reconfigure the restrooms, making the entry/exit from the restaurant's interior, allowing Ruby's staff to maintain a better level of service for their patrons. Ruby's proposes to build two new restrooms in accordance with City requirements to be as vandal-resistant as possible. If there's a problem with the new restrooms, the public would be allowed to use the restaurant's restrooms. Ruby's suggests signage for handicapped persons to use the restaurant's two interior restrooms. Regarding the area for food pre.paration and storage, these areas have always been deficient. Being 1800' from land, they don't have the availability of grabbing something from an adjacent storage shed. Regarding the mm, the lease between the City and Ruby's calls for the City to provide tram service to the public. The cessation of tram service from the base of the pier to Ruby's since the fire has had a definite adverse impact on Ruby's. The re-establishment of the City's tram service is slim. Ruby's is willing to purchase a tram and provide a driver so that Ruby's patrons will have better access to the restaurant. Regarding the tram garage, they originally wanted it near the transformer area, next to the restaurant. In response to comments from the Coastal Conservancy and the City's Department of Public Works, Ruby's decided to move the garage to the foot of the pier, below the down- coast ramp near the south parking lot. . . . Page 14 . Seal Beach PIaaniu& Commis.illll Minutes of January 19, 1994 Regarding the trash bins relocation, the City's Public Works Department wanted them pushed up against the perimeter railing of the pier to alleviate a blind spot. This will eliminate an unsafe place. Regarding the sil:n and landscapinl:, the present landscaping is neglected and the newsracks are ugly. Ruby's proposes a 3' high x 10' long monument sign in a smooth wood finish. On the ends they would have small reader board menus. The sign would serve to screen the newsracks from public view from Ocean Avenue and Main Street. To mitigate the placement of the signs they are offering to re-landscape to City desires. Ruby's will install whatever the Public Works Department deems appropriate but they are not willing to maintain the area. Ruby's feels the City should continue to maintain the area landscaping. Ruby's needs a sign because the pier is 1800' from the street and the restaurant's sign can't be read. Mr. Riley said Ruby's is the only restaurant in the City that doesn't have a sign on a parking lot or on the street to identify it. Chairman Dahlman indicated Ruby's is the only restaurant on the pier. Regarding the thirty-five City Conditions of Approval: 3. The proposed exterior exit from the outdoor dining area shall be an emergency exit only/handicapped entrance and shall remain closed at all times, except during an emergency or when specifically in use by a physically challenged patron. Said emergency exit/handicapped entrance shall be equipped with code compliant panic hardware. Mr. Riley said the intent of this Condition is to prohibit an opening to a public area from a facility serving alcohol. Ruby's wants a two-way door, noting a physically challenged patron would need to enter the restaurant from the outdoor facility through that door. Substitute proposed by Ruby's: 3. The proposed exterior entry/exit door from the outdoor dining area shall accommodate handicapped persons and shall remain open during all business hours. Said door shall be equipped with code compliant panic hardware. A sign shall be placed on the interior side of the door with the statement "No Alcoholic Beverages Beyond This Point". 4. The applicant shall maintain the new exterior restrooms in a clean and sanitary manner at all times. This Condition is totally unacceptable to Ruby's. By Ruby's providing the two new pier restrooms, as mitigation, covers Ruby's responsibilities. These restrooms will not be serving the restaurant, they will be serving the fishermen and the public. . . . Page IS - Seal Beach PIanniJIg Cammisaioo Minutca of January 19, 1994 Chairman Dahlman, noted Ruby's is on City property via a lease with the City. The Planning Commission has nothing to do with the lease and said he had no problem deleting this Condition. Mr. Steele said it is matter within the Commission's discretion to delete or not delete this Condition. 6. the applicant shall relocate the existing fresh water meter, including the installation of a new shutoff valve, to a location acceptable to the City of Seal Beach Department of Public Works'. the existing water service to the bait house shall be relocated to coincide with the relocated meter. and 7. the applicant shall assume responsibility for maintenance of all water services seaward (south) of the relocated fresh water meter. the reason for this condition is that all water services seaward of the relocated meter will service on the pier restaurant. Mr. Riley said there is no problem with these Conditions, and Ruby's is not asking for changes, as long as it is understood that Ruby's is responsible for the plumbing that's under the pier only from the down-stream side of those water meters on. Ruby's wants this noted for the Record. 11. the tram storage garage shall be sided and painted in a manner consistent with the adjacent retaining wall and shall be maintained free from graffiti. Ruby's objects to the language regarding graffiti removal. It's not efficient for Ruby's to be responsible for only a portion of the area and suggested the graffiti removal be done all at one time with Ruby's paying its share of those costs. Mr. Steele said that is a matter that can be worked out between the applicant and staff under the existing language. Chairman Dahlman said he preferred a green plant, like ivy, growing on the wall. Then it would look good and monies would not have to be spent on graffiti removal. Mr. Curtis said the area is sitting on a 2' thick concrete slab and it may cost more to tear out that slab than to remove the graffiti. Chairman Dahlman suggested a heavy and well- secured planter could be a solution. 28. 7here shall be no live entenainment, amplified music, or dancing permitted on the premises at any time, unless specifically authorized by a conditional use permit issued by the City and unless such uses are consistent with the license . . . Pago 16 - Seal Beach PIaIminc Commialiaa Minutes of IIDUII)' 19. 1994 conditions imposed by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Mr. Riley said Ruby's has an existing amplification system for background music and public address paging. Ruby's requests they be allowed to keep their amplification system. Mr. Steele said this Condition might be modified to accommodate Ruby's concerns by inserting the word "live" between the words "amplified" and "music". Mr. Riley stated the Planning Commission is looking at the third set of plans drawn for this application. Ruby's has responded to many concerns, including the Coastal Conservancy and the City. Take-Out Window Commissioner Soukup asked if Ruby's has a take-out window and what percent of the restaurant's revenue does it provide? Mr. Riley said yes, but it's operation in the summer months. It provides 15% - 20% of the revenue in the summer and the patrons use the pier's benches to sit to eat. Protecting the Fishermen Commissioner Soukup noted he did not hear Mr. Riley's comments address co-existence with the fishing and strolling activities. His problem was the encroachment of the space allocated for the outdoor dining patio with fishing and strolling activities. The Planning Commission may require the buffer zone between the outdoor dining and the existing activities be increased. Mr. Riley said this question has always been a quandary, posing the question of how much area is needed for fishing and strolling? The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires certain aisle widths for handicapped access, the minimum being 5'. The turn-arounds must be 5' in diameter. Ruby's has wrestled with a formula for an adequate mix, noting there is an abundance of fishing areas on the sides of the pier and an area will remain at the end of the pier for fishing. Through the three plan modifications, Ruby's has eliminated eight (8) seats in order to pull back that outdoor dining area and give greater fishing access. Mr. Riley said Ruby's was surprised when the Public Works Department asked to have 14' of benches removed to accommodate fishermen standing by waiting to go on the fishing boats. Commissioner Soukup said he would like the benches to stay. Additionally, with respect to the benches that were removed to accommodate the patio going out towards the end of the pier, Commissioner Soukup said Ruby's is removing eighteen seats for the fishermen and a public barrier. He would like to see this dropped back 2' to provide a 8' overall width, Ruby's would lose four seats (next to the bus stations) in the plans. Commissioner Soukup felt this would be a reasonable compromise --- it would maintain the existing facilities for the fishermen, Ruby's giving up four seats, increasing 18 seats for their take-out business. Mr. Riley said Ruby's has pulled back by eliminating eight seats from the original plan. Ruby's would be losing the booths that seat four people --- they would become booths that sit two persons. Mr. Riley said John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, should address this situation as he has done studies to achieve an optimum solution. . . . Page 17 - Seal Beach PIaoniDc Commia8iOll Minutca of Januuy 19, 1994 Commissioner Soukup said he could see why Ruby's would want to maximize their seating, but not at the expense of the existing facilities for the rest of the public. Mr. Riley said Ruby's does want to maximize their seating but on two occasions has pulled this back. David Rosenman * 208 8th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman, speaking in favor of the application, said Ruby's is a Seal Beach tradition. He felt a 30 square foot sign is too large and is out of scale for the front end of the pier. He suggested postponing a vote on this application in order to stake off the property, showing the dimensions of the changes, to allow a better view of what is proposed. John Loomis * 30th Street Architects Mr. Loomis said his fIrm is the architect for this applicant and also for the original building. Regarding strolling, the ability to walk around the pier has been improved because the west side stair barriers have been changed to a ramp. The proposed design provides complete ADA compliance. Regarding fIshing, the opportunities have not been diminished. Thirty-six feet of bench will be removed at the end of the pier and that could increase depending on whether the Commission supports the recommendation. The balance of the benches along the 1800' sides of the pier still remain. They met with City staff extensively, and the dimension arrived at was felt to be very adequate to accommodate both standing fishing functions (with no benches) and passers by. While there is no barrier at that point, the 6' dimension is in excess of what exists at this time. Regarding getting rid of two sets of two person tables on either side of the restaurant doorway in the center of the deck and then to pull the deck seating back to 8' does not work because of the door. The door has been recessed back as far as possible. On the swing side of the door a 5' landing is legally mandated before you can have a step. If the deck is reduced beyond a certain point, Ruby's would have to consider the economics of the proposal. Chairman Dahlman asked how much wind protection and heating will be provided? Mr. Loomis said 41h'. This was done intentionally to minimize view impact. A typical table height is 28" - 30" and when sitting down, the glass would be above a patron's head. The owners would like to have free-standing gas heaters on the patio. Commissioner Soukup asked Mr. Loomis to review the 5' landing requirements. Mr. Loomis explained the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires door coming from the center of the building onto the deck area to have 22" from the fullest part of the door's wing to the fIrst riser. There's one step, 6" step at that point. It's at the minimum legal dimension now. Commissioner Soukup said if Ruby's were to comply with his personal request to bring the four- seaters in line with the counter seating, the two-seaters would not exist at the front of the wall. How would that change the 22" dimension to the step? Mr. Loomis explained that you have a step for a protruding platform that cuts into the aisle servicing those booths. If pulled back, . . . Pace 18 - Seal Beach PIaoniog Cnmmi..inn Minutca of 1111IIII')' 19. 1994 you'd have a 2' wide aisle and a step protruding about 2' into it. That step would stay in the same location but the aisle would come back 2' --- you wouldn't have an adequate aisle to service the seating. Commissioner Soukup asked if the deck seating could then be increased? Mr. Loomis said the deck seating was increased. Commissioner Soukup asked if it was an architectural value judgement to lose the center table or the accommodations for the fishermen? Mr. Loomis said he is not trying to take anything away from the fishermen. Observing fishing at any pier, he notes that some fishermen like to stand even when benches for sitting are available. The ability to fish remains. The area behind a standing fisherman at the end of the pier would be an aisle that could be used by fishermen and/or strollers. Commissioner Soukup, noting the present benches can be used by anyone, said he has a philosophical problem with removing an existing, operating amenity. Mr. Loomis said their considerations involving the loss of 36' of bench at the end was viewed by them in terms of 3000' of bench footage on the pier; 1/1Oth of 1 %. Beach Chairs Commissioner Sharp asked if there is a City ordinance prohibiting people from taking portable chairs onto the pier? Mr. Whittenberg said beach chairs are permitted on the pier. Mr. Loomis said their plan is to provide a continuous aisle way where the fishermen could wait in line. Parking Chairman Dahlman asked what the requirement is for operating a chartered fishing facility on the pier and will this be addressed by the Main Street Specific Plan? Mr. Whittenberg said there is no parking requirement for the existing restaurant or for the chartered fishing operation. The Main Street Specific Plan will address the parking demands for all of Main Street. Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification. Mr. Whittenberg said there are no parking requirements for Ruby's restaurant as it exists and there will be no parking requirements for it when it's remodeled. The parking for the restaurant, the bait shop, fishing boat operation is dealt with under the lease and is provided in the City's beach parking lots. Restroom Maintenance Commissioner Law asked who will maintain the exterior restrooms? Mr. Whittenberg said he could not directly answer the question. If approved by the Planning Commission, the City Council and the Coastal Commission and if Condition #4 is removed, the only time this will come up is as part of a lease re-negotiation. Until that time, the City would be responsible to maintain the public restrooms. The restrooms under the pier are now maintained by City staff but he didn't know what the maintenance schedule is. Chairman Dahlman noted Mr. Riley did offer to direct patrons to a nicer restroom facility into the interior restrooms and he felt that was a reasonable compromise. No one wished to speak against the application. . . . Page 19 - Seal Beach PIaDniDa Cclmmisaioa Minutea of JIllUUY 19, 1994 The applicant did not wish to rebut. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Parkin~ - Commissioner Soukup said because the pier is a public land area and because the beach parking lots exist to service the public, he could see Ruby's restaurant needs served by the City lots. Hopefully the Main Street Specific Plan would add metered or timed parking in those lots, so patrons would not get stuck with a $5 - $6 parking ticket to eat at Ruby's. The patrons must be paying for parking or parking on Main Street because Ruby's is busy. He did not think the Commission could require parking in a zone that did not require parking. Chairman Dahlman noted that other restaurants who wished to expand their facilities have been asked to pay into the City's current in-lieu parking program for deficient parking. Why should Ruby's be an exception? Commissioner Sharp felt the lease excepted them. Commissioner Soukup noted the beach parking lot is huge and is under-utilized most of the year. There are plenty of spaces to accommodate Ruby's patrons. There was a question as to whether Ruby's patrons pay the beach parking lot fee of $5 or park elsewhere. Commissioner Soukup's position was the Commission didn't have a legal position to mandate parking fees from Ruby's because of their proximity to the beach lot. Commissioner Law asked if metered parking was going into the beach lot and if so, when? Mr. Whittenberg said the proposal is not to put meters in the beach parking lot but to change the system of receiving a ticket on entry and pay on a sliding scale on usage of the lot. This work is being done through the City's Finance Department and he was not sure of their schedule. Condition #15 Chairman Dahlman indicated Condition #15 must reflect the City's receipt of ABC conditions as soon as they are received. Condition #3 Mr. Steel said staff feels that the applicant's substituted Condition #3 is acceptable to the City. Condition #21 Mr. Steel advised against the adoption of the addition to Condition #21 because it would put the Planning Commission in the difficult position of making some factual inquiries once the City determines security problems occur on the pier. That's not within the Commission's province. Condition #4 Commissioner Sharp said this should be handled by the lease and should not be in this CUP. . . . Page 20 - Seal Beach PIaonioa Commi8sioo Minutes of 181l11l11)' 19, 1994 Condition #11 Graffiti removal be done at normal City schedules with the fair share cost of the removal for Ruby's be paid by Ruby's. Department of Fish & Game Commissioner Campbell said funding for the pier's restoration was given on the condition that fishing and strolling co-exist. It's therefore important not to encroach on either of these activities. She felt the area at the end of the pier is too narrow. When this restaurant was initially approved, it was scaled back to what it is now. This proposal enlarges the facility to the initial proposal, which was denied. The agreements prohibiting this level of expansion should still be in effect. She read from the lease with the Department of Fish and Game: Additions Outside the PrQject Area. No such alterations. addition and/or improvements which are adjacent to said project area or encroach upon the fishing space normally used in fishing from said area which might restrict or interfere with the primary purpose of the project shall be permitted without mitigation measures acceptable to the State and only with the express written approval of the State. It is understood that no fixture shall be constructed or placed adjacent to this subscribed project area which might restrict or interfere with the primary purpose of the project. Commissioner Campbell said the Commission should be speaking with the individual in Long Beach and this lease was sent to Sacramento. The person in Long Beach didn't get a copy of the lease. She proposed the vote on this application be postponed until the February 9th meeting so staff can follow-up with the Department of Fish & Game. Commissioner Sharp, referencing Commissioner Campbell's remarks on Ruby's original proposal, said the proposal was not turned down because of the size of the building, it was turned down because of the type of the business. Also, there are three agencies here and someone must act first. He indicated the Coastal Commission would over-ride a City approval if it's not what they want. "I hate to see us postpone this or to put a kink into it at our level when we really aren't the experts on it and the experts down the line are going to look at it". Commissioner Campbell said "We may not be the experts on it, but here's the lease right in front of us and it's with Fish & Game ... the lease was sent to Sacramento and the gentlemen said ... (Boyd Gibbons, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento) said if you have any questions contact the people in Long Beach. We did today. They have a problem with it. That is why I would like to see this postponed to the next session so that we can get with the gentlemen from Fish & Game and get it squared away. MOTION TO CONTINUE by Campbell; SECOND by Soukup to continue the Public Hearing on conditional Use Permit #93-15 to February 9, 1994. Before the vote the Public Hearing was re-opened with the Commission's consent. . . . Page 21 - Seal Beach I'IaImiDi CommiIIiOll Mioutea of Jmuuy 19, 1994 Lee Riley said the other agencies will have ample time to examine this application at the Coastal Commission level. Ruby's is trying to dovetail with the pier reconstruction. Any delay now would take Ruby's farther away from that goal. Mr. Whittenberg thought the contracts for the pier repairs would be awarded at the next City Council meeting. His best guess was that construction would begin in 30 to 60 days and it would take six to eight weeks to complete the project. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Riley if he thought he could get his project approved by the Coastal Commission in such a short time. Mr. Riley thought he could if everything works right. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Riley is he has talked to the Department of Fish and Game? Mr. Riley said he did not anticipate this. This is a lease between the City and Department of Fish and Game, not between Ruby's and the City. They have not reviewed the lease between the City and Department of Fish and Game. He will request a copy of that lease from the City and anything from the Coastal Conservancy. However, both agencies were petitioned for comments and both responded. He could not dispute the fact that the Long Beach office was not contacted. Commissioner Campbell said her problem is with encroachment at the end of the pier and this lease says specifically says you don't do that. Ruby's is encroaching and interfering with the fishing. Mr. Riley said he felt this determination has not been made by the Department of Fish and Game. The plans sent to Sacramento were reviewed there and their response was "no concerns". Commissioner Campbell said this must be continued and this must be ironed out. Chairman Dahlman said he thought the lease with the Department of Fish and Game controlled and it would be best to wait two weeks. Mr. Steele said the Commission is charged with making an independent decision on this issue of encroachment. The Commission has no real legal jurisdiction to enforce the lease between the City and the Department of Fish and Game. If the Department of Fish and Game feels its rights under the lease are being impaired by a City action then the Department of Fish and Game has its own legal remedies to take care of that problem, one of which is to provide input to the Coastal Commission. The Commission needs to separate the two issues. Enforcing the lease itself and delaying a decision in order to enforce the lease is not an appropriate Commission decision. The City has fulfilled its responsibilities by notifying the Department of this particular application and submitting the plans. Mr. Riley said he felt Ruby's was being drawn into the different levels at the Department of Fish and Game --- Sacramento versus Long Beach. The procedures are set out as to where plans are sent. The City correctly sent the plans to the headquarters in Sacramento. Mr. Steele clarified that any notice regarding the lease should be sent to the Department of Fish and Game in Sacramento. Mr. Steele cautioned the Commission to make a decision against enforcing the lease from the perspective of the Department. He urged the Commission to make a decision on the encroachment issue on their independent judgment. Commissioner Campbell said she was not . . . PagIl22 - Seal Beach l'I8Imin& Cclmmia.ioo Minufc8 of J8II\IaI)' 19, 1994 enforcing the lease but rather dealing with her problem on the end of the pier being narrowed down. Public Hearing was closed. Signage Chairman Dahlman said the sign needs further consideration. He suggested the sign read "Seal Beach Pier & Ruby's" not only "Ruby's". He said the City thinks of the pier as theirs and not Ruby's. He asked Mr. Riley to get together with staff on this issue for review at the continuation of the hearing. Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification on the sign. Mr. Whittenberg said the sign is part of the application and is in tqe PLU zone. There are no set criteria in that zone for sign heights, sizes etc. Commissioner Sharp said he didn't have a problem with the proposed sign. SUBSTITUTE MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permit #93-15 with changes to Conditions of Approval as follow and leaving the seating arrangement as proposed: 3. Use the appDcant's substituted wording. 4. Delete this Condition. 11. Graffiti removal be done at normal City schedules with the fair share cost of the removal for Ruby's be paid by Ruby's. 15. The City's receipt of ABC conditions as soon as they are received. 28. Add the word "Dve" between "ampllfied music". Before the vote, Mr. Steele said a Motion within the same subject matter can be substituted. MOTION FAILS: AYES: NOES: 2-3-0 Sharp, Law Dahlman, Campbell, Soukup *** Mr. Whittenberg reiterated Mr. Steele's comments on deferral to await the issue of the Department of Fish & Game. He said "I concur with his comments and I think it would be more appropriate if the Commission wished to take an action on the project to indicate what you feel is the appropriate width, approve the project in that nature and then let Coastal Commission and Fish and Game deal with it as they normally will through their process". Public Hearing opened with the consent of the Commission. . . . Page 23 - Seal Beach I'IanniJ!c CclmmiIIiOll Minutes of J8IIIIIIY 19, 1994 Chairman Dahlman said he would like to see more options considered on the signage. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission could delete the sign at this time and require them to come back at a later point for approval on the sign. Mr. Riley agreed. Chairman Dahlman indicated that still leaves discussion re the changes in the size of the application as proposed by Commissioner Soukup. this evening. Mr. Riley said Ruby's has a problem with this suggestion as it would result in the loss of eight seats. Commissioner Soukup dovetailed Commissioner Sharp's comments with his own comments. Whereas Commissioner Sharp says to approve the application as it is, with the changes noted, and if it's not good enough, another agency that has over-riding power will make the determination. His point of view is to scale it back to where there is no encroachment and Ruby's can fight the battle to increase it with another agency. If Ruby's wins they win. Mr. Riley says it doesn't work that way, in fact, it goes in the opposite direction. The Coastal. Commission does not have the ability to approve something that's in excess of what the City has approved; the City sets down the maximum allowed. The City is the lead agency and they can cut back from that. Commissioner Soukup said in that case Mr. Riley did not have his support for this seating configuration. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Campbell said it had been indicated she was trying to enforce the Department of Fish and Game lease. She said she was not trying to do this. She did not want the Commission to pass something that is in violation of or in contradiction to the lease. Again, the Public Hearing was re-opened to allow continuance of this Public Hearing. MOTION TO CONTINUE by Campbell; SECOND by Soukup to continue the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit #93-15 to February 9, 1994. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: NOES: 4-1-0 Campbell, Soukup, Dahlman, Law Sharp Mr. Whittenberg indicated no additional Noticing would be done. *** Chairman Dahlman called for a recess at 8:30 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:39 p.m. 9. Consideration of change of Planning Commi~ion weekday and time. The Commission discussed a possible change to the weekday and time of the Planning Commission meetings. Comcast has indicated that due to contractual relations, Tuesdays and . . . Pago 24 - Soal Beach PIaoniDg Commission Minutoa of Imuuy 19, 1994 Thursdays cannot be considered due to prior commitments. Chairman Dahlman said he would have a problem meeting earlier on Wednesdays. Commissioner Sharp felt meeting at 7:00 p.m. would be in line with the City Council meeting time. Commissioner Campbell said she would have a problem meeting Monday nights. Chairman Dahlman said the Commission must exercise some discipline regarding the length of meetings, noting the Commission cannot be expected to make good decisions at 4:00 a.m. Commissioner Soukup said Mondays and Wednesdays are alright with him. Commissioner Law said the Commission needs time to review their packets and if someone were to go away for a week-end, that would make it difficult to prepare for a Monday night meeting. Staff said they could try to get the packet to the Commissioners on Thursday but didn't think they could make Wednesdays. MOTION by Soukup; SECOND by Dahlman to receive and fIle the report, thus leaving the regularly scheduled Planning Commi~ion meetings as they are now scheduled. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Soukup, Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Campbell *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Over.pass at Seal Beach Blvd.l405 Freeway Commissioner Campbell said the overpass was to be retrofitted in 1991 and asked staff to check with Caltrans to see if it has been done or what the status is? Staff will check and report back. Brick Wall at Rossmoor Commission Sharp asked about the leaning brick wall. Director Whittenberg said an election is scheduled in Rossmoor to determine if they wish to take over the maintenance and repair the wall at their own expense. Neighborhood Watch Commissioner Soukup said citizens have expressed frustrations in trying to launch Neighborhood Watch programs. He asked staff to contact the Police Department to see if more follow-through can be achieved. Mr. Whittenberg said he would discuss this with the City Manager. Roof Deck Dan~ers Chairman Dahlman said testimony has been taken regarding the dangers of a hot tub on a roof deck. He wondered if the City should publicize some dangerous things that people could be . . . Pago 2S - SolI Bolch I'IaaniJIc Commiasioo Minutoa of JlIIIUIII)' 19, 1994 doing with their roof decks. This should identify a problem and state why it's dangerous. Exxon/Sewer Leak Chairman Dahlman asked if Exxon has made a public statement regarding the leak into the sewer system'] Mr. Whittenberg said no, the Orange County Sanitation District is investigating the cause of the sewer gas leak. The leak was initially reported by the City and the Orange County Sanitation personnel who were performing a normal check of the line. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~o-,~ Jo Fillmann Recording Secretary The Planning Commission Minutes of January 19, 1994 were approved by the Planning Commission on -3e'n ru..an .. ~ q) 1994. * ( ... . . cD [aura (jrecht 242 Sixth Street Seal (jeach, California 90140 /, Van, J 7, /0;91- UIJ of J fa) &aUj PI {ifJn/'!} Lammi.rJ/ dr) ~; He(qh-f Vor/afivn 91-/ ~ S1- rJ i tlh v-fr.et:I-, veal J'eo / ~ /- t'7 VT I ,L-C(. 7'0710 [)ROr- CDmm/ss/dnerJJ We lJaye reu./v-lJC'/ 'lour nOfia of PU~Jj~ ).J.R.arJhcj reqarcLiPlq k @;)Ore 1/Yl1.Jer. We.. tJf e. Ptf:J meorIJ f1Q,#'S #Jar !/ye. } () flu, 5 -1J. hOl/.Je V (N#; dl) Jixlh iff;-hJJ')? -I111'J Nul no/7U!. ul?c/er teJniflyvc/im ~ E j/ i U(Jen CtJnJhvciirn 4Jm;;Clny. -rhere hare ~ !/Onl:fvr/ ()fMr /JOrianGM' re.~lJeJ-Jed bLj cn'J::JJerJ u~ UJmprlntj /n -k bu//dJ~ dl- -/1c;j hr//71.e- ~ M ClYW~ -/111.. dn'veiJ1dj and j//ClUI'T/PU eqiU Cl/Jtltje.. fOr -I1rJJ' hr/fW!. Clnd ~ or. 'f-I! dl'r-t'd tine; d-fNr fY'IrJr. /Jo!7 ~ ~ ~ ..feel -/tJrU- J)/J/e IVJ ~ dj (J; cl/h tJ.. JtI (!1Jl , , ~ O~ hdl71.L and h'rfrYte. diretfit.J JYnptJ,CJJ r -j1JJ . N ~hfj(fr'hdD~ Ifi,e.. uhP.Jld h7re. ...<.~ ~~s4 A;'T/lCHMe-,u T 0'lh4 4 .. .. ~CRI'yed /1cJHu H"q6rcfinq .A A~ ~ CY -r~ pi Y p'Ov-eJ O-l-};;\ .., /lV// I Or: tk?V. rtJ hlJ J{)U ci-f OUr vYnJi ~~ 13 ft, JV.:. ZJ/nJ/YucJ7'm of-lk CQJreH'ci rU.J/ ac..eesJ"' iffnJdUle O+.J/l).r /}cJm.e. We are cJG.J!1 ()vers" oF- oUr roo-f 1v P ciL[)( afJd ObJ "€'u-Io -/I..€,. 6J()cK.a~ of (/l{/) Vlew of '.fN., motif/faim (drrCj cUa y da-q) IF ./11.i.r vJrUdz.!K:. ~J boJ I/-/! 1J(e- -IhoYo{)tJhJ<j /41jr:J, hatJlr:}1J1N~) UI..f-fa Of)d (/ d6 nor t:e.eI /ho a UJ~ . mol- ac.auS uf>cJc/V~ {/)dr./JcJ he r;eaJJ,!> mr ~ yWJ.J OUJI1Q.fJ ft> J(JJF) (){UJof;b ,f}...ak rvof tvp dt ck. I-f Iv Cl jarqe hJ{)Je. and ~ ir . amptR- ..JfX'a -1f:>~ o/md//iR#! vJal/a:lJeIo hi e.yeded -1D fih aLCti'J.! t:> II'~ ~7dp ~ rpn In.pldJ'tIn ar ~ fJtem/JeJ horn & ()uf(Joot:J))f- m I}j appt!OJif-IfJd.I- Eti<K$In UlnJIn;(jjVlJ it' In/U-piOa.fJ elf ClJf).J>/Jvt:/inq IJt;'J hJrrt.a- fo hare 4 ciraJ/tv) ..tIZtJrcCl.;e:' {)J In ~ hlnrP -I1uq mte dfJJ !nJc;ed tI.J}'/1J II cJ~ ArJUJ.eJ, /0 I/JI~ .hhd fll/.r t-etl/!j pJ-eJrlIYlpJi(/(/J tfF-Mr ~J~ . .-, ... - (j) '11.....~....\... . ~.~. c . [aura (3recht 242 Sixth Street Seal (3each, CalIfornia 90140 Jlnce -MIJ f/(jr/d/)Ce, hqJ /Jd!- ~n - - Jnll?kd t4-e. -/(:W -/l;cy-117/J ~IIer<lh(/c//d !Jay~ bZeIJ add~ pr/()r Iz) ~lr-IJ/ruz Clr -/ILu; hare. han wr-,t/'!f (,t//f1J Cl/) ClrchYko- In rectU(J/J1h9-111/v- hrl~ 7b Ump!y (/)iJhc)ol/r pn'()r-/du:/~Jmr . OhrAH- ICCtlfim 0;:' -/k. JO<<Jy O/"k;/ dr;J-eU)~. /;fJe do nol-h/-Ihu cl'fckDJn COnJfn/df'm J'JJ{}(/ Jd mUIi~ OJJ(j~ MaJ- almOJr tint.} I/O~;t)i)re; .fA.I:j J..euc: ())aJ)d ~ CJfPYOYed. 1h/.r IlaIjld- V{/riahm I-ftp/al/17) (j) Clr tpJCK/2d tin Ik -bcrJk J' {tI;$, q ax} leq.r#h tl/Jd .J'hdilB nGJ- be tt/aY~ - ell~h~ a bfJjlder in .ka/&t1c/) tefJueJk rJ'{/f'M, .u- eve;y I1.$>> htJ/17IZ- . & '. . . . 1.> /)4d a 'tdotJMrlJe ",}.I1- CJM/J;l7'2&t:e -I?tm~ ftt?~tleAPJ/ o-r d(fr aJm:::Ji; O/H, l//euJv IL/()(/ i:J te. b)tJc;L:.&I all o~ fttIJr). J/n~ -Mere /J 4 Jec;tJlcdJ/n t4e .shd/J Jd .J;flck ~}f- Or '" ~ ;f.- /;:LtZ/()J-e ~e I/O f ftJl)C/ZJ (j)ill ;f;eCd/720 tvUIi (le. /heteft;JeJ ~ vm/}9/l/ C!rqe ,J,dlJ 10 tJfP1Je -/Il/r t'OdOnl/..--VM ~_ I>> -/I..L- fI;-/OteJ JO oUr l/)etUJ Cl"k? ~ mtllhlaJNd. 7IW./ ore al1eCltfuJc. aOd C1, qrear JdJ '/Dr ().r aLl. (j))v) ~ /lifH).{ ore jr)/ettJ!J cJbJ'-/r1Jc;.ed ht.j t1I/ IMJe f1)IJ#zJj/ k,c5)1lj J we at! 1002/! pt&lJe. J70p alJ (}lIJ/ >:i Ihue "dol1hOtJJeJ · df7C4. {jr}d -fOr 'aLl O/):::J oh hJJ- tJ~fJf JUlJ..hI'vc;nantVJ 91-/ Iv :t5n'cKUn [B1I.fficJd!rp. . i/7C1J7/c YdV · La(J fZl rt tIJ ;///007 Bre.c/Jj- ~~ Af;C"'~~ r;r; '-=- ' 254-6TH STkEET CUPOLA , t C<, ..'.M....... ...... ,.' :." . . .CiJpo . '. '" ....1 .. .. . . . ~ . ..... . . . . . f . . 2. , VIEW FROM 244 3RD FLOOR DECK TOWARDS 254 PROPOSED CUPOLA SHOWING OBSCURED TREES 3 4 VIEW FROM 254 CUPOLA DECK TOWARDS 244 & 242 CUPOLA - NOTE SMALL PART OF 242 CUPOLA SHOWING , 19 TT,tJe/t'mer}T .111/94