The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Res 1048 - 1977-03-02 . . RESOLUTION NO. 1048 . A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMflISSION MAKING RECm1MENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON COASTAL COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (SITE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES) WHICH EFFECT SEAL BEACH. WHEREAS, ln January 1977, a permanent Coastal Commission replaced the 1nterlm Coastal Comm1ss10n created by Propos1tlon 20 1n 1972, and WHEREAS, ln January 1977, the permanent Coastal Comm1ss10n adopted lnterim slte speclflc gU1del1nes for Seal Beach which have a slgn1f1cant effect upon development ln Seal Beach, and on t1arch 2, 1977, the Seal Beach Plannln9 Comm1ss10n held a Public Hearlng on these interim site specif1c gUldellnes to provlde the general publlC w1th an opportunlty to pro- vlde testlmony and comment on these gUldellnes; and approximately SlXty persons attended the meetlng and thlr- teen people spoke on the gUldellnes and four persons pro- vlded wrltten comments; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, . WHEREAS, the Plannlng Commlsslon makes recommendatlons to Clty Council on the gUl dell nes attached hereto as Exhl bl t "A" as follows: 1. Item 1(a) - Oppose thlS ltem based on the fact that the citizens, Plannlng Comm1ss10n and City Councll have pro- vlded a great deal of thoughtful effort lnto the direc- tlon of the Clty as shown ln the General Plan and Zoning Ordlnance. To alter these standards without study at the local level lS not in the best interest of the City 2. Item l(b) - Concur with thlS ltem. It complles wlth present Clty pollcles. 3. Item l(c) - Condlt10nally not oppose thlS ltem, only, lf lt lS based on the Clty'S present setbacks. 4. Item l(d) - Oppose thlS ltem. There lS no Justlflcatlon presently to warrant any change 1n permitted bUlldin9 helghts. 5. Item 2 - Request clanflcatlon of the term "adequate parking" . . 6. Item 3 - The Plann1ng Comm1ssion would request that C1ty Councll take a POllCY stand on thlS ltem. The Plannlng Commlsslon was unable to recommend any policy action on thlS ltem. 7. Item 4 - Oppose thlS ltem on the basis that lt does not treat all property owners equally. The Plannin9 Commlsslon would favor the use of a speclflc setback WhlCh the C1ty presently has and affords all property owners equal treat- ment under law. 8. Item 5 - Oppose this ltem. There lS no present justiflcatlon to alter permitted helghts ln Surfslde. Any alteratlon ln helghts should be lnltlated at the local level. . . . 9. Item 6 - Concur with this 1tem. It complles wlth present Clty POllCY. 10. Item 7 - Request clanflcatlon of the term "planned commerclal clusters". 11. Item 8 - Concur. The Wildllfe Refuge should be pro- tected for ltS prlme functlon of provlding a habltat for wildllfe. 12. Item 9 - Oppose this ltem. This property, at a maJor entrance to Seal Beach, should be permltted to be developed ln accordance wlth the Clty'S General Plan and Zonlng Ordlnance. . 13. Item 10. - Oppose thlS ltem. ThlS ltem is too rigld and does not provide deslgn options or provlde cholces ln the locatlon of open spaces on the lot. The City's standards provide both deslgn optlons and open space location options. NOW, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commlsslon does hereby recommend to Clty Councll that the above POllCY recommendatlons be adopted. PASSED AND APPROVED on March 2, 1977 by the followlng vote AYES NOES. Lannlng, Knapp, Rlpperdan, Cook, Madsen None e~~~..--- Chalrman of the Plannlng commlssl~ ~. . ~ . . . SEAL ~C!I. E.~i~ i~ \'A '/ . 1. To pro..ect the v:iJJ.age-like character and scale of this city: a. Residential developme;1'l; coastward of Pacific Coast Hig.1may should not exceed a density of 20 du/ac. b. All new residential developMent end those whose improvement is greater than 50% should have 2 on-s~te parking spacef! per unit. c. On lots 4,000 sq. ft. or smaller, all single-family dwellings and duplexes proposed for construction should meet the 1.5 criterion, i.e. the gross structural area of the house should not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. d. Residential structures should have a 25 ft. height maximum. 2. New or enlarged commercial buildings should provide adequate parking. 3. The <)-acre tmdeveloped parcel alongside the San Gabriel River at the shoreline should be protected for water-oriented, public recreational uses. 4. To keep development from creeping beachward on the sand, new development should not extend farther onto the beach than a line between the points on the two adjacent structures representing the farthest encroachment onto the beach. 5. In Surfside Colony, a private development across Anaheim Bay, no struc- ture should be built taller than 30 feet and all new homes should have two on-site parldng spaces. 6. San Gatn-~el River. Continue existing bicycle trail to the beach. 7. Pacific Coast Highwa.v. Reserve a portion of the remaining capacity on the hignway for recreat~on and as a scenic dr~ve; encourage development of trails, transit and upland parking areas to alleviate congestion in the oceanfront area. Redevelop strip commercial development along the highway Wo planned commercial clusters. 8. Anaheim Ba.v. Insure that development in the Bay or on surrounding lands does not sigTui'~caIIt:.ly harm ..he ecolog~cal preserves. Support anadrOlJlOUS fish "put and take" program; provide public access conslStent with protection of the natural wildlife refuge. 9. Protect the 2.8 acre parcel owned by the State Lands Comm:i.'3sion at Pacific Coast Highway and 1st Street for recreation or visitor-serv:Lng accommodations, and possibly for a regional tr2l1Sportat~on center. 10. Resldentlal Setbacks. Increase residentlal setbacks to 15' at the 1st. floor and 30' at the second floor.