HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem SAGENDA
DATE: April 8, 2002
T
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REPOR
"0 v
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINOR PLAN
REVIEW 02 -1, APPROVING A REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT 2 SEPARATE OFFICEYRESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (L -C)
ZONE AT 233 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
RECOMNMNDATION:
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the
proposed development at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2) Sustain the appeal of Walt Miller, revising the decision of the Planning Commission, and
denying the proposed development application.
3) Sustain the appeal of Walt Miller, revising the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve construction of proposed development, subject to terms and conditions other than
those approved by the Planning Commission.
Staff has prepared as Attachment A, a resolution of the City Council denying the appeal and
sustaining the determination of the Planning Commission, subject to the terms and conditions
approved by the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option (1) after
conducting the public hearing, it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. If the City Council
determines to adopt option (2) or (3), it is appropriate to direct staff to prepare a new resolution
based upon the determinations of the City Council.
AGENDA ITEM
C:Wy DocummtsU1irwr Plan Review \02 -1 Appe.LCC Sniff RnpodA.6LW -03 -02
Public Rearing re: AppealofApproval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StaffReport
April 8. 2002
Staff will be prepared to revise the proposed City Council Resolution as determined appropriate by
the City Council upon concluding the public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
On February 14, 2002, Dr. Medhat Raouf ( "the applicant') filed an application with the
Department of Development Services for Minor Plan Review 02 -1. Specifically, the applicant
proposes to build one structure with approximately 1,160 square feet for a medical office, and a
2,188 square foot residence above. Additionally, the applicant proposes to build a second
structure further north on the property, which will have approximately 827 square feet of office
area on the first floor, with a 2,188 square foot residence above. Parking will be created by 2
separate 2 -car garages for the residential units and utilize shared puking for the commercial uses.
On March 20, 2002 the Planning Commission considered the above referenced application for
Minor Plan Review 02 -1 and after receiving public comments regarding the application and
deliberations among the members of the Commission, it was the determination of the Planning
Commission to approve the application on a 3 -0 -2 vote with Chairman Hood and Commissioner
Ladner being absent, subject to certain terms and conditions. The Planning Commission adopted
Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -14 on March 20 2002. Planning Commission
Resolution 02 -14 imposes 5 conditions of approval for the project. Please refer to Attachment C,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -14, for the findings and conditions of the Planning
Commission. Please refer to Attachment D to review the Planning Commission Minutes of March
20, 2002. The comment letter received by the Planning Commission is provided as Attachment E.
The Planning Commission Staff Report of March 20, 2002, is provided as Attachment F.
An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed in a timely manner, and
the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. A copy of the
appeal is provided as Attachment B. The appeal letter also had attached to it a copy of the letter to
the Planning Commission dated March 16, 2002 (Attachment E), and is not provided again as an
attachment to the appeal letter. In addition, the appellant has submitted an "Addendum to Appeal
Filed March 21, 2002" that is also provided in conjunction with Attachment B.
FACTS:
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed Consent Calendar Minor Plan Review on
March 20, 2002 to consider MPR 02 -1. The matter was removed from the Consent
Calendar for consideration as a letter had been received regarding the application (Refer to
Attachment E). At the noticed meeting the applicant spoke in favor of the request. The
02 -1 Appa1.CC Suff Repon
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
Cory Council StaJfReporl
April 8, 2002
appellant appeared in opposition and the City did receive a written communication from the
appellant in opposition to the request.
• After receiving all public testimony on March 20, 2002, the Planning Commission
determined to approve the requested Site Plan Review, subject to certain terms and
conditions, and approved Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14, setting forth 5
conditions of approval, on a 3 -0 -2 vote with Chairman Hood and Commissioner Ladner
being absent (Refer to Attachment Q.
• Walt Miller filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on March 28, 2002,
with an "Addendum" letter dated April 1, 2002 (See Attachment B) and the matter is now
before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing.
DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF CONCERN OF APPEAL:
As previously indicated, the appellant is requesting the City Council to deny the requested mixed
use structure, in compliance with the provisions of Section 28 -2940 of the Code of the City of Seal
Beach.
For the purposes of this report, the following issues of concern as set forth in the appeal letter dated
March 21 and April 1, 2002 (Refer to Attachment 2) will be discussed (Numbering of items
corresponds to numbering provided on the appeal letters):
1. The appellant states "Three foot side yard not abutting street or alley (Section 28-
155.B.4) not in compliance with Ord. 1358. Side yard setback if residential to be 10%
of lot width or a minimum of 3 ft. Lot width is 75 ft. Required setback is 7.5'
minimum for second story and above yards. Staff report recommended approval of 3
ft. setback of residential."
Staff Comment: The property is made up of three separate 25 -foot wide lots, and
the development has been proposed to comply with the required setbacks for each of the
25 -foot wide lots. The Orange County Assessor Map indicates the parcels as being
under one ownership and receiving one property tax bill. There has been no Parcel Map
recorded on the property convecting the legal description to a single 75 -foot wide parcel.
Submitted with the project application is the grant deed for the property, clearly
indicating "Lots 33, 35, and 37 of Block 18 of Tract No. 10 ". If the proposed
development of structures were to be proposed over the existing lot lines, the City
would require a parcel map to be recorded, as structures cannot be constructed over
property lines. Each of the proposed structures complies with the required setbacks for
02 -1 Ap,ml.CC Suff Re n
Public Hearing re: Appeal ofAppmml of Minor Plan Review 01 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 01 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulemrd
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2001
the 25 -foot lot on which that structure is located, with the center 25 -foot wide lot not
having any structure being located on it. Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14,
Condition 5 stipulates:
115. A deed restriction will be recorded on the property,
prior to issuance of any building permits, requiring that no sale of
property of any of the three lots may occur until such time as adequate
on site parking is created on each of the three lots."
2. The appellant states "The "Exception to allow encroachment into the exterior side yard
for the length of the garage (Section 28- 1158.B.2) does not apply. Side yard is not
abutting street. Lot width is greater than 35.5 feet; lot width is 75.0 feet in width.
Staff report recommended approval of two residential garages on zero side yard lot
line."
Staff Comment: The Code language is incorrect. The correct language is set forth in
Ordinance Number 1346, which established the L -C zone. The original ordinance clearly
indicates the exception applied to yards not abutting street or alley, as is the situation in this
application. The City will administratively correct the Code provision. Please refer to
Attachment C for a copy of the pertinent section of Ordinance Number 1346.
3. The appellant states "First floor elevations do not meet the flood zone requirements.
Staff report did NOT include grading plan, which would have shown proposed
project to be in flood zone. Nearest downstream catch basin is located some 500 feet
south. Elevated first floor levels would require 1:12 five foot wide handicap ramp
access, or handicap lifts. Staff report recommended approval of existing grade
elevations for first floor commercial."
Staff Comment: Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06059CO036 E indicates that
portions of Seal Beach Boulevard between Electric Avenue and Landing are within "Flood
Zone AE ". This designation indicates an area of flood hazard by a 100 -year flood, and the
base flood elevation is determined as 6. This information will be considered by the
Engineering Department and Building Department at the time of plan check of the grading
and building plans. Based on the analysis of the plan check engineer's, the property grading
and structural plans will be approved in a manner consistent with the requirements of
Chapter 9B, Floodplain Overlay District. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter
will ensure the lowest floor of the new structures is 1 -foot above the identified flood level.
Depending on the results of the grading plan check process, additional soil may need to be
imported to provide the necessary grade to achieve the indicated compliance requirement of
the lowest floor of the new structures being 1 -foot above the identified flood level.
03-1 App al.CC Stair Repon
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
133 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Repon
April 8, 2002
Compliance with ADA requirements will also be determined at the time of construction
plan check review process. Those details are not normally provided to the City until the
building concept plan has been approved by the City and the California Coastal
Commission.
The appellant states "Applicant has made no provision for commercial trash container
location for alley service. Staff report did not note this emission as an exception."
Staff Comment: There is no requirement in the Limited Commercial (L -C) zone for
the provision of trash containers. The necessity of providing for a trash container area
would be determined at the time of building plan check. There is an area in the front of the
two alley- access compact parking spaces that may be utilized for that purpose, if necessary.
Compact parking spaces are required to be a minimum of 16 feet deep, and the site plan
indicates those spaces being 20' -6" deep, allowing for an area 16' by 4' -6" for any required
trash containers.
The appellant states "The shared parking plan is NOT contiguous. Four spaces can be
accessed ONLY from the residential alley. Two standard size passenger vehicles
moving in opposition directions cannot safely pass each other in a 12' wide alley. Five
spaces, including the handicap space, can be accessed ONLY from Seal Beach
Boulevard. Three of these Five spaces can only be exited by backing out 50' into a 35
mph southbound traffic blinded by parallel parked vehicles on west side of boulevard.
Visitors must enter the parking area to know if parking space is available. If full they
must back out, drive around the block and enter the residential alley to an open space.
The Coastal Commission does not recognize this residential alley to accommodate
commercial traffic for the reasons stated."
Staff Comment: The parking plan complies with all standards of the City. The
parking spaces are contiguous; and there are separate access points to those parking areas.
A munmum 24 -foot turning radius is provided for those spaces utilizing the alley and a
minimum 31 -foot turning radius is provided for those spaces utilizing Seal Beach
Boulevard. The minimum turning radius permitted by the City is 24 -feet. There is
sufficient turning area for those vehicles utilizing Seal Beach Boulevard to turn within the
property and exit in a forward manner on Seal Beach boulevard. Sight distance standards at
the driveway will be determined by the Engineering Department doing the plan check
process. As the proposed uses are office uses, commercial vehicle use is anticipated to be
limited. The alley is not designated "residential" by the City: it is an alley that provides
access to properties regardless of the use of the property.
02 -1 AppeaLCC Staff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal ofApproml of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resoludon 01 -14
133 Seal Beach Boulevrd
City Council Staff Repon
April 8, 1002
6. The appellant states `Buildings I and 2 have only one exterior exit, which may be fire
code violation for commercial."
Staff Comment: The final construction plans will be reviewed for compliance for 0
construction code requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. All fire code
requirements will be complied with through that process.
7. The appellant states "Residential exits may not comply with the fire code."
Staff Comment: The final construction plans will be reviewed for compliance for all
construction code requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. All fire code
requirements will be complied with through that process.
The appellant states `Building 2 has no access from sidewalk unless visitors are
expected to walk up driveway into visitor vehicular traffic."
Staff Comment: The building arrangement is such that if a person were to park on
Seal Beach Boulevard and visit the north office building, they would be walking in the
parking lot area, as is the situation in many business locations within the City. There are no
Code violations with the proposed building and parking arrangement.
9. The appellant states "Building 2 has no designated occupancy nor a floor plan, as does
Building 1. Only a simple exit/entrance is shown."
Staff Comment: Until a use of Building 2 is proposed, the proposed plan is sufficient.
At the time an actual tenant proposes to utilize the building, the use will be reviewed by the
City to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the L -C zone. If the use is an
allowable use and complies with the parking requirements, a "tenant improvement" plan
will be submitted for building plan check to ensure compliance with all construction code
requirements, including fire and ADA requirements.
10. The appellant states "3" AC paving is not consistent for a walkway /paving area that
abuts a concrete residential alley and concrete driveway apron."
Staff Comment: The Code allows the use of "Portland cement concrete or asphaltic
concrete or other similar material" for "all permanent off - street parking and vehicle sales
areas" and "driveways" (Section 28- 2210). The proposed construction materials are in
accordance with the Code provisions.
02 -1 AM LCC Sdff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval afMinorPlan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulewrd
City Council StaffRepon
Apnl 8. 2002
11. The appellant states "Staff, including City Engineer, Doug Danes, and Director of
Development Services, Lee Whittenberg, had recommended approval subject to only
five conditions, which did NOT include the above objections. Staff report indicated
that the application was in compliance with all conditions of the Limited Commercial
(L-C) Zoning Ordinance 28 -1150 through 28 -1158. It appears that the three voting
Planning Commissioners placed their reliance on the Staff Report."
Staff Comment: As indicated in the "Staff Comment" on items I through 10 above,
all of the objections were resolved as part of the initial project submission in compliance
with the provisions of the Limited Commercial zone or will dealt with at the time of the
construction plan check review process.
12. The appellant states "The FACTS as presented in the staff report are inconsistent and
misleading. There is not 3 parcels of land, but 1 parcel of land, as evidenced by a
single Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199- 062 -04. It follows that the
subject property is one 75' wide rectangular lot with a total land area of 7762.5 square
feet, not "Three separate 25' x 103.5' lots ". There has been no subdivision application
submitted in conjunction with the application."
Staff Comment: Please refer to "Staff Comment " l, above.
13. The appellant states "The surrounding land uses as they relate to the Limited
Commercial (L_C) zone are in error. To the SOUTH are "A mix of commercial and
multi family apartments. To the NORTH are "A mix of commercial, the Pacific
Electric right-of-way and a low income housing complex."
Staff Comment: The description of uses in the adjoining area is generally accurate.
The City does not attempt to describe in detail every use of adjoining properties.
14. The appellant states "Staff has apparently approved the set back as if there are 3
separate 25' lots, and there are not. The required side yard setback of a 75' lot is 7.5
feet, that is 10% of the lot width. The applicant does not meet that requirement
Building 1 and Building 2 may be built on zero lot line, but the residential must
comply with the side yard setbacks. It is not clear why the applicant chose to set back
the commercial buildings by 3' unless he found it less expensive to build using the
same foundation as the residential. If the buildings were set on zero lot line, a
diagonal parking corridor could be created between buildings to meet all parking
requirements, with entrance from Seal Beach Boulevard and exit into residential
alley"
02 -1 App al.CC Staff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StafrReport
April 8, 2002
Staff Comment: For response to lot size issue, please refer to "Staff Comment 1 ",
above. It is an applicant's decision where to locate buildings on a property so long as all
minimum setback requirements are met and the project site plan is approved by the
Planning Commission after the required Minor Plan Review (approved by City Council if
an appeal of the Commission decision is filed). For response to parking lot arrangement
concerns, please refer to "Staff Comment 5 ", above.
15. The appellant states "It appears that the owner has been mislead by staff in that he can
sell off one or more lots in the future. His design of both proposed structures
contained on 25 foot lots confirms his intent. Condition number S. Indicates that the
owner cannot sell any one lot unless one or both of the approved structures are
demolished."
Staff Comment: For response to lot size issue, please refer to "Staff Comment I ",
above. City staff will not address any issue as to the "intent" of the project applicant.
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14, Condition 5, states:
"5. A deed restriction will be recorded on the property,
prior to issuance of any building permits, requiring that no sale of
property of any of the three lots may occur until such time as adequate
on site parking is created on each of the three lots."
This condition would require the providing the proper parking for any structures still
existing on the subject properties prior to the sale of any of the 3 existing 25' wide lots to a
future owner. This provision protects the proposed parking areas and ensures they will
continue to be provided in the future.
16. The appellant states "Staff has recommended approval of this application without a
grading plan which would then indicate the project falls in the Seal Beach Boulevard
flood zone and would require the first floor of the proposed structures to be elevated
24" above grade. Such elevation would require a 1:12 five foot wide handicap access
ramp to each commercial entrance from the sidewalk. An alternative would be a
handicap lift. In either case, the proposed landscaping plan would be impacted. Staff
commented that a grading plan was not considered."
Staff Comment: For response to grading plan, flood zone and handicap access issues,
please refer to "Staff Comment 3 ", above.
17. The appellant states "Staff approved the parking plan of nine spaces, including two
compact and one handicap. I raised the issue at the podium of a parking study to see
S
02 -1 AppaaLCC SmRAeport
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval ofArinor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2002
if the proposed plan was feasible. Four spaces can be accessed ONLY from the 10'
wide residential alley (the alley is 11'6" but is impacted by the incursion of 1'6" utility
poles). The other five spaces can be accessed ONLY from the existing driveway apron
on Seal Beach Boulevard. Are we to assume that spaces 5, 6, and 7 will back out of the
entrance onto Seal Beach Boulevard, which will be a blind exit if vehicles are parked
along the adjoining curb and into a southbound 35 mph traffic flow? Are we to
assume that a visitor will enter the parking area only to find all four spaces occupied
and then exit the parking area by again backing out, going around the block and
entering the residential alley on Landing and proceeding to park in the rear four
spaces? If parking is to be shared, it must be contiguous parking, not 4 spaces for one
set of visitors and 5 spaces for a second set of visitors. Would not each facility be
required to provide one handicap parking space? It seems that one handicap parking
space cannot be shared between two independent commercial businesses:'
Staff Comment: For response to parking and access issues, please refer to "Staff
Comment 5 ", above. ADA requirements require 1 handicap space for each 25 parking
spaces in a public parking area. Since the parking area is a joint -use area, only I handicap
space is necessary.
18. The appellant states "The Planning Commission rejected any requirement for
architectural conditions, such as a Cape Cod design. Each developer has his choice
they indicated. I find this hardly conducive to sound development of mixed use in the
L -C zone. I would ask that an architectural requirement be made."
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission discussed the issue of an "architectural
theme" for the proposed project and detennined to not impose any such condition. Please
refer to Attachment D, Planning Commission Minutes, page 5, fourth paragraph to review
the discussion of the Commission.
19. The appellant states "Staff has approved the occupancy of the resident and the dental
office as being the Owner. However, staff is silent on the occupancy of building 2.
Building 2 has no street frontage and might be very difficult to lease."
Staff Comment: Staff has not approved any occupancy as of this time. The applicant
has indicated that one of the buildings will be his private dental practice and he will reside
in the residence above that indicated office space. Any future tenant of Building 2 will be
required to comply with the provisions of the L -C zone regarding residence uses. Difficulty
in renting a building is the owner's concern.
02 -1 Appeal= Sun Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 0144
133 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StaffRepon
April 8, 1001
20. The appellant states "My March 16, 2002 letter is attached as a supplement to this
appeal, and was so noted in my verbal objections at the podium before the Planning
Commission."
Staff Comment: Staff will not respond to each of the 17 issues raised in Mr. Millers
March 16 letter to the Planning Commission. Several of those issues were discussed at the
Commission meeting. Please refer to Attachment D, Planning Commission Minutes, pages
5 and 6 to review the discussion of the Commission. Staff will be available to respond to
any particular questions the City Council may have regarding the March 16 letter to the
Planning Commission. -
Addendum to Anneal filed March 21, 2002
The appellant states "Staff report Condition No. 5 "A deed restriction will be recorded
on the property, prior to issuance of any building permits, requiring that no sale of
property of any of the three lots may occur until such time as adequate on site
parking is created on each of the three lots." This condition is not supported by
Section 28 -1156. If the project is subdivided and the center lot sold, the applicant
should be allowed to avail himself of the "in lieu" parking provisions on the
remaining two side lots rather than demolish the buildings he has proposed."
Staff Comment: The Planning Commission has approved this condition as part of the
approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1. If the City Council ultimately determines to approve
this application with the same condition, and the project applicant agrees to that condition
by executing the standard "Acceptance of Conditions" form regarding the project, that
condition will be applicable to this project. Any requested modification of the project
conditions would require a new Minor Plan Review consideration by the Planning
Commission.
2. The appellant states "The "no sale" provision of Condition No 5 appears to override
Section 28 -1156 of the Seal Beach City Code. I refer you to Planning Commission
Resolution No. 01 -22, May 9, 2001, condition no. 5 "The applicant shall post a surety
bond in the amount of $3,500 ($500 /space) for in -lieu parking fees prior to issuance
of a building permit Once a specific in -lieu fee is determined, the applicant shall
pay the fee in full and the bond will be released." Section 28 -1156 Required
parking, A. Parking Requirements: 5. States the City's obligation and states "Fees
may be accepted in lieu of up to four (4) parking spaces per 2,500 square feet of lot
area on the property for which an application of filed, .." This project qualifies for
12 spaces of in lieu parking. Did someone forget about that ?"
02.1 AppeeLCC Staff Report 10
Public Hearing re.' Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2002
Staff Comment: This project applicant determined to not attempt to receive project
approvals utilizing the in -lieu parking provisions of the Code. The proposed project
complies with the off - street parking requirements of the Limited Commercial zone, which
is preferable from the viewpoint of the City and also the Coastal Commission. The
referenced resolution is regarding Mr. Miller's project, which did receive approval from the
City and Coastal Commission for in -lieu parking, but after a protracted approval process at
the Coastal Commission.
3. The appellant states "The City Staff have stood in the way of development of the L -C
zone for the last twelve years. It has refused to implement the "in -lieu" parking
provision by NOT developing the Pacific Electric right -of -way into off - street parking,
NOT painting diagonal parking on both sides of the boulevard, and NOT filing a local
coastal plan (LCP) indicating Seal Beach Boulevard has adequate parking for the L -C
zone development. One can only guess at the reasons used by Staff for not doing so.
As a result, the potential tax base of mixed use three story commercial residential
development has cost the City a tax base of at least $10 million per year over the last
twelve years in both property value and retail sales tax. And we are crying for money
on our budget as it relates to tree trimming and street sweeping. If those who don't
own property on Seal Beach Boulevard are able to revoke the L -C zone and replace it
with R -1, the opportunity for high density upscale apartments and visitor serving
retail is lost forever and so is the "Gateway" to Old Town Seal Beach that we have
enjoyed for over fifty years! Just look at the image of Avalon Homes, spot -zoned at
the Pacific Coast Highway Seal Beach Boulevard entrance. Would you want your
children living there playing next to the bus stop and liquor store and a 50mph major
intersection ?"
Staff Comment: These comments are reflective of the opinion of the appellant
regarding issues relative to Seal Beach Boulevard and the L -C zone that are not directly
pertinent to the City Council consideration of the Minor Plan Review. The City Council
may consider the comment in their deliberations.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPLICATIONS:
Under Code Section 28 -1158, all new construction in the Limited Commercial (L -C) Zone shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Consent Calendar Plan Review
procedures as set forth in Section 28- 2407.B. Section 28- 24073 requires a consent calendar plan
review, and sets forth the required submittals, application fees and noticing requirements. The
appeal does not primarily address issues related to compliance with the design standards of the L -C
ll
02-1 AppeeLCC SUff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal ofApproval ofMinor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
133 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Slaff'Repon
April 8, 2001
zone. It focuses on property related issues that are either addressed by plan review and approval
processes of the City or issues that do not require any permit issuance by the City. Those issues
that do not require a permit issuance and that do not violate any provisions of the Code of the Citv
of Seal Beach are civil matters between the affected property owners, and the City does not involve
itself in those areas of dispute.
In reviewing the design of a new structure within the L -C zone, the Planning Commission must
ensure that all development standards of the L -C zone are met. Areas to be reviewed are:
❑ Permitted uses
❑ Building setbacks
❑ Lot coverage
❑ Building height
❑ Landscaping
❑ Mixed -Use standards
E3 Parking requirements, and
❑ Sign requirements
By adopting Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14, the Planning Commission determined:
"Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial"
designation for the subject property. The use is also consistent with the remaining
elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are
consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the
proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed project, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 meets all of the design review
criteria, as set forth in Article 11.5 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code."
Staff concurs with the Commission. As reviewed above in the "Staff Comment" discussion for
the various appeal issues, the proposed project complies with all development standards of the
Limited Commercial (L -C) zone as they currently are written.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL:
Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for the
Council to make a final determination regarding these matters.
02.1 APRa1.CC Staff Report 12
Public Heanng re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resoh fion 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council So f Repon
Apn(8,2002
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the
proposed development at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2) Sustain the appeal of Walt Miller, revising the decision of the Planning Commission, and
denying the proposed development application.
3) Sustain the appeal of Walt Miller, revising the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve construction of proposed development, subject to terms and conditions other than
those approved by the Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION:
After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the
City Council has the following options:
1) Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the
proposed development at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2) Sustain the appeal of Walt Miller, revising the decision of the Planning Commission, and
denying the proposed development application.
3) Sustain the appeal of Walt Miller, revising the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve construction of proposed development, subject to terms and conditions other than
those approved by the Planning Commission.
Staff has prepared a Resolution of the City Council sustaining the decision of the Planning
Commission as Attachment 1. If the City Council determines to sustain the appeal, staff will
prepare an appropriate resolution for City Council consideration at the April 22 City Council
meeting.
13
02 -1 AppmLCC Stiff Report
ee Whi en erg
Director of Development Servi
Attachments: (7)
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StaffReport
Apri18, 2002
NOTED AND APPROVED:
John B. Bahorski, City Manager
Attachment A: Proposed City Council Resolution Number_, A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Denying an Appeal,
Sustaining the Decision of the Planning Commission, and
Approving Minor Plan Review 02 -1, a Request for Architectural
Review of a Proposal to Construct a New Mixed Use Development
at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard
Attachment B: Appeal of Walt Miller, dated March 21, 2002, including
"Addendum to Appeal ", dated April 1, 2002
Attachment C: Excerpt —Ordinance Number 1346
Attachment D: Resolution No. 02 -14, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Seal Beach Approving Minor Plan Review 02 -1, a
Request to Construct 2 New Mixed Use Buildings within the
Limited Commercial (L -C) Zone, Adopted March 20, 2002
Attachment E: Planning Commission Minutes, March 20, 2002
Attachment F: Letter to Planning Commission from Walt Miller re: Minor Plan
Review 02 -1, dated March 16, 2002
Attachment G: Planning Commission Staff Report re: Minor Plan Review 02 -1,
dated Much 20, 2002
02 -1 Appmt.CC Staff Report 14
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2002
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DENYING AN APPEAL, SUSTAINING THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
AND APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW 02 -1, A
REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF
A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT AT 233 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD
is
02 -1 Appeal.CC Staff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal ofApprowl of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2002
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL,
SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, AND APPROVING MINOR PLAN
REVIEW 02 -1, A REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 233 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE,pETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On February 14, 2002, Dr. Medhat Raouf ( "The Applicant') filed
an application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1 with the Department of Development Services.
Through MPR 02 -1, the applicant seeks to construct 2 new structures, to be located on 2 lots
separated . by a third lot, which will be comprised of parking.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § ILB of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan
Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Section 3. A duly noticed consent calendar minor plan review was properly
noticed and scheduled before the Planning Commission on March 20, 2002 to consider the
application for Site Plan Review 02 -1. The matter was removed from the Consent Calendar for
consideration as a letter had been received objecting to the application. At the noticed meeting
the applicant spoke in favor of the request. The appellant appeared in opposition and the City did
.receive a written communication from the appellant in opposition to the request.
16
02 -1 AppnLCC Staff Repo"
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval afMinor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StaffReport
April 8, 2002
Section 4. After consideration of the issues raised by the appellant, the
Planning Commission approved Minor Plan Review 02 -1, subject to 5 conditions, through the
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 02 -14 on March 20, 2002.
Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan
Review 02 -1 was timely filed. On April 8, 2002 the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and written testimony and
evidence presented at the time of the de novo public hearing, including the staff reports.
Section 6. The record of the de novo hearing indicates the following:
(a) On February 14, 2002, Dr. Medhat Raouf ( "The Applicant") filed an
application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1 with the Department of Development Services. Through
MPR 02 -1, the applicant seeks to construct 2 new structures, to be located on 2 lots separated by
a third lot, which will be comprised of parking.
(b) In accordance with Section 28 -1158 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach,
all new construction on the subject property requires Planning Commission approval through the
Minor Plan Review, consent calendar process.
(c) The proposal for development calls for 2 separate buildings to be
constructed at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard (comprising three 25 -foot wide lots), with commercial
parking on the middle lot. Both buildings are proposed to have office uses on the ground floor
with residential housing on the second and third floors (1 housing unit per building). On the
southerly lot, a 1,160 square -foot dental office space is proposed, with a 2,188 square foot
residential housing unit above. On the northerly lot, an 826.5 square -foot office building is
proposed with a 2,188 square foot housing unit above. There are 3 parcels of land, which will
have the proposed buildings placed on the outer parcels, and have reciprocal parking on the
middle parcel. -
(d) The subject property is 3 separate rectangular lots in shape with a total lot
area of 7,762.5 square feet (Three separate 25' x 103.5' lots) and is located in the Limited -
Commercial (L -C) Zone. The subject property currently has a vacant building with related
parking and a vacant lot.
(e) Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
SOUTH: A mix of commercial and residential buildings in the
Limited Commercial (L -C) and Residential High Density (RHD) zone.
02.1 Ap ml=SmRRepon 17
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seat Beach Boulevard
ON Council StaffRepon
April 8, 2002
NORTH: A mix of commercial and residential structures and vacant
land in the Limited Commercial (L -C) zone and the Residential Medium
Density (RMD) zone
EAST: Naval Weapons Station in a Public Land Use / Recreation
(PLU/R) zone.
WEST: A mixture of single - family and multi- family residential
dwellings located in the Residential Medium Density zone (RMD) of Old
Town.
(t) The proposed buildings meet all required setbacks and height
requirements.
(g) An appeal of the Planning Commission determination was timely filed in
accordance with Article 29.4 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.
{h) The City Council received the record of the Planning Commission
hearings, including Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes. In addition the City
Council received public testimony in favor and in opposition to the proposed project.
Section 7. Based upon the evidence submitted at the de novo hearing, facts
contained in the record, including those stated in §6 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-
1158, 28 -2940 of the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds:
(a) Minor Plan Review 02 -1, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commemial" designation for the
subject property and permits the proposed development subject to approval of a "Minor Plan
Review ". The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the
policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element.
Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed project, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 meets all of the design
review criteria, as set forth in Article 11.5 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code.
(c) Subject to the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed mixed -use
development, as approved herein, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will not be
detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the City Council, there are
sufficient mitigation measures adopted by the City Council to ensure compatibility with
adjoining land uses.
18
02 -I Ap LCC SmH Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seat Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Repo a
April S, 2002
(d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes will ensure there
will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the
appeal, sustains the Planning Commission decision, and approves Minor Plan Review 02 -1,
subject to the following conditions:
Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the property located at 233 Seal Beach
Boulevard. Specifically, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is approved to build one structure with
approximately 1,160 square feet of medical office area, with approximately 2,188 Square
feet of residential space above it and to build a second structure further north on the
property, which will have approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first floor,
with approximately 2,188 square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created
by 2 separate 2 -car garages for the residential units and utilize shared parking for the
commercial uses.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR
02 -1
3. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an
"Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the
Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department.
4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses
occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or
death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby.
Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein
shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of
the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses,
lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts,
court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
02 -1 App LCC Sluff fte A 19
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 01 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StaJfRepon
April 8, 2002
5. A deed restriction will be recorded on the property, prior to issuance of any building
permits, requiring that no sale of property of any of the three lots may occur until such
time as adequate on site puking is created on each of the three lots.
Section 9. The time within whichjudicial review, if available, of this decision
must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and
Section 1 -13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, unless a shorter time is provided by
applicable law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at
a meeting thereof held on the day of 2002, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: 'Councilmembers
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
20
02 -1 App a].CC Staff Report
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval afMinor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StafReport
April 8, 2002
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City
Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002.
City Clerk
02 -1 AppeaLCC staff Report 21
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April8,1002
ATTACHMENT B
APPEAL OF WALT MILLER, DATED MARCH 21,
2002, INCLUDING "ADDENDUM TO APPEAL ",
DATED APRIL 1, 2002
22
02 -1 App LCC Staff Repots
March 21, 2002
City Council
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 8" Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6379
Re: APPEAL Planning Commission Approval
Minor Plan Review 02 -01
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
Hearing March 20, 2002 7:30PM
Applicant: Richard Stupin
Owner: Medhat Raouf
I hereby appeal the 3 -0 -2 vote of the planning commission on Minor
Plan Review 02 -01.
1. Three foot side yard not abutting street or alley (Section 28-
1155,B.4.) not in compliance with Ord. No. 1358. Side yard
setback of residential to be 10% of lot width or a minimum of 3
ft. Lot width is 75 ft. Required setback is 7.5' minimum for
second story and above yards. Staff report recommended approval
of 3 ft. setback of residential.
2. The "Exception to allow encroachment into the exterior side yard
for the length of the garage" (Section 28 -1155 B.2.) does not
apply. Side yard is not abutting street. Lot width is greater
than 35.5 feet in width; lot width is 75.0 feet in width. Staff
report recommended approval of two residential garages on zero
side yard lot line.
3. First floor elevations do not meet the flood zone requirements.
Staff report did NOT include grading plan, which would have
shown proposed project to be in flood zone. Nearest downstream
catch basin is located some 500 feet south. Elevated first
floor levels would require 1:12 five foot wide handicap ramp
access, or handicap lifts. Staff report recommended approval of
existing grade elevations for first floor commercial.
4. Applicant has made no provision for commercial trash container
location for alley service. Staff report did not note this
omission as an exception.
S. The shared parking plan is NOT contiguous. Four spaces can be
accessed ONLY from the residential alley. Two standard size
passenger vehicles moving in opposition directions cannot safely
pass each other in a 12' wide alley. Five spaces, including the
handicap space, can be accessed ONLY from Seal Beach Boulevard.
Three of these five spaces can only be exited by backing out 50'
into 35 mph southbound traffic blinded by parallel parked
vehicles on west side of boulevard. Visitors must enter the
parking area to know if parking space is available. If full
they must back out, drive around the block and enter the
residential alley to an open space. The Coastal Commission does
not recognize this residential alley to accommodate commercial
traffic for the reasons stated.
6. Buildings 1 and 2 have only one exterior exit, which may be a
fire code violation for commercial.
7. Residential exits may not comply with fire code.
8. Building 2 has no access from sidewalk unless visitors are
expected to walk up driveway into visitor vehicular traffic.
9. Building 2 has no designated occupancy nor a floor plan, as does
Building 1. Only a single exit /entrance is shown.
10. 3" AC paving is not consistent for a walkway /parking area that
abuts a concrete residential alley and concrete driveway apron.
Staff, including City Engineer, Doug Dancs, and Director of
Development Services, Lee Whittenberg, had recommended approval
subject to only five conditions, which did NOT include the above
objections. Staff report indicated that the application was in
compliance with all conditions of the Limited Commercial (L -C) Zoning
Ordinance 28 -1150 through 28 -1158. It appears that the three voting
Planning Commissioners placed their reliance on the Staff Report.
The FACTS as presented in the staff report are inconsistent and
misleading. There is not 3 parcels of land, but 1 parcel of land, as
is evidenced by a single Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199-
062-04. It follows that the subject property is one 75' wide
rectangular lot with a total land area of 7762.5 square feet, not
"Three separate 25' x 103.5' lots ". There has been no subdivision
application submitted in conjunction with the application.
The surrounding land uses as they relate to the Limited Commercial
(L C) zone are in error. To the SOUTH are "A mix of commercial and
multi family apartments. To the NORTH are "A mix of commercial, the
Pacific Electric right -of -way and a low income housing complex."
Staff has apparently approved the set back as if there are 3 separate
25' lots, and there are not. The required side yard setback of a 75'
lot is 7.5 feet, that is 108 of the lot width. The applicant does
not meet that requirement. Building 1 and Building 2 may be built on
zero lot line, but the residential must comply with the side yard
setbacks. It is not clear why the applicant chose to set back the
commercial building by 3' unless he found it less expensive to build
using the same foundation as the residential. If the buildings were
set on zero lot line, a diagonal parking corridor could be created
between buildings to meet all parking requirements, with entrance
from Seal Beach Boulevard and exit into residential alley.
It appears that the owner has been mislead by staff in that he can
sell off one or more of the lots in the future. His design of both
proposed structures contained on 25 foot lots confirms his intent.
Condition number 5. indicates that the owner cannot sell any one lot
unless one or both of the proposed structures are demolished.
Staff has recommended approval of this application without a grading
plan which would then indicate the project falls into the Seal Beach
Boulevard flood zone and would require the first floor of the
proposed structures to be elevated 24" above grade. Such elevation
would require a 1:12 five foot wide handicap access ramp to each
commercial entrance from the sidewalk. An alternative would be a
handicap lift. In either case, the proposed landscaping plan would
be impacted. Staff commented that a grading plan was not considered.
Staff approved the parking plan of nine spaces, including two compact
and one handicap. I raised the issue at the podium of a parking
study to see if the proposed plan was feasible. Four spaces can be
accessed ONLY from the 10' wide residential alley (the alley is 11'6"
but is impacted by the incursion of 116" utility poles). The other
five spaces can be accessed ONLY from the existing driveway apron on
Seal Beach Boulevard. Are we to assume that spaces 5, 6 and 7 will
back out of the entrance onto Seal Beach Boulevard, which will be a
blind exit if vehicles are parked along the adjoining curb and into a
southbound 35mph traffic flow? Are we to assume that a visitor will
enter the parking area only to find all four spaces occupied and then
exit the parking area by again backing out, going around the block
and entering the residential alley on Landing and proceeding to park
in the rear four spaces? If parking is to be shared, it must be
contiguous parking, not 4 spaces for one set of visitors and 5 spaces
for a second set of visitors. Would not each facility be required to
provide one handicap parking space? It seems that one handicap
parking space can not be shared between two independent commercial
businesses.
The Planning Commissioners rejected any requirement for architectural
conditions, such as a Cape Cod design. Each developer has his choice
they indicated. I find this hardly conducive to sound development of
mixed use in the L -C zone. I would ask that an architectural
requirement be made.
Staff has approved the occupancy of the resident and the dental
office as being the Owner. However, staff is silent on the occupancy
of building 2. Building 2 has no street frontage and might be very
difficult to lease.
My March 16, 2002, letter is attached as a supplement to this appeal,
and was so noted in my verbal objections at the podium before the
Planning Commissioners.
Sincerely,
Walter F. Miller
231 Seal Beach Boulevard, Suite 3
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6596
Enclosures
cc: Medhat Raouf
) OZ
April 1, 2002
City Council
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 8" Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6379
Re: ADDENDUM TO APPEAL FILED March 21, 2002
APPEAL Planning Commission Approval
Minor Plan Review 02 -01
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
Hearing March 20, 2002 7:30PM
Applicant: Richard Stupin
Owner: Medhat Raou£
I hereby request my appeal to be heard April 7, 2002, include the
following addendum to my appeal filed March 21, 2002.
Staff report Condition No. 5. "A deed restriction will be recorded on
the property, prior to issuance of any building permits, requiring
that no sale of property of any of the three lots may occur until
such time as adequate on site parking is created on each of the three
lots." This condition is not supported by Section 28 -1156. If the
project is subdivided and the center lot sold, the applicant should
be allowed to avail himself of the "in lieu" parking provision on the
remaining two side lots rather than demolish the buildings he has
proposed.
The "no sale" provision of Condition No. 5 appears to override
Section 28 -1156 of the Seal Beach City Code. I refer you to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 01 -22, May 9, 2001, condition no. 5. "The
applicant shall post a surety bond in the amount of $3,500
($500 /space) for in -lieu parking fees prior to issuance of a building
permit. Once a specific in -lieu fee is determined, the applicant
shall pay the fee in full and the bond will be released." Section
28 -1156 Required Parking, A. Parking Requirements: 5. States the
City's obligation and states "Fees may be accepted in lieu of up to
four (4) parking spaces per 2,500 square feet of lot area on the
property for which an application of filed, . This project
qualifies for 12 spaces of in lieu parking. Did someone forget about
that?
The City Staff has stood in the way of development of the L -C zone
for the last twelve years. It has refused to implement the "in lieu"
parking provision by NOT developing the Pacific Electric right -of -way
into off - street parking, NOT painting diagonal parking on bott3'5 ides
of the boulevard, and /or NOT filing alocal coastal plan (LCP)
indicating Seal Beach Boulevard has adequate parking for the L-C zone
development. One can only guess at the reasons used by Staff for not
doing so. As a result, the potential tax base of mixed used three
story commercial residential development has cost the City a tax base
of at least $10 million per year over the last twelve years in both
property value and retail sales tax. And we are crying for money in
our budget as it relates to tree trimming and street sweeping. If
those who don't own property on Seal Beach Boulevard are able to
revoke the L -C zone and replace it with R -1, the opportunity for high
density upscale apartments and visitor serving retail is lost forever
and so is the "Gateway" to Old Town Seal Beach that we have enjoyed
for over fifty years! Just look at the image of Avalon homes, spot -
zoned at the Pacific Coast Highway Seal Beach Boulevard entrance.
Would you want your children living there playing next to the bus
stop and liquor store and a 50mph major intersection?
Sincerely,
l./L6.y�
Walter F. Miller
231 Seal Beach Boulevard, Suite 3
Seal Beach, CA 90790 -6596
cc: Medhat Raouf
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 01 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
133 Seat Beach Boulevard
City Council StaffRepon
April 8, 1002
ATTACHMENT C
EXCERPT - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1346
23
02 -1 Aypw1.CC Staff Report
Ordinance Number 19416
Section 28 -1155. General Provision& Lot Size, 012en Space, Bulk a]2d Yards
A. Minimum Lot Size:
Widt h ............... ............................... 25 ft
Depth............. ............................... 100 ft.
Area.......... ............................... 2,500 sq. ft.
B. Yard Dimensions:
1. Front yard abutting street:
Commercial .................. 6 ft. average - 3 fl. minimum
Residential .................. 12 ft. average - 6 ft. minimum'
2. Side yard abutting street:
Commercial ................. 10% lot width average - 5% lot
width minimum, to a maximum of 5 ft
Residential ....................... 15% lot width average -
10% lot width minimum, 8 ft maximum'
3. Yard abutting alley:
Rear ............................... 9 ft on 15 ft. alley
12 ft on 12 ft alley
13 ft on 11 ft alley
(second stories may encroach 1/2 the required setback)
4. Yard not abutting street or alley:
Commercial ..... ............................... none
Residential ............................ 10% lot width;*,
3 ft. minimum, 10 ft maximum•-
• Exception: For required residential parking spaces on lots
of leas than tbirty -seven and one -half (37.5) feel in width, an
encroachment into the exterior side yard for the length of the
garage will be permitted. The intent of this provision is to
provide an interior garage width dimension of eighteen feet
•• Yard dimensions for residential uses are for second story and
above yards, as residential uses are not permitted on the
....,..d 11
C. Lot Coverage:
1. The non - residential development shall be limited to a maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.90 for lots having less than 5,000
square feet of area. For lots having more than 5,000 square feet of
lot area, the non - residential development shall be limited to a
maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75, but not less than 4,500
square feet.
2. The residential development shall be limited to one residential unit
for each 2,000 square feet of lot area with a maximum residential
Public Hearing re: Appeal afApproval ofA inorPlan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 01 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Sta, f(R¢part
Apr118, 2001
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. 02 -14, A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN
REVIEW 02 -1, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 2
NEW MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE
LIMITED COMMERCIAL (L -C) ZONE, ADOPTED
MARCH 20, 2002
24
024 A,unI.CC Sbd Report
RESOLUTION NUMBER 02 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 02 -1, A REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT 2 NEW MIXED USE BUILDINGS
WITHIN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (L -C) ZONE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On February 14, 2002, Dr. Medhat Raouf ( "The Applicant ") filed
an application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1 with the Department of Development Services.
Through MPR 02 -1, the applicant seeks to construct 2 new structures, to be located on 2 lots
separated by a third lot, which will be comprised of parking.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § ILB of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan
Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on March 20, 2002 to consider the application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1.
Section 4. The record of the hearing on Much 20, 2002 indicates the
following:
(a) On February 14, 2002, Dr. Medhat Raouf ( "The Applicant ") filed an
application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1 with the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant proposes to build one structure with
approximately 1160 Square Feet of Medical Office area, with approximately 2188 Square feet of
residential space above it. Additionally, the applicant proposes to build a second structure further
north on the property, which will have approximately 827 square feet of office area on the fast
floor, with approximately 2188 square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created by
2 separate 2 car garages for the residential units and utilize shared parking for the commercial
uses.
C:Wy D0G==a \RESoWPR 02 -1 - 233 SBB.PC Reo.do \Lw1 2 -02
Planning Commission Resolution No.02 -14
Minor Plan Renew 02 -1
233 Sea/ Beach Boulevard
March 20, 2002
(c)
The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's
Parcel Number 199 - 062 -04 and is located in the Residential High Density zone of Old Town.
(d)
The subject property is 3 separate rectangular lots in shape with a total lot
area of roughly 7762.5
square feet (3 separate 25' x 103' lots).
(e)
The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows:
SOUTH
A mix of commercial and residential buildings in the Limited Commercial
(L -C) zone.
NORTH
A mix of residential structures and vacant land in the Limited Commercial
(L -C) zone and the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone
EAST
Naval Weapons Station in a Public Land Use / Recreation (PLU/R) zone.
WEST
A mixture of single - family and multi - family residential dwellings located
in the Residential Medium Density zone (RMD) of Old Town.
(t) As of March 13, 2002, staff received no written responses to its mailed
notice regarding Minor Plan Review 02 -1.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
§ 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28 -1158 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial" designation for the
subject property. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General
Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use
Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
(b) The proposed project, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 meets all of the design
review criteria, as set forth in Article 11.5 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Minor Plan Review 02 -1, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the property located at 233 Seal Beach
Boulevard. Specifically, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is approved to build one structure with
approximately 1160 Square Feet of Medical Office area, with approximately 2188 Square
feet of residential space above it and to build a second structure further north on the
MPR 02 -1 -233 SBB.K Reno
Planning Commission Resolution Mo.02 -14
Minor Plan Review 02 -1
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
March 20, 1002
property, which will have approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first floor,
with approximately 2188 square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created
by 2 separate 2 car garages for the residential units and utilize shared parking for the
commercial uses.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR
02 -1.
3. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an
"Acceptance of Conditions" fort has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the
Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department;
and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively `the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of
the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all
claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights
permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses
occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or
death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby.
Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein
shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of
the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses,
lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts,
court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
5. A deed restriction will be recorded on the property, prior to issuance of any building
permits, requiring that no sale of property of any of the three lots may occur until such
time as adequate on site parking is created on each of the three lots.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 20 day of March, 2002 by the following vote:
MPR 02 -1 - M SBB K Reno
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
� Whittenberg, ecretary
Planning Commission
MPR 02.1 -233 SBB.K Res.
Planning Commission Resolution No.01 -14
Minor Plan Review 02 -1
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
March 20, 2002
Brown, Cutuli, and Sharp
Hood and Ladner
James Sharp, Vice - Chairman
Planning Commission
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
133 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2001
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 20, 2002
02 -1 App�1.CC Staff Repon 25
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2002
MOTION CARRIED: 3-0-2
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hood and Ladner
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Vice - Chairperson Sharp opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Vice - Chairperson Sharp closed oral
communications.
1. Minor Plan Review 02 -1
233 Seal Beach Blvd.
ApplicanUOwner: Richard Stupin / Medhat Raouf
Request: To construct 2 separate buildings in the Limited
Commercial (L -C) Zone. Specifically, the applicant
proposes to build one structure with approximately 1,160
square feet of medical office area, with approximately
2,188 square feet of residential space above it.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to build a second
structure further north on the property, which will have
approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first
floor, with approximately 2,188 square feet of residential
space above. Parking will be created by 2 separate 2 car
garages for the residential units and utilize shared
parking for the commercial uses.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 02 -14.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
reported that there are 3 lots on this property each measuring 25 feet by 103 feet.
He reported that there would be 2 buildings on the 2 outside lots with parking
provided in the middle. He said there is access off of Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB)
with an existing curb cut and there is also access off the alleyway. He explained that
there were a number of design criteria within the Zoning Code for an L -C Zone, and
he proceeded to review some of the key points.
Z:1CAlvarezWarmen_datalPC Minutes12002103 -20 -02 PC Minutes.doc
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2002
Mr. Cummins stated that a parking analysis reveals that the medical office would
require one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross area. He indicated that
this southerly building would have 1,160 square feet, which would generate a
parking demand of 8 spaces including the residential parking. He reported the
northerly building has 826 square feet of regular office space requiring one parking
space for each 300 square feet for a parking requirement of 3 spaces, as well as 2
stalls for the residential unit which requires 2 parking spaces per unit. The total
demand for this project is 13 parking spaces. Mr. Cummins reported that the plans
currently show 3 compact parking stalls, but City Code only allows 25% of existing
parking to be compact spaces. He said that as part of this approval Staff is requiring
that the covered parking space underneath the northerly building be widened by 1
foot to make it a standard size parking space.
He then reported the intent of the L -C Zoning as follows:
1. To encourage commercial, service, institutional, and office uses that do not
attract large volumes of traffic and continuous customer turnover.
2. Limit and discourage development of strip -type, highway oriented commercial
uses that create traffic hazards and congestion because they require numerous
individual curb cuts and generate higher traffic volumes.
3. Minimize visual and functional conflicts between residential and non - residential
uses within and abutting the zone.
4. Encourage elimination of curb cuts for vehicular access and promote more
efficient and economical parking facilities, utilizing both on- street parking, off -
street parking, and off -site parking facilities.
5. Encourage uses that minimize noise and congestion.
Mr. Cummins stated that this project was not designed to be a strip -type mall project,
but is two separate structures with parking in between. He said one is a dental office
that would not generate the parking demands that a very intensive retail use might.
He noted that the use provides adequate on -site parking and is not going to
generate significant noise or other types of congestion. He stated that under the L -C
Zoning Code, design review is required, which sets out specific setback and lot
coverage, landscape, and mixed use standards. He reported that the project meets
all setback requirements. He referred to the Staff Report and reviewed the details of
these requirements and stated that the project meets all of the standards. He said
that Staff is recommending approval of Minor Plan Review (MPR) 02 -1 subject to
conditions. He noted that one of these conditions is that a deed restriction on the
properties be recorded for the reciprocal parking agreements necessary to ensure
the availability of parking for the commercial components.
ZACAIvarez \Carmen data\PC Min utes12002 \03 -20 -02 PC Minutes.Coc
ER
City of Seal Beach Planning commission
Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2002
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Cutuli asked about the garage encroaching into the side -yard
setback. He confirmed that the minimum size for garages is 18 x 20 feet. Mr.
Cummins confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Cutuli noted that the plans
show the garage dimensions to be 20'/2 x 20'/2 and stated that this was larger than
the minimum garage size, and probably creates the encroachment problem. He
stated that the garage should hold to the minimum standard dimensions to prevent
further encroachment into the side -yard setback. Mr. Cummins stated that the plans
reflect the exterior dimension of the garage. Commissioner Cutuli stated that if a
one -foot allowance were made for these exterior measurements, that would still
leave an interior dimension of 19 %2 x 19 '/2, which is still larger than the minimum
standard. He stated that he would interpret this to mean that the garage should not
be allowed to encroach that far into the side -yard setback. Mr. Cummins responded
that this would be a determination to be made by the Planning Commission (PC).
Vice - Chairperson Sharp reported that Staff had received a letter regarding MPR
02 -1 and asked the Director of Development Services if he wished to comment on
the letter. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the gentlemen submitting the letter was
present tonight and could comment during a Public Comment Session.
Public Comment
Vice - Chairperson Sharp opened the Public Comment Session.
Mr. Walt Miller stated that he was excited that MPR 02 -1 is a viable project. He said
that the dental office with the dentist residing above the office appears to be proper;
however, he is concerned about the other unit that is to be an office space unit and
appears to have no restrictions upon it regarding what type of business can move
into it. He reported that because the property is located in a flood zone, the flooring
should be raised to 24 inches to comply with flood zone requirements. Mr. Miller
stated that according to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) commercial
access from the alley is not allowed. He indicated that he would like all the
comments made in his letter to stand, whether they apply to MPR 02 -1 or not. He
expressed his concerns regarding the reduced visibility for vehicles exiting the
driveway out of this property caused by cars parked along the street. He stated that
entry into the driveways could also be dangerous as a result of cars parked on the
street near the driveway entrances. Mr. Miller questioned whether the turning radius
of 25 feet would be adequate to accommodate a vehicle that is 20 feet long. He
noted that he would like to see the Cape Code design used on the exterior of the
building to provide conformity. He stated that this exterior design is what had been
approved for his project.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice - Chairperson Sharp closed the
Public Comment Session.
ZACAIvarez %Carmen_tlatalPC Minutes12002103 -20 42 PC Minutes.tloc
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2002
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp asked if Staff had any comment on Mr. Millers concern with
the flood zone requirements. Mr. Cummins stated that whenever a new building is
constructed, a grading plan must be approved. He indicated that during Plan Check
issues such as flood plain and appropriate heights for structures to conform to the
flood zone requirements are addressed. He said that in order to complete
construction the applicant must have an engineering plan check completed to
address any flood zone issues.
Commissioner Cutuli asked Staff to comment on permitted parking access from the
alley. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff has never attached conditions related to where
certain vehicles can drive down alleys. He stated that this may be a CCC condition,
and if this is the case, the applicant will have to address this with the CCC.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff stands by its recommendation to approve and
would be happy to respond to any other questions on this application.
Commissioner Cutuli commented that the design of the building looked quite plain
and asked if the PC had any control over this. Commissioner Brown responded that
traditionally the PC has always avoided this. He noted that the PC is not a design
review committee and has never intended to embark upon this path. Commissioner
Sharp agreed that this was not a prerogative of the PC. Mr. Whittenberg interjected
that the basic purpose for this review is to ensure that the building layout is
compatible with adjoining uses. He stated that the issue of architectural review is
one that has arisen occasionally, but is one that the PC has not chosen to take on.
Commissioner Cutuli commented that one of his patients had shared that after
having designs completed for a Burger King business he wanted to start in the City
of Westminster, the City submitted recommendations for modifying the design to
make it look more up-to -date than what the plans reflected. He said that although he
understood the position of the PC, he believes that this project design reflects a very
downscale appearance. He asked if there were no requirements for any decorative
accoutrements to enhance the building. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are
certain building code requirements and he would characterize this design as a
modem design, but the City does not attempt to impose any particular style upon
projects within the City. Commissioner Cutuli asked then whether "anything goes ?"
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is the policy unless the PC decides it should be
changed. Commissioner Cutuli recommended changing it. Commissioner Brown
interjected that in his opinion it is not the shape of the building or the accoutrements
that make the difference, but the way properties are landscaped. He reiterated that
he did not believe this is an issue that he would like to see dictated. He commented
that this particular area of town has been a difficult one, as it has seen no action,
even though it had a plan for the Limited Commercial (L -C) Zone. He stated that he
is happy to see someone come up with a new plan for new activity in this area and
he would like to support it. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he also supports the
project, but he would like to see the appearance upgraded. He stated that he does
ZACAIvarezlCarn,en dataTC Mlnutes=02t03 -2042 PC Minutes.doe
City of Seat Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2002
1 - not believe that the PC should bend the rule with regard to the minimum size
2 dimensions for the garage. Commissioner Brown noted that he believes that there is
3 a provision in City Code for this. Mr. Cummins reported that there is a provision in
4 the Code that allows for encroachment into the side -yard setback area for a
5 residential garage. Commissioner Cutuli confirmed that this would apply to the
6 minimum garage size. Mr. Cummins read from the Code, which reflected that
7 encroachment is permitted to allow for an 18 x 20 -foot garage. Commissioner Cutuli
8 stated that he would like to include a condition of approval to limit the size of the
9 garage to the minimum standard. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that his concern with
10 Commissioner Cutulfs recommendation is that this would leave an 18 -inch wide by
11 18 -foot long yard area that becomes very difficult to maintain because of its
12 dimensions. He stated that Staff had no problem with the building being constructed
13 on property line because this helps solve issues regarding drainage off rooflines and
14 the problem with yard maintenance in an 18 -inch wide area. Commissioner Sharp
15 stated that he was in agreement with this concern as these narrow setbacks are
16 difficult to keep clean and become "rat traps." He stated that he would prefer to see
17 the garage on the property line rather than the narrow 18 -inch setback.
18 Commissioner Cutuli asked if the adjacent property owner should be considered.
19 Mr. Whittenberg stated that under provision of the Code the adjacent owner would
20 be allowed to place a garage on the property line also. Commissioner Cutuli
21 inquired as to which property was located on the south side of this property. Mr.
22 Whittenberg reported that Mr. Walt Millers property was located south of the
23 proposed site. Commissioner Cutuli asked if Mr. Miller had any objection to the
24 garage on the property line. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he did not hear any specific
25 concerns expressed by Mr. Miller with regard to the garage setback. Commissioner
26 Brown stated that he had no problem with allowing the garage to be on the property
27 line in this particular situation. He agreed that an 18 -inch strip would not help
28 beautify the city.
29
30 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review 02 -1 subject
31 to conditions and adopt Resolution 02 -14.
32
33 MOTION CARRIED: 3-0-2
34 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, and Sharp
35 NOES: None
36 ABSENT: Hood and Ladner
37
38 Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02 -14 begins a 10 -day
39 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
\ 40 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
42
43 CONSENT CALENDAR
44
45 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2002.
46
ZACAIvare %Carmen dataTC Minutes =0=3 -20 -02 PC Minutes.doc
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Review 02 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2002
ATTACHMENT F
LETTER TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM
WALT MILLER RE: MINOR PLAN REVIEW 02 -1,
DATED MARCH 16, 2002
26
02 -1 Appeal.CC Staff Report
March 16, 2002
Planning Commission
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740 -6379
Re: Minor Plan Review 02 -01
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
Applicant: Richard Stupin
Owner: Medhat Raouf
I commend the Owner on his proposal to initiate development in the
L -C zone which I have failed to do for some 12 years.
OBJECTIONS TO CONSTRUCT 2 SEPARATE BUILDINGS IN THE LIMITED
COMMERCIAL (L -C) ZONE.
The following objections may or may not apply depending on the plans
submitted by the applicant at the hearing. My objections will be
limited to, the following objections that are not fully satisfied by
the plans approved by both the California Coastal Commission and the
City of Seal Beach. I reserve the right to add to or withdraw to any
of the following objections if I am present at the scheduled March
20, 2002 hearing.
1. All restrictions applicable to Minor Plan Review 01 -6 will apply
to this application.
2. All restrictions applicable to findings of City Council of Seal
Beach of Minor Plan Review 01 -6 Appeal will apply to this
application. I.e Section 28 -1155 B. 4. Yard not abutting street
or alley has been revoked by their action.
3. All restrictions applicable to Coastal Development Permit
Application 5 -01 -129.
Specific objections:
1. Deed restrictions for shared parking and non - residential use in
residents shall be recorded on each developed parcel.
2. .Residential alley may not be used for entrance and /or exit to
meet commercial parking requirements. E.g. Fed -X and UPS trucks
cannot negotiate and do not use alley for service due to their
overall width (10' mirror to mirror).
3. Seven on site commercial parking places to be provided with
entrance /exit being existing driveway apron on Seal Beach
Boulevard. Of the seven parking spaces required, two must be
handicap accessible, and only two may be for compact use.
4. First 50' of west side curb immediately north of driveway apron
to be stripped red to allow exiting visibility of southbound
traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard. Posted speed limit to be
reduced to 25mph from 35mph to provide for safe slowing of
traffic entering and exiting driveway.
5. Commercial area of 1160 square feet will be set back minimum of
three feet from each property line.
6. Commercial area of 1160 square feet will have floor elevated 24"
above grade to comply with flood zone requirement.
7. Commercial area of 1160 square feet will provide handicap ramp
to accommodate entrance from sidewalk level to commercial area.
8. Commercial area of 827 square feet will be set back minimum of
three feet from each property line,
9. Commercial area of 827 square feet will have floor elevated 24"
above grade to comply with flood zone requirement.
10. Commercial area of 827 square feet will provide handicap ramp to
accommodate entrance from sidewalk level to commercial area.
11. A minimum of 200sf for each development shall be devoted to
landscaping, not including the required front yard setback
landscaping (Sec 28 -1155 E.2.)
12. Provisions to be made to catch water runoff on site and to be
shown on approved grading plans.
13. A Cape Cod architectural exterior design to be required of both
properties to set design standard for future development in L -C
zone.
14. New residential uses shall only be permitted in conjunction with
a non - residential use, designed as an integral portion of the
non - residential use and intended for occupancy by the
operator /owner of the adjoining non - residential use (Code
Section 28 -1155 F.4). unless otherwise amended.
15. City may not assess in -lieu fee to meet on -site parking spaces
otherwise required for non - residential use until the City has
filed a Local Coastal Plan (LCP).approved and accepted by the
California Coastal Commission.
16. Residential units to require non - residential use provision
located on second story level.
17. Third story residential units, if any, to provide two stairway
exits to ground level (reference Surfside requirements set out
by Seal Beach Planning Department - Charles Feenstra directive).
Respectfully submitted,
Walter F. Miller, Owner
229 and 231 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Tel. 562 -598 -8455 FAX 562 -430 -0912
Public Hearing re: Appeal of Approval of Minor Plan Recline 01 -1
Planning Commission Resolution 02 -14
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
City Council StaffR2port
April8, 2001
ATTACHMENT G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT RE:
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 02 -1, DATED MARCH 20,
2002
27
02 -1 Appeel.CC Staff Report
Much 20, 2002
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject: Minor Plan Review 02 -1
233 Seal Beach Boulevard
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant:
MR. MEDDAT RAoUF
Owner:
SAME
Location: -
233 SEAL BEACD BOULEVARD
Classificationbf Property:
LIMITED COMMERCIAL (L -C)
Request:
TO CONSTRUCT 2 SEPARATE BUILDINGS IN THE LIMITED
COMMERCIAL (L -C) ZONE. SPECIFICALLY, THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD ONE STRUCTURE WITH
APPROXIMATELY 1160 SQUARE FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE
AREA, WITH APPROXIMATELY 2188 SQUARE FEET OF
RESIDENTIAL SPACE ABOVE IT. ADDITIONALLY, THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A SECOND STRUCTURE
FURTHER NORTH ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WILL HAVE
APPROXIMATELY 827 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AREA ON
THE FIRST FLOOR, WITH APPROXIMATELY 2188 SQUARE
FEET OF RESIDENTIAL SPACE ABOVE. PARKING WILL BE
CREATED BY 2 SEPARATE 2 CAR GARAGES FOR THE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND UTILIZE SHARED PARKING FOR
THE COMMERCIAL USES.
Environmental Review:
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW.
Code Sections: 28 -2407
Recommendation: APPROVE MINOR PLAN REVIEW 02 -1 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
Stay _.eport - Minor Plan Review 02 -1
March 20, 2002
FACTS
• On February 14, 2002, Dr. Medhat Raouf ( "the applicants ") filed an application with the
Department of Development Services for Minor Plan Review 02 -1.
• Specifically, the applicant proposes to build one structure with approximately 1160 Square
Feet of Medical Office area, with approximately 2188 Square feet of residential space above
it. Additionally, the applicant proposes to build a second structure further north on the
property, which will have approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first floor, with
approximately 2188 square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created by 2
separate 2 car garages for the residential units and utilize shared parking for the commercial
uses.
• The subject property currently has a vacant building and a vacant lot. There are 3 parcels of
land, which will have two buildings placed on the outer parcels, and have reciprocal parking
on the middle parcel.
• The subject property is described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199 - 062 -04
and is located in the Limited Commercial (L -C) zone of Old Town..
• The subject property is 3 separate rectangular lots in shape with a total lot area of 7762.5
square feet,(Three separate 25' x 103.5' lots).
• The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
SOUTH A mix of commercial and residential buildings in the Limited Commercial
(L -C) zone.
NORTH A mix of residential structures and vacant land in the Limited Commercial
(L -C) zone and the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone
EAST Naval Weapons Station in a Public Land Use / Recreation (PLU/R) zone.
WEST A mixture of single - family and multi - family residential dwellings located
in the Residential Medium Density zone (RMD) of Old Town.
• As of March 13, 2002 Staff has received no complaints, written or other, to this request.
DISCUSSION
The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199-
062-04, is located in the Limited Commercial (L -C) zone, on a rectangular shaped lot with an
area of 7762.5 square feet (75' x 103.5'). The property currently contains a vacant building and a
vacant lot.
Page 2
Sta�, .<eport - Minor Plan Review 02 -1
March 20, 2002
The proposal for development calls for 2 separate buildings to be constructed at 233 Seal Beach
Boulevard, with parking on the middle lot, and 2 parking spaces under the most northerly
building. Both buildings are proposed to have commercial uses on the ground floor with
residential housing on the second and third floors (1 housing unit per building). On the southerly
building, a total of 1160 square feet of dental office space is proposed, with a 2188 square foot
residential housing unit above. On the northerly of the two buildings, 826.5 square feet of office
is proposed with a 2188 square foot housing unit above.
The project essentially looks like mirrored buildings, except that the northerly building has
reduced commercial square footage on the ground floor to create additional parking. There will
be access to the property for parking from both Seal Beach Boulevard via the existing curb cut
and from the alley. There will be planting areas with landscaping along the front of the buildings
facing Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed buildings meet all required setbacks and height
requirements. Points of note are that the garages for the residential housing units are located to
the rear of the buildings, and are located directly on the property line, which is allowable in the
L -C zone. The overall height for the buildings is 30 feet, with a third story on the rear half of the
lot.
Parking Analysis
The applicant is proposing to have 1 160 square feet of dental office space and 1 housing unit in
the southerly building. Dental office space has a puking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of
area, and there are 2 parking spaces per unit. As such, there is a total demand of 8 parking spaces
for the southerly building. The northerly building is proposed at 826 square feet of office space at
1 space per 300 square feet, and I housing unit at 2 puking spaces per unit. As such, the
northerly building requires 5 parking spaces. There are a total of 13 parking spaces provided on
site, with 1 handicapped space. As such, the proposed project meets the parking requirements of
the City. Both housing units parking spaces are provided in garages on the rear of the property.
A total of 3 compact puking stalls are provided, with two on the rear side of the property, and 1
on the front side of the property. This is in excess of the compact parking standards, which allow
for 25% of the required parking to be compact stalls. As such, staff is recommending that the
northerly building's first floor be reduced by 1 foot, to accommodate a full size parking space,
making that space a legal space.
Staff is recommending that a deed restriction be recorded so that the lots could not be sold
separately without each of the lots having the appropriate amount of on site parking.
Development Within The L -C Zone
Section 28 -1150 sets forth the legislative intent of the L -C Zone. It sets out the intent of the zone
to:
1. Encourage commercial, service, institutional, and office uses that do not attract large
volumes of traffic and continuous customer turnover
Page 3
Stab - ,eport - Minor Plan Review 02 -1
March 20, 2002
2. Limit and discourage development of strip -type, highway oriented commercial uses that
create traffic hazards and congestion because they require numerous individual curb cuts
and generate higher traffic volumes
3. Minimize visual and functional conflicts between residential and non - residential uses
within and abutting the zone
4. Encourage elimination of curb cuts for vehicular access and promote more efficient and
economical parking facilities, utilizing both on -street parking, off street parking, and off
site parking facilities
5. Encourage uses that minimize noise and congestion
The project encourages commercial and office uses which will not attract large volumes of
traffic. A dentist's office and regular office space will not draw nearly as much traffic as a retail
commercial use might. The proposed project is not a strip mall in any sense, and minimizes the
functional conflicts between residential and non - residential uses by virtue of the fact that the
proposed architectural style of the building is uniform from the first to the second and third
floors. The use provides adequate on site parking, and will not generate any significant noise or
congestion. As such, staff recommends that the Commission find that the project meets the intent
of the Limited Commercial Zoning. _
Design Review
Under section 28 -1158, all NEW construction requires Planning Commission approval through
the Minor Plan Review, consent calendar process.
As previously mentioned, the site comprises 3 separate 25' x 103.5 foot lots, for a total of 7762.5
square feet. The applicant is not proposing to combine the three lots into one. He is proposing to
adhere to the setbacks for buildings on each of the two lots proposed for structures, and provide
parking on the middle lot for both buildings.
Setbacks & Lot Coverage:
The setbacks for the project are as follows:
Front: Residential= 12 foot average, 6 foot minimum
Commercial = 6 foot average, 3 foot minimum
Side: Commercial = none
Residential = 3 feet (There is an exception which allows residential parking spaces to
encroach into the required side yard setback area)
Rear: 24 feet — width of alley (2' stories may encroach Y: of setback area)
The property meets all required setbacks, as detailed on the plan. The garages for the residential
housing units are slightly offset and extend all the way to the property line on the far south
(Southerly building) and the far north (Northerly building). This is allowable under the exception
Page 4
Stab .<eport - Minor Plan Review 02 -1
March 20, 1002
within the code. The height limit is 30 feet, and the applicant has proposed to have an overall
height for the structure of 30 feet.
Lot Coverage:
The City Code sets out different standards for lots having less than 5000 square feet, than for lots
- having more than 5000 square feet. For lots having less than 5000 square feet, which is each of
these lots, the maximum Floor Area Ratio for non - residential development is 0.90. The
maximum amount of commercial square footage under this requirement for a 25' x 103.5' is
2317 square feet. Both proposed buildings meet this requirement.
In terms of residential development, one unit is allowed for each 2000 square feet of lot area and
has a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .85 for lots having less than 5000 square feet. The applicant
is proposing to have 1 housing unit on each of the lots proposed for development, and each lot
has more than 2000 square feet. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 2188 square feet of
residential housing for a lot having dimensions of 25'x 103.5'. The applicant is proposing 2188
square feet in each unit, which meets the lot coverage requirements.
Landscaping Requirements:
The Code sets out that a minimum of 60% of the area of the required front yard setback shall be
devoted to landscaping, and a minimum of 5% of the lot area shall be devoted to landscaping, not
including the required front yard landscaping.
The applicant is proposing to have all of the front yard area landscaped with approximately 6
foot deep landscaping planters. Further, the applicant is proposing planting area along the sides
of the building. The proposed project meets all landscaping requirements, as currently proposed.
Mixed Use Standards:
The City Code has the following mixed use standards in place for this zone:
❑ No new residential units on the ground floor and all new residential units shall be located
only the second floor or above
❑ Each housing unit will have a useable exterior open space area of at least 80 square feet, with
a minimum dimension of 8 feet
❑ No new non - residential uses above the second floor
❑ New residential uses shall only be permitted in conjunction with a non - residential use,
designed as integral portion of the non - residential use and intended for occupancy by the
operatodowner of the adjoining non - residential use
The proposed project meets the all of the forgoing standards. The first and third standards have
been discussed in detail already. The second standard, the open space requirement, is met
through the provision of a 3 story roof deck on each of the proposed buildings. Finally, the
proposal is for a dentist's office to be built with a residential housing unit above. Staff
Page 5
Stab ..epos - Minor Plan Review 02 -1
March 10, 7001
understands that the dentist, Dr. Raouf, will occupy the housing unit above. As such, this
proposal meets the requirements of this section of the Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after
considering all relative testimony presented during the public
hearing, approve Minor Plan Review 02 -1, subject to conditions.
Staffs recommendation is based on the following:
• Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial" designation for the subject
property. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as
the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element.
Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
• The proposed project, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 meets all of the design review criteria, asset
forth in Article 11.5 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: -
1. Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is approved for the property located at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard.
Specifically, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is approved to build one structure with approximately
1160 Square Feet of Medical Office area, with approximately 2188 Square feet of residential
space above it and to build a second structure further north on the property, which will have
approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first floor, with approximately 2188
square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created by 2 separate 2 car garages for
the residential units and utilize shared parking for the commercial uses.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR 02-
1
3. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the
ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or
supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the
use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims,
lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this
Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any
person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected
with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying
Page 6
Stajj ..¢port - Minor Plan Rwim 02 -1
March 20, 2002
all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in
connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any
award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit.or
action.
5. A deed restriction will be recorded on the property, prior to issuance of any building permits,
requiring that no sale of property of any of the three lots may occur until such time as
adequate on site parking is created on each of the three lots.
FOR: March 20, 2002
Mac Cummins
Cummins
Assistant Planner
Department of Development Services
Attachments (4):
Whittenberg
Director
Department of Development Services
1. Code Sections
2. Application
3. Proposed Resolution
4. Plans
Page 7
Attachment 1
S 28 -1150 Zoning S 28 -1151
Article 11 .5, Limited Commercial Zone
Section 28 -1150 Declaration of Legislative Intent. It is
hereby declared to be the intent of the LC - Limited Commercial
Zone - to establish reasonable standards that permit and control
limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with
residential uses. It is not the intent of this zone to allow
uses which are purely residential in nature. Furthermore, it is
the intent of this part to:
A. Encourage commercial, service, institutional and office uses
that do not attract large volumes of traffic and continuous
customer turnover.
B. Limit and discourage development of strip -type, highway -
oriented commercial uses that create traffic hazards and
congestion because they require numerous individual curb
cuts and generate higher traffic volumes.
C. Minimize visual and functional conflicts between residential
and nonresidential uses within and abutting the zone.
D. Encourage elimination of curb cuts for vehicular access and
promote more efficient and economical parking facilities,
utilizing both on- street parking, off - street parking and
off -site parking facilities.
E. Encourage uses that minimize noise and congestion.
Section 28 -1151. Permitted Uses.
In the L -C zone, the following uses only are permitted and as
hereinafter specifically provided and allowed by this article:
A. Retail specialty shops including, but not limited to, the
sale of gifts, antiques, flowers, books, jewelry, apparel,
tobacco and related supplies, or craft shops, making
articles exclusively for retail sale on the premises.
B. Personal service shops including, but not limited to,
tailor, barber, beauty salon, shoe repair, dressmaking, or
similar service uses.
C. Business offices including, but not limited to, security and
commodity brokerage, real estate sales, travel agency,
employment counseling, insurance sales, advertising,
mailing, and stenographic services, and other services of a
similar nature.
7400 (seal eeacd 12194)
S 28 -1151 Seal Beach City Code S 28 -1152
D. Studios for dance, art, music, photography, radio, or
television.
E. Professional offices for lawyers, engineers, architects,
landscape architects, urban planners, accountants, economic
consultants, doctors, dentists, chiropractors, or other
practitioners of the healing arts for humans, or other
professionals of a similar nature.
F. Residential uses located only on the second floor and above,
and only in conjunction with a permitted or conditionally
permitted non - residential use.
G. Nursery schools, day care centers, private or trade schools,
outdoor play hours shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 P.M.
N. Any use determined by the Planning Commission to be of a
nature similar to the uses listed above.
Section 28 -1152. Use Limitations. Limitations in this section
apply to uses proposed after the effective date of the section
and changes to existing establishments caused by expansion or
reduction of space or change of service /product mix. If one -
third (33 -1/39) of an establishment's floor area or gross
receipts, as defined in Section 11.1, are derived from a
conditional use, the establishment will be so categorized, and a
conditional use permit shall be required for the operation of the
establishment.
A. No business shall operate before 7:00 a.m., or after 10:00
p.m., unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured.
B. No use shall be permitted in which more than twenty -five
percent (259) of the floor area is devoted to storage unless
a Conditional Use Permit is secured.
C. All activities and storage must be carried on within a
building unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured.
D. No establishment shall have an exterior service window
unless a Conditional Use Permit is secured.
E. The maximum floor area occupied by a single establishment
shall be 3,000 square feet, unless a Conditional Use permit
is secured.
(Seel Beech 17194) 7401
S 28 -1157 Zoning S 28 -1154
Section 28 -1153. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be
permitted by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -2501:
A. Television and appliance repair.
B. Bakery for production of articles to be sold at retail only
on the premises.
C. Conversion of residential use to a non - residential use,
provided all other applicable standards of this Section are
met.
D. Outdoor sale and display areas.
Section 28 -1154. Standards and Criteria for Conditional Uses.
The Planning Commission may authorize a conditional use if it
conforms with the following standards and criteria:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the provisions of
the General Plan.
B. The proposed use is compatible with uses of property within
the immediate area.
C. The proposed use will not attract large volumes of vehicular
traffic.
D. The proposed use is of a similar architectural scale to
existing development in the zone or will use an existing
building for its purposes.
E. Minimum visual and functional conflict will be created
between the proposed use and nearby uses.
F. Tsticipated noise and congestion created by the use will be
comparable to that created by nearby uses.
G. The use shall not require servicing by, or deliveries of
materials, stocks, or supplies by trucks having more than
two axles.
H. The proposed use will not contribute to the domination of
one type of use within the zone.
7402 (5ee1 Beach I2194)
S 28 -1155 Seal Beach City Code S 28 -1155
Section 28 -1155. General Provisions rot Size Open Soace Bulk
and Yards.
A. Minimum Lot Size:
Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ft.
Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ft.
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 sq. ft.
B. Yard Dimensions:
1. Front yard abutting street:
Commercial . . . . . .
6 ft. average - 3 ft. minimum
Residential . . . . 12 ft. average - 6 ft.
minimum*
2. Side yard abutting street:
Commercial
10% lot width average
-
. 5% lot width minimum, to a maximum
of 5 ft.
Residential
. 15% lot width
average -
. . . • . . lot lot
width minimum, 8 ft.
maximum*
3. Yard abutting alley:
Rear . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 9 ft. on 15
ft. alley
• • • . . . . . .
. . . 12 £t. on 12
ft. alley
. • • .
. . . 13 ft. on 11
ft. alley
(second stories
may encroach 1/2 the
required
setback)
4. Yard not abutting street or alley:
Commercial . . . . ,
*,. ,. . .
none
Residential . . . 3
ft minimum, 10 ft.
maximum **
(Ord. No. 1358)
C. Lot Coverage:
1. The non - residential development shall be limited to a
maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.90 for lots having
less than 5,000 square feet of area. For lots having
more than 5,000 square feet of lot area, the non-
residential development shall be limited to a maximum
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75, but not less than 4,500
square feet.
• Exception: For required residential parking spaces on lots of less than
thirty-seven and one -half (37.5( feet in width, an encroachment into the
exterior side yard for the length of the garage will be permitted. The
intent of this provision is to provide an interior garage width disension
of eighteen feet.
* *Yard dimensions for residential uses are for second story and above yard.,
as residential uses are not permitted on the ground level.
(Seal Beach 12194) 7403
S 28 -1155 Zoning S 28 -1155
2. The residential development shall be limited to one
residential unit for each 2,000 square feet of lot area
with a maximum residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of
0.85, for lots having less than 5,000 square feet of
area. For lots having more than 5,000 square feet of
lot area the residential development shall be limited
to one residential unit for each 2,000 square feet of
lot area, with a maximum residential Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 0.70.
D. Maximum Height:
1. Main Building:
Lot width less than 37 -1/2 ft. . . . . . . . 30 ft.
Lot width more than 37 -1/2 ft. .
a) Rear 1/2 of lot, 3 stories, maximum 35 ft.
b) Front 1/2 of lot, 2 stores, maximum 25 ft.
2. Accessory Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ft.
3. A structure shall not encroach into the residential
setback as defined by an imaginary plane described by a
45 degree angle sloping inward from a point six (6)
feet above the existing grade of an adjoining rear
setback line in an "R" District.
4. A basement devoted exclusively to parking shall not be
counted as a story.
E. Landscaping Requirements:
1. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the area of the
required front yard setback shall be devoted to
landscaping.
2. A minimum of five percent (5t) of the lot area shall be
devoted to landscaping, not including the required
front yard setback landscaping.
F. Mixed -Use Standards: Structures used for mixed
commercial /residential use shall be subject to the
following:
1. No new residential units may be located on the ground
floor, all new residential units shall be located only
on the second floor or above, where the ground floor is
occupied by a permitted or conditionally permitted non-
residential use.
7404 (Seal Beach 12194)
-S 28 -1155 Seal Beach City Code S 28 -1156
2. Each dwelling unit shall have a useable exterior open
space area of at least eighty (80) square feet, with a
minimum dimension of eight (8) feet, not utilizing any
required landing areas required in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code for required access to the
residential portions of the subject structure.
3. No new non - residential uses may be located above the
second floor.
4. New residential uses shall only be permitted only in
conjunction with a non - residential use, designed as
integral portion of the non - residential use and
intended for occupancy by the operator /owner of the
adjoining non - residential use.
(Ord. No. 1346; Ord. No. 1358) -
ection 28 -1156 Required Parkins Parking Space Size Form and
TYDe
A. Parking Reguirements:
1. Residential use parking requirements shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -802,
District I and Section 28 -803.
2. Non - residential use parking requirements shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -1203 and
Section 28-1304, as applicable for the non - residential
use.
3. Residential use parking requirements may be met by the
provision of tandem parking up to two (2) spaces in
length, so long as access to the alley from the
residential use spaces is not restricted.
4. Non - residential use parking requirements may be met by
the provision of tandem parking.
S. In lieu of providing a portion of the on -site parking
spaces otherwise required for a non - residential use, an
applicant may pay an in -lieu fee as provided in this
paragraph. Such fee shall be calculated in an amount
necessary to offset the City's cost of re- striping,
closing curb cuts, and other improvements necessary to
create additional parking spaces on the portion of Seal
Beach Boulevard within the L -C zone. Fees may be
accepted in lieu of up to four (4) parking spaces per
2,500 square feet of lot area on the property for which
(5041 Duch 11191) 7405
S 28 -1156 Zoning S 28 -1158
an application is filed, provided, however, the City
may not accept a fee in lieu of parking spaces unless
the applicant proposes to devote to a commercial use
that portion of the surface area of the lot which
equals seventy -five percent (75%) of the area which
would be occupied by the parking spaces otherwise
required for the use in question if those spaces were
provided on the site.
6. The required non - residential parking requirements for
new commercial /service uses may be met by the provision
of additional on- street parking spaces as a result of
the closure of existing curb cuts, on a space for space
basis.
Section 28 -1157. Sian Requirements:
A. Residential and Non - Residential use sign requirements shall
be in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -1800
through 28 -1812, in general.
B. Specific sign requirements for residential uses shall be in
accordance with Section 28- 1804.1.
C. Specific sign requirements for non - residential uses shall be
in accordance with Section 28- 1804.3.
Section 28 -1158. Design Review:
A. All requests for new construction pursuant to this Article
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance
with the Consent Calendar Plan Review procedures, as set
forth in Section 28- 2407.B. '
(Ord. 1346, S5)
7406 (Seal Beach 12154)
Attachment 2
Hpy {I CSLCf� fOf. (Check me IX:m
F Z�
PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No M? R, , C7 a--1 bate Filed:
Planning Commission Date: '' Date Complete:
1. Property Address: 23°7 SOp.1, t-LUD
2. Applicant's Name: t� 4G}�1LR77 �jTV 1�i�
Address: 100 V,/ �)✓�Vl f �L�9 MarJ iPU.O cj0/os�
Home Phone: (ry g)
Work Phone: ?.g �j FAX:
3. Property Owner's Name: Mr--p viA -. ^ 9 -A.oyF
Address:
Home Phone: ( )
4. General Plan and Zoning Designation: L G
5. Present Use of Property: -e:0 Nl l'iE+RGlPrli bk P(,-
6. Proposed Use of Property: M ezG or- F Ica /izE,'45tMf -4c-�
7. Request For: M;oD opF4GL W( (2F.51D�f E
8. Describe the Proposed Improvements: hl,$ W i -°)1�i �L.k -•i. c�.pp4C.
wl CVYWR'
9. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the
character of the surrounding neighborhood: I&ID Jpl—k'R T
City of Seal Beach • 211 Eighth Street • Seal Beach, California 90740
Telephone: (562) 431 -2527 • FAX (562) 431 -4067
(Rev. ne)
19. Describe how and if the approval of this Plan Review would be detrimental in any
way to other property in the vicinity: F3
11. Proof of Ownership
Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I. D. and a photocopy of the Grant
Deed provided by the applicant.
OR I
Signed and notarized Owners Affidavit to be completed and attached to the
application.
12. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed):
e)
�i i nt am
Ve,—
(Date)
By:
(Signature of Applicant)
(Pint Name)
(Date)
For Office Use Only
This is to certify that I haw i spec?ed the foregoing app➢[ahon and found it to be thorough and complete. It conforms to
the rules of the City of Seal Seam goveming the filing of an appl oo,on for a Consent Calendar Plan Re item
'.(Pnnt Name) (Signature) (Port Title) (Late)
City of Seal Beach • 211 Eighth Street • Seal Beach, California 90740
Telephone: (582) 431 -2527 • PAX: (582) 431 -4087
(Rev. 298) 7
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CAL'FORNIA }
CITY OF SEAL. BEACH }
COUNTY OF ORANGE
(ly(We) Me I-] JA 0. c1 F
(Name)
swear that (I am)/(we are) the owner of the property at:
—21� SPcI beAL \11-/ cx �.eaCQ D
(Sbeat Pddress) (cdy) (state) (ZIP)
and that (I am) /(we are) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing
and filing a Plan Review application. The information contained in the attached Plan
Review application is correct to the best of (my) /(our) knowledge and (1) /(we) approve of
this application to do the following work:
-?- / 3 _ 0 2
(Signature) (Date)
(Address - Please Print) (Cdy, State B Zip)
(Rev. 2198)
RAm1LENE BORES
Canmlsskn N 11fAS8p
� Wfvy PUblk- CatlfarNa
Orange Carry —
MyCanrn.EgiesNw3g2'S32
City of Seal Beach • 211 Eighth Street • Seal Beach, California 90740
Telephone: (562) 431 -2527 • FAX: (562) 431 -4067
I
ly /
Q
RECORDING RE KeF�s[t R^
RECORDING _ T -,;icp By:
COMnnONVJ E;i! TN LAND TITLE
Order NO 2805780 -2 Ese"he No, 8220
AND W M&N kzOORDE.D MAIL To
Nam. �MEDHAT RAOUF AND
NEVINE FAMOUS
a.
Md. 16832 BARUMA LANE
Car & LHUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649
State J
Recorded in the County of Orange, California
IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIII� /6e00rtler
19980667260 08100am 10/02(98
004 657423 22 08 COM
G02 1 12 226.88 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 226.e7
0.00 0.00 0.00
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
INDIVIDUAL GRANT DEED A.P.N, 199 - 062-04
The undersigned grantor(s) declares).;, /
Documentary transfer tax is $—
( x ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed an full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
( ) Unincorporated area: ( K ) City of Seal Beach
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which B hereby acknowledged, FRANK E. PRIOR, A SINGLE MAN
hereby ORANT(S) On
MEDHAT RAOUF AND NEVINE FANOUS, HU56110 AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS
the following described real property in the City of Seal Beach
County of Orange , State of California:
and
Lots 33, 35 and 37 of Block 218 of Tract No. 10, in the City of Seal Beach, as shone on a
nap recorded in book 9, Page 10, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder
of said County.
Dated: .duly 29, 1998
FRANK E. RIOR
STATE OF COUNTY OF LIFORNIA O&d NC. f 1 SS.
0. base
CMEXII ��k9 u' aV ✓�- lyaPxmed
h/?ANFC E. min d
personally H'own to me (or proved to me on tM1ebesu ofsuisfacmry evidetmel
he be the peen(s) whose names) is /are subscdbrd W the within imtmment
and ac knnwlelged m me that he l she / they oaued the same in his / her d Neir
aunimaW upacny(i,e), and thin by m his/herf0disigtutio s)onheinsw-
me the pa"unKsl. or Ne entity upon behalf of e,hmb the pen teas) ac
...sed in. es unar,C
WITNESS mylian&.,0�1ITehil seal. )O / ) i
Signature � C
MAIL TAX
STATEMENTS 717:
CHERI L. PARIS
forintDU1303986
(J�-y MOTA.V PU 00s,FORNN 4)
hJ come Evpv» ga0 29, 2oC0
(This area for official nourial reap
A zts
F,
-(
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NUMBER 02 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN REVIEW
02 -1, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 2 NEW MIXED USE
BUILDINGS WITHIN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL (L -C)
ZONE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND
AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On February 14, 2002, Dr. Mehat Raouf ("The Applicant ") filed
an application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1 with the Department of Development Services.
Through MPR 02 -1, the applicant seeks to construct 2 new structures, to be located on 2 lots
separated by a third lot, which will be comprised of parking.
Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.B of the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Minor Plan
Review 02 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission
on March 20, 2002 to consider the application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1.
Section 4. The record of the hearing on March 20, 2002 indicates the
following:
(a) On February 14, 2002, Dr. Mehat Raouf ( "The Applicant ") filed an
application for Minor Plan Review 02 -1 with the Department of Development Services.
(b) Specifically, the applicant proposes to build one structure with
approximately 1160 Square Feet of Medical Office area, with approximately 2188 Square feet of
residential space above it. Additionally, the applicant proposes to build a second structure further
north on the property, which will have approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first
floor, with approximately 2188 square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created by
2 separate 2 car garages for the residential units and utilize shared puking for the commercial
uses.
(c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's
Parcel Number 199 -062 -04 and is located in the Residential High Density zone of Old Town.
(d) The subject property is 3 separate rectangular lots in shape with a total lot
area of roughly 7762.5 square feet (3 separate 25' x 103' lots).
(e) The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows:
Planning Commission Resolution No.01 -13
Apn14, 2001
SOUTH A mix of commercial and residential buildings in the Limited Commercial
(L -C) zone.
NORTH A mix of residential structures and vacant land in the Limited Commercial
(L-C) zone and the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone
EAST Naval Weapons Station in a Public Land Use / Recreation (PLU/R) zone.
WEST A mixture of single - family and multi- family residential dwellings located
in the Residential Medium Density zone (RMD) of Old Town.
(f) As of March 13, 2002, staff received no written responses to its mailed
notice regarding Minor Plan Review 02 -1.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
§ 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to § §_28 -1158 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
• Minor Plan Review 02 -1 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan, which provides a "Limited Commercial" designation for the subject
property. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as
the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element.
Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.
• The proposed project, Minor Plan Review 02 -1 meets all of the design review criteria, as set
forth in Article 11.5 of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Minor Plan Review 02 -1, subject to the following conditions:
I. Minor Plan Review 02 -I is approved for the property located at 233 Seal Beach Boulevard.
Specifically, Minor Plan Review 02 -I is approved to build one structure with approximately
1160 Square Feet of Medical Office area, with approximately 2188 Square feet of residential
space above it and to build a second structure further north on the property, which will have
approximately 827 square feet of office area on the first floor, with approximately 2188
square feet of residential space above. Parking will be created by 2 separate 2 car garages for
the residential units and utilize shared parking for the commercial uses.
2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through MPR 02-
1
3. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of
Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of
Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the
ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed.
Planning commission Resolution No.01 -13
April4, 2001
4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and
employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or
supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the
use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims,
lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this
Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any
person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected
with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying
all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in
connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any
award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or
action.
5. A deed restriction will be recorded on the property, prior to issuance of any building permits,
requiring that no sale of property of any of the three lots may occur until such time as
adequate on site parking is created on each of the three lots.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
at a meeting thereof held on the 20' day of March, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners _
ABSENT: Commissioners _
David Hood, Ph.D., Chairman
Planning Commission
Lee Whittenberg, Secretary
Planning Commission