HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Acceptance of Conditions Form, Medhat RaoufApril 9, 2002
Mr. 'Medhat Raouf
Dear Mr. Raouf:
SUBJECT: Minor Plan Review 02-1
Acceptance of Conditions Form - Signature Required
The City Council on April 8, 2002 approved your application, Minor Plan Review 02-I, through
the adoption of City Council Resolution No. 4999. This resolution sets forth the terns and
conditions of approval, as approved by the City Council. The permit is approved and you may
now proceed in accordance with the conditions of Resolution No. 4999.
Condition N3 of this resolution calls for you to sign an "Acceptance of Conditions" form (copy
enclosed) to effectuate the approval of this Minor Plan Review. Please review the attached copy
of Resolution No. 4999. If you agree to abide by the five (5) Conditions of Approval, please
complete the enclosed form, have your signature notarized, and return the signed form to our
office.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact my office at your
earliest convenience. I can be reached at (562) 431-2527, Extension 313.
Sincerely, 7y!"t
e i tmberg �
vector of Developmen
Enclosures (2) City Council Resolution No. 4999
Acceptance of Conditions Form
AGREEMENT
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Medhat Raouf
FOR A Minor Plan Review AT 233 Seal Beach Blvd.
QyP of RN..1, as. CUP, VW ' -M-) (Add�')
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
The undersigned applicant for Minor Plan Review 02-1
hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the City Council Conditions of Approval
through Resolution No. 4999 Granting him or her a permit for the above use. Applicant
does now hereby accept and agree to comply with all the terms and conditions pursuant to, and
under which, said permit was granted to the applicant.
Signature(s) (Applicant(s))
Signature (Owner)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of , 200_.
Notary Public in and for said county and state.
My commission expires on
Z� CAl ..vC... dataUcccpl of C..,AAOC F...d
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do
hereby certify that on Tuesday, April 9", 2002, I mailed a
copy of the Seal Beach City Council Resolution Number 4999,
documenting the Council's final decision made after the
close of the public hearing on April 8", 2002, concerning
the appeal of Planning Commission approval of 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, Seal Beach, and that a copy/copies of
said Resolution was transmitted, by placing it/them in
sealed envelopes, first class postage prepaid, addressed to:
1) Dr. Medhat M. Raouf
2) Mr. Walter F. Miller
and depositing it/them in the U. S. Mail.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Seal Beach, California, this 2n° day of April,
2002.
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
cc: Mr. Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
0
I
April 1, 2002
City Council
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 8th 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 Raouf
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
(5500/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
A
into off-street parking, NOT painting diagonal parking on both sides
of the boulevard, and/or 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 used three
story commercial residential development has cost the City a tax base
of at least S10 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,
"144 `
Walter F. Miller
cc: Medhat Raouf
(
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.
5. 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 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 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
Enclosures
cc: Medhat Raouf
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,
W�Itar F. Miller, Owner
Tel. 562-598-8455 FAX 562-430-0912