HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem UAGXNDA REPORT x ��`¢� "" 01
ti
DATE: June 25, 2001
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Continued Business — Appeal of Planning Commission
Approval of Architectural Review of a Proposal to
Construct a New Mixed Use Structure at 229 Seal Beach
Boulevard
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Consider appeal of Planning Commission approval of Architectural Review of a proposal
to construct a new mixed -use structure at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council conducted a public hearing on this matter on June 11, 2001, closed the
public hearing and continued the matter to allow staff to address several issues. Staff has
had an opportunity to discuss the setback issue with the appellant and project proponent.
Please refer to the City Council Staff Report of June 11, 2001 for information provided at
the time of the City Council public hearing (See Attachment 2).
ISSUE:
Proposed location of commercial structure adiacent to existne structure: The
proposed structure is indicated to be 6" fiom the existing mixed -use structure to the
south, which is a legal non-conforming structure utilized as a day care center with a
residential living unit above. During the public hearing and City Council discussion
the appropriate distance between these structures was discussed. There appear to be
two reasonable ways to deal with the concerns expressed by the public and City
Council:
❑ Alternative 1: Approve location of structure as proposed by applicant This
would not require any relocation of the proposed structure, and will comply with
Agenda Item U
C\My W. .UM., PI. Reie \01 -6.CC Ap IStets RgpM 24. \Lw -20.01
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 01 -6
Architectural Review— 219 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
all development standards of the Limited - Commercial Zone and all construction
requirements of the City. The proposed structure is required to provide the
necessary fire wall separation both along the entire length of the wall and over
required portions of the roof. In addition, the structure is required to be fully
sprinkled. The provisions of the Building Code will require the "gap" between
the proposed and existing building to be sealed at the roofline and along both ends
of the adjoining walls, creating a non - accessible area There needs to be a "gap'
between the structures to allow them to flex during a seismic event: placing the
walls immediately adjacent to each other could result in additional damage to
each structure as the walls flex during a seismic event.
❑ Staff Understanding of Position of Appellant: Staff has discussed this
alternative with the appellant and believes the project, as it would be required
to be constructed in compliance with all appropriate codes, will resolve the
concerns, but not as fully as would Alternative 2. This alternative will resolve
the issues of security of the "gap" area, fire, and life safety. The issue of
maintaining the north wall of the existing structure, particularly over the
roofed area of the proposed structure is not fully resolved to the appellant.
❑ Staff Understanding of Position of Project Proponent: Based on previous
discussions with the project proponent, staff believes approval of the project
as proposed is still acceptable. This alternative is the project proposal.
Alternative 2• Relocate the proposed structure to be 3 feet from the existing
structure to the south: This alternative would provide an additional separation
between the proposed and existing structure, while maintaining the necessary area
on the north side of the proposed structure to provide the required handicapped
access facilities for the commercial structure. It would not be possible to move
the proposed structure further north and comply with the handicapped access
requirements for the commercial structure.
This modification would require the re- design of the commercial structure and
also require re- calculation of many structural and utility components of the
commercial structure, at a cost to the project proponent.
❑ Staff Understanding of Position of Appellant: Staff has discussed this
alternative with the appellant and believes the project, as revised by this
alternative, will resolve all of the concerns of the appellant to a greater level
than would Alternative 1. This alternative will also resolve the issues of
security of the "gap" area, fire, and life safety. The issue of maintaining the
north wall of the existing structure is not fully resolved to the appellant.
❑ Staff Understanding of Position of Project Proponent: Based on previous
discussions with the project proponent, staff believes approval of the project
as proposed by this alternative would be unacceptable. This alternative would
016.CC Appeal ShfrRepon 2
City Council StalfReport re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 01 -6
Architectural Review— 229 Seat Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
require the re -design of the commercial structure and also require re-
calculation of many structural and utility components of the commercial
structure, at an undetermined cost to the project proponent.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPLICATIONS:
Under Code Section 28 -1158, all new construction in the Limited Commercial (LC) 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- 2407.B 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 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 City 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 LC zone are met. Areas to be reviewed
are:
• Permitted uses
❑ Landscaping
• Building setbacks
❑ Mixed -Use standards
• Lot coverage
❑ Parking requirements, and
• Building height
❑ Sign requirements
By adopting Planning Commission Resolution 01 -22, the Planning Commission determined:
"(a) Minor Plan Review 01 -6 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 properly and
permits mixed use developments. 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 development complies with all development
standards of the Limited Commercial (L -C) Zone.
(c) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme is appropriate
for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach."
016 CC Appeal Staff Report 2
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01 -6
Architectural Review— 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 1001
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL:
Staff would indicate the City Council does have the authority under the subject architectural
review to determine to approve the project as proposed, or to determine that architectural
revisions are necessary to ensure the proposed project is compatible with surrounding
properties and land uses.
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 229 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2) Sustain the appeal of Seretta Fielding, revising the decision of the Planning
Commission, and denying the proposed development application.
3) Sustain the appeal of Seretta Fielding, 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, or to modify the conditions of approval, staff will prepare an appropriate
resolution for City Council consideration at the July 9 City Council meeting.
NOTED AND APPROVED: /
�y
�--
Whittenberg John B. ahorski, City Manager
hector of Development Servi s
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Resolution No. , A Resolution of the City Council of the
City of Seal Beach Approving Minor Plan Review 01 -6, a Request
01 -6.CC Appeal staRRepn42
City Council Staff@eport re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 01 -6
Architectural Review— 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
for Architectural Review of a Proposal to Construct a New Mixed
Use Development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Attachment 2: City Council Staff Report re: Appeal of Minor Plan Review 01 -6,
dated June 11, 2001, including Attachments 1 through 5
01 -6CC Appeal Sleff Re n2
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 01 -6
Architectural Review — 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 7001
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH APPROVING MINOR PLAN
REVIEW 01 -6, A REQUEST FOR
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 229 SEAL
BEACH BOULEVARD
01 -6.CC Appmi Staff Repon 2
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal afPlannmg Commission Approval ofMPR 01 -6
Architectural Review -129 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 15, 1001
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 01 -6, A REQUEST
FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT AT 229 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD 'S
DR
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an
application for Minor Plan Review 01 -6. Specifically, the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new mixed -use development at 229
Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed development consists of a one -story commercial
building at the front of the lot with a three (3) story, two -unit residential structure over
parking at the rear of the lot.
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 01 -6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs. § 15303 (New
Construction), because it involves the construction of only two (2) apartment units in an
urbanized area and other small commercial structures; and, 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 hearing was held before
the Planning Commission on May 9, 2001, to consider the application for Minor Plan
Review 01 -6. No persons requested the matter to be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate consideration.
Section 4. The Planning Commission approved Minor Plan Review
01 -6, subject to 9 conditions, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 01 -22 on May 9, 2001.
Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 was timely filed. On June 11, 2001 the City Council held a duly
01 b.CC Appel Staff Rry n 2
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofAdPR 01 -6
Architectural Review — 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
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 April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for
Minor Plan Review 01 -6.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a
proposal to construct a new mixed- use4,velopment at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The
proposed development consists of a on omWerrcc�ial building at the front of the lot
with a three (3) story, two -unit residential c oaf tqe rear of the lot.
(c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County
Assessor's Parcel Number 199 - 062 -36 and is located in the Limited Commercial zone of
Old Town. ► /� ��
(d) The subject propeP recrtlangular in shape with a lot area of
6,666 square feet (62.5' x 106.67').
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH A mixture of commercial and residential uses along
Seal Beach Boulevard in the Limited Commercial zone (L -C).
EAST The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach
Boulevard in the Public Land Use / Recreation zone (PLU/R).
WEST A mixture of single family and multi - family residences in the
Residential Medium Density zone (RMD).
(f) The Planning Commission originally considered and approved a
similar request in 1992 and again in 1996. The Coastal Commission granted approval to a
revised plan and scaled back plan for the development of the property in 1996. In 1997
the City approved construction plans for the project in accordance with the approved
plans from the City and Coastal Commission. However, the project was never
constructed. The same plan as was previously approved by the City in 1997 is the plan
now being considered by the City.
(g) The Planning Commission received one written response in
opposition this minor plan review request.
(h) 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.
016 CC Appa ti Staff Report '-
City Council StgffRepon re.'
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01 -6
Architectural Review — 229 Seat Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in § 6 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28 -1158 of the City's Code, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) Minor Plan Review 01 -6 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 and permits mixed use developments. 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 development complies with all development
standards of the Limited Commercial (L -C) Zone.
(c) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme is appropriate
for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach
Section 8. - Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves Minor Plan Review 01 -6, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 01 -6 is approved for architectural review at 229 Seal Beach
Boulevard, Seal Beach. The proposed project entails the construction of a one-
story commercial structure at the front of the lotypd a three -story ddplex at the
rear of the lot. R A CT
2. Final construction plans shall comp]yy with all current Uniform Code requirements
for construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach
(adopts by reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
3. Final building plans shall indicate 177 square feet of landscaping within the
required front yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of landscaping
elsewhere on the property.
4. The applicant shall sign and record an agreement to participate in an in -lieu
parking program for a total of seven (7) parking spaces.
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.
01 -6.CC Appml WfRayon 2 9
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 01 -6
Architectural Review — 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
6. The applicant shall record a covenant on the Title of the property requiring that
the occupants of the residential units shall be involved in "non - residential' uses
on the subject property.
7. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved
through MPR 01 -6, as amended herein.
8. All standard permit issuance fees of the Department of Building and Safety and
the Department of Public Works shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit. This condition would entail payment of the following fees and/or
submission of additional plans:
• Grading Perm t: Grading plans to be approved by the Engineering
Department and a grading perm to be issued by Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
• Building Department standard conditions of approval:
• Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code
requirements for construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the
City of Seal Beach (adopts by reference 1997 Uniform Construction
Codes with local amendments).
• Payment of all required fees at time of submittal of plans for plan
check/issuance of building permit:
❑ Plan Check Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
Building Permit Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
PG Environmental Reserve Tax (pursuant to Code § 22 -52)
QR ` ❑ Construction &xcise Tax (pursuant to Code § 22 -14)
• Park and Recreation Non - Subdivision Fee (pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 4816) , a
• Transportation Facilities and Programs Development and
Development Application Fees (pursuant to City Council Resolution
No. 4816)
• Grange County Sewer Connection Fee
❑ Public Works Department standard conditions of approval:
• City Sewer Connection Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
• Grading Plan Check Fee Deposit(pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
• Right of Way Improvements:
• Replace deficient or inadequate sidewalk abutting lot or construct all
new as determined by the City Engineer.
• Replace deficient or inadequate curb and gutter abutting lot or
construct all new as determined by the City Engineer.
• Make all public pedestrian access, including but not limited tc
driveway approaches, access ramps, sidewalk abutting lot ADA
compliant.
0I -6.CC Appal Staff Report 2 t0
City Council Staff Report re:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval ofMPR 014
Architeceural Review— 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
❑ Rehabilitate half the section of the street abutting the frontage of the
property as determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Rehabilitate the entire alley section abutting the frontage of the
property as determined by the City Engineer.
• Street Improvements:
o Underground all overhead utilities abutting lot including but not
limited to electrical, phone, cable.
• Street Trees and landscaping:
a Plant new street trees and landscaping in the public right of way as
determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation in accordance with
the City's Street policy.
C] Public Utilities:
❑ On commercial developments with City maintained water facilities,
replace any water lines, hydrants, or facilities as determined by the
City Engineer or take over maintenance of the water lines as a private
on -site system.
�a Replace existing sewer laterals as necessary as determined by the City
P` Engineer.
O� ` ❑ Upgrade water services as necessary as determined by the City
Engineer.
❑ Replace existing public facilities such as street lighting, water and
sewer lines and related appurtenances serving the property if in the
determination of the City Engineer the existing public utilities are
insufficient or are in need of replacement.
❑ Ocean Water Quality:
❑ Provide that stormwater pollution requirements as determined by the
City Engineer including but not limited to the following:
o Minimize runoff to impermeable areas /reuse storm water.
9. This Minor Plan Review shall not become effective for nay 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.
10. 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 Minor Plan Review, .
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
01 -6.CC Appal Staff Report 2 11
City Council Staff Report re.:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MPR 01 -6
Architectural Review - 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
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.
Section 9. The time within which judicial 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 dy of 2001
by the following vote: PF
OR
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councils mbers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
William J. Doane,
ATTEST:
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution is an 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 meeting thereof held on the _ day of , 2001.
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
City of Seal Beach
OIb.CC Appeal Smif ftepon 2 12
June 25, 2001
Mayor William Doane VIA FACSIMILE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH 562 - 431-4067
City Hall - 211 8" Street
Seal Beach, California 90740 PERSONAL
Re: City Council Mee[ing June 25 " 2001
Deny or Sustain Appeal with or without Conditions
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Dear Mayor:
This is a very critical hearing for me and I cannot be present because
I am in Colorado. If T rould be at the podium this is what I would say
to you.
At the Jute 11`" hearing, I had the feeling you were looking for me to
offer a compromise to settle the differences between Soretta Fielding
and myself.
For the past 14 years I have made the offers to accommodate her needs.
When I purchased this lot it was full of broken glass, weeds, and was
used by Rriggeman. Disposal trucks as an exit to Seal Beach Boulevard
from the alley. I cleaned, graded and seeded the lot and parkway with
grass. For the past 14 years I have paid a gardener to maintain the
lot, I watered the lot, I paid taxes on the lot, and have been denied
the right to build on the lot since 1991 due to the in lieu parking
conflict between Seal Beach and the Coastal Commission. In 1996 I was
again denied the right to build on the lot for economic reasons. I
redesigned my project to what. you see today to comply with the Coastal
Commission requirements, but the City then said it was a new project
and subject to the current fee structure, which added some $30,000.
During this entire period Soretta Fielding ran her school, used the
parkway that I had seeded and maintained, as a drop off for her
children, never asked permission to enter on my property to paint and
add signage to the side of her building, access her illegal cleanout,
or mitlga Ce water damage during heavy rains, not that I would have
denied her that access at any time. She built a combustible enclosure
on her second floor on the property line to contain her storage on the
roof, and I said nothing. She has three aluminum frame sliding glass
windows on l.he second story property line which requires a fire
corridor, which she does not have, and I have said nothing. Now, I
want to build a prclect that will enhance the value of her property,
and she files an appeal, but says "she is for my project."
Don't you think I have more than done my share of compromising? This
is like "the kettle calling the pot black ". Please take these thoughts
into your deliberation when you reach a decision on my application.
Shank you, (/lam
Walt Miller, tweet 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
JUN -25 -2001 09:02 970 547 1686 95% P.01
_LER FAX NO. :970 -547 -1686 Jul. 24 2001 12:31PM P1/1
June 24, 2001
Ler, Whittenberg VIA FACSIMILE
D`r tnr of Development Services 562- 431 -4067
CITY OF SEAT. REACH
City Hall - 211 8'" Street ♦
Seal Deach, California 90740 P 1 M ED 14 rt
Ile: Building permit application
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Dear Lee:
Tomorrow night is the City Council meeting. I have not heard from you
and feel rather helpless sitting back here in Colorado.
My assumption is there wil- be no additional conditions put nn my
application, that consideration will be given to the three issues that
T filed, name =y in lieu, covenant on my deed, and transportation fees.
Thereafter the application will he approved, I can sign off on the
Conditions of approval, and get my plans into plan check.
Would you please either call or fax if there is any further input I can
submit. by fax before the meeting, or call or fax after the meeting with
the status? Sure do appreciate your help and support. I have had no
word from Karl Schwing of Coastal to this point, and that too causes
worry. If you could also inrlude a comment on his position I would be
much obliged.
Sincerely,
o�.
Walt Miller
Tel.. 970 -453 -5664 FAX 970 -547 -1686
1� V
S�uS1 f
JUN -24 -2001 11:52 970 547 1686 95i
FROM :WRLT MILLER _ FAX NO. :970- 547 -1686 Jun. 24 2001 06:50PM P1 /1
June 25, 2001
Quinn Barrow VIA FACBIMILE
City Attorney 562 - 431 -4067
CITY OF SEAL BEACH IMMEDIATE
Re: Ci [v Council Meet.Ing June 250' 2001
Conditions of Approval for Building Permit
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Dear Quinn
If I could be at the podium tonight, this fax would not be necessary.
I am in Breckenridge, Colorado with my fingers crossed.
1 am not sure where the June I1" meeting left the status of my
application for a building permit. Council member Boyd, seemingly
supported by Council member Campbell, were in favor of a motion to
cause me Lo redesign my project by moving the commercial structure back
five feet from the property line. After the meeting Beretta Fielding
discussed the issues with Lee and myself in the corridor and concluded
that the only problem she now had was the proposed 6" gap between
buildings. Lee assured her that was common practice and it would be
sealed to comply with the fire code. i.e. dead air space. Lee then
went back in chambers and apparently spoke with Shawn Boyd. Shawn then
came out, shook my hand, and said "you'll get your project."
If the five foot setback issue is debated, I would ask that you offer
Your legal opinion, prior to the call for question, that if the design
of the project meets all the conditions of the Uniform Building Code
and City ordinances for the L -C zone, and it did when approved in 1996
and does today, then the applicant cannot be asked to change his design
w accommodate an objection by Soretta Fielding. I do not believe the
City Council has the power to override the Uniform Building Code or the
provisions of the City ordinance at this hearing. council member Paul
Yost made this very clear in his dialogue at the June 11`" meeting. But
the newly elected Mayor seemed to be looking to me to compromise my
Position so everyone would he happy. Without my agreement to move the
commercial structure back five feet, It appeared there would be three
votes out of five votes for the setback. So I don't know where I am at
this point, and I am :enable to be present. I have been unable to get a
response from Lee due to his busy schedule.
I believe my project will jump start development on Seal Beach
Boulr.Vard when the City and adjoining property owners realize the
inherent value of this unique one and the L -C ordinance. You, for
one, know this project has been a long time in the making.
Thank you,
Walt Miller, owner
Tel. 970 -453 -5664 FAX 970 - 547 -16e6
SLN-24 -2001 18:11 970 547 1696 94% P.01
�* June 26, 2001
Mr. Walt Miller
-231 Seal Beach Blvd., #3 ,
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Miller:
SUBJECT: Minor Plan Review 01 -6
Acceptance of Conditions Form - Signature Required
The City Council on June 25, 2001 approved your application, Minor Plan Review 01 -6, through
the adoption of City Council Resolution No. 4906. This resolution sets forth the terns and
conditions of approval, as approved by the City Council and you may now proceed in accordance
with the conditions of Resolution No. 4906.
Condition #10 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. 4906. If you agree to abide by the eleven (11) 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,
ettenber�g� %`AL %C
Duector of Development Service
Enclosures (2) City Council Resolution No. 4906
Acceptance of Conditions Form
\\SCULLY\CARMF A . pt da eM9 Seal Bach BM2 MPR01 -&d
AGREEMENT
ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Walter F. Miller
231 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach, CA 90740
FORA Minor Plan Review A'l' 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
(Type of Request, ag CUP, vans m, ew.) (Address)
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 01-6
hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the City Council Conditions of Approval
through Resolution No. 4906 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) (Applicam(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
\\SCULMCAWFNU.c pt of Cond'M9 Seal Beach Blvd AOC.
RESOLUTION NO. --/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING
MINOR PLAN REVIEW 01 -6, A REQUEST
FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT AT 229 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FIND:
Section 1. On April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an
application for Minor Plan Review 01 -6. Specifically, the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review of a proposal to construct a new mixed -use development at 229
Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed development consists of a one -story commercial
building at the front of the lot with a three (3) story, two -unit residential structure over
parking at the rear of the lot
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 01 -6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs. § 15303 (New
Construction), because it involves the construction of only two (2) apartment units in an
urbanized area and other small commercial structures; and, 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 hearing was held before
the Planning Commission on May 9, 2001, to consider the application for Minor Plan
Review 01 -6. No persons requested the matter to be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate consideration.
Section 4. The Planning Commission approved Minor Plan Review
01 -6, subject to 9 conditions, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 01 -22 on May 9, 2001.
Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 was timely filed. On June 11, 2001 the City Council held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and
C:Ny DommmURESONPR 01-6 Ap wl.CC Rcm.doc \LW\0636 -01
City Council Resolution No. 4906
Minor Plan Rnino 01 -6 -119 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 2001
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 April 12, 2001, Walter F. Miller submitted an application for
Minor Plan Review 01 -6.
(b) Specifically, the applicant is seeking Architectural Review of a
proposal to construct a new mixed -use development at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard. The
proposed development consists of a one -story commercial building at the front of the lot
with a three (3) story, two -unit residential structure at the rear of the lot.
(c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County
Assessor's Parcel Number 199- 062 -36 and is located in the Limited Commercial zone of
Old Town.
(d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of
6,666 square feet (62.5' x 106.67').
(e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH & SOUTH: A mixture of commercial and residential uses along
Seal Beach Boulevard in the Limited Commercial zone (L -C).
EAST: The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach
Boulevard in the Public Land Use / Recreation zone (PLU/R).
WEST: A mixture of single family and multi- family residences in the
Residential Medium Density zone (RMD).
(f) 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. At the
hearing, residents and property owners in the neighborhood opposed the project as
submitted. Inter alia, opponents were concerned about the adverse impacts that would
arise from the installation of a commercial use within six inches from the adjacent
property as proposed. Also, there was testimony that constructing a mixed use building
six inches from an existing building would not be compatible with surrounding uses, both
existing and future uses.
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in § 6 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28 -1158 of the City's Code, the City
Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) Minor Plan Review 01 -6, as conditioned, is consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a
MPR 01.6 App.L CC Res.
City Council Resolution No. 4906
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 -119 Seal Beach Boulemrd
June I5, 1001
"Limited Commercial" designation for the subject property and permits mixed use
developments. The use, as conditioned, 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, as conditioned, is consistent
with the General Plan.
(b) The development, as conditioned, complies with all development
standards of the Limited Commercial (L -C) Zone.
(c) The proposed Cape Code style architectural scheme is appropriate
for the beach character of Old Town Seal Beach.
(d) Reorientation of the commercial/retail portions of the proposed
mixed -use structure to a minimum of 3 feet from the southerly property line adjacent to
the structure at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard will make the use compatible with surrounding
land uses, including future uses that may be developed at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard by
minimizing visual and functional conflicts between residential and nonresidential uses.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves Minor Plan Review 01 -6, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Plan Review 01 -6 is approved for architectural review of a one -story
commercial structure at the front of the lot and a three -story duplex at the rear of
the lot at 229 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach.
2. Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code requirements
for construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach
(adopts by reference 1997 Uniform Construction Codes with local amendments).
3. Final building plans shall indicate the location of all commercial/retail structures
to be a minimum of three (3) feet from the southerly property line adjacent to the
structure at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard.
4. The applicant shall provide 177 square feet of landscaping within the required
front yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of landscaping elsewhere on
the property. Final building plans shall indicate 177 square feet of landscaping
within the required front yard setback and an additional 323 square feet of
landscaping elsewhere on the property.
5. The applicant shall provide a total of seven (7) parking spaces for the commercial
use, or contribute an amount to be determined for in -lieu parking. The applicant
shall sign and record an agreement to participate in the City's in -lieu parking
program for a total of seven (7) parking spaces.
6. 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 pemtit. Once a specific in -lieu
MPR01-6Appwl.CC Res
City Council Resolution No. 4906
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 - 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 25, 1001
fee is determined, the applicant shall pay the fee in full and the bond will be
released.
7. The applicant shall record a covenant on the Title of the property requiring that
the occupants of the residential units shall be involved in "non - residential' uses
on the subject property.
8. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved
through MPR 01 -6, as amended herein.
9. All standard permit issuance fees of the Department of Building and Safety and
the Department of Public Works shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit. This condition would entail payment of the following fees and/or
submission of additional plans:
❑ Grading Permit: Grading plans to be approved by the Engineering
Department and a grading permit to be issued by Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Building Department standard conditions of approval:
• Final construction plans shall comply with all current Uniform Code
requirements for construction as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Code of the
City of Seal Beach (adopts by reference 1997 Uniform Construction
Codes with local amendments).
• Payment of all required fees at time of submittal of plans for plan
check/issuance of building permit:
❑ Plan Check Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
❑ Building Permit Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4816)
❑ Environmental Reserve Tax (pursuant to Code § 22 -52)
❑ Construction Excise Tax (pursuant to Code § 22 -14)
• Park and Recreation Non - Subdivision Fee (pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 4816)
• Transportation Facilities and Programs Development and
Development Application Fees (pursuant to City Council Resolution
No. 4816) -
-
• Orange County Sewer Connection Fee
Public Works Department standard conditions of approval:
• City Sewer Connection Fee (pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
• Grading Plan Check Fee Deposit(pursuant to City Council Resolution No.
4816)
❑ Right of Way Improvements:
❑ Replace deficient or inadequate sidewalk abutting lot or construct all
new as determined by the City Engineer.
MPR 01 -6 A,.I,CC Rao
City Council Revolution No. 4906
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 - 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 15, 2001
❑ Replace deficient or inadequate curb and gutter abutting lot or
construct all new as determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Make all public pedestrian access, including but not limited to
driveway approaches, access ramps, sidewalk abutting lot ADA
compliant.
❑ Rehabilitate half the section of the street abutting the frontage of the
property as determined by the City Engineer.
❑ Rehabilitate the entire alley section abutting the frontage of the
property as determined by the City Engineer.
Street Improvements:
❑ Underground all overhead utilities abutting lot including but not
limited to electrical, phone, cable.
Street Trees and landscaping:
❑ Plant new street trees and landscaping in the public right of way as
determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation in accordance with
the City's Street policy.
Public Utilities:
❑ On commercial developments with City maintained water facilities,
replace any water lines, hydrants, or facilities as determined by the
City Engineer or take over maintenance of the water lines as a private
on -site system.
❑ Replace existing sewer laterals as necessary as determined by the City
Engineer.
❑ Upgrade water services as necessary as determined by the City
Engineer.
❑ Replace existing public facilities such as street lighting, water and
sewer lines and related appurtenances serving the property if in the
determination of the City Engineer the existing public utilities are
insufficient or are in need of replacement.
Ocean Water Quality:
❑ Provide that stornwater pollution requirements as determined by the
City Engineer including but not limited to the following:
❑ Minimize runoff to impermeable areas /reuse storm water.
10. 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.
11. 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 Minor Plan Review,
MPR 01 -6 APP== CC Reso
City Council Resolution No. 4906
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 - 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 15, 2001
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 pemiltted. 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.
Section 9. The time within which judicial 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 Complf the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2001
by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers
NOES:
Councilmembers
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
i
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers
P�-WI
William J. Doane, Mayor
ATTEST:
aeA4Z
1&6e M. Yeo, City Clerk
MPR 0 I -6 A,.LCC Rem
City Council Resolution No. 4906
Minor Plan Review 01 -6 - 229 Seal Beach Boulevard
June 15, 2001
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do ereby certify that
the foregoing resolution is an original copy of Resolution Number a on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, passed, approved and adopted by the City u it of the City of
Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the asu day of ,
2001.
J e M. Yeo, City Clerk
tty of Seal Beach
MPR 01-6 Ap LCC Rao