HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Information - Correspondence: Appeal Conditions to Minor Plan Review 01-06, received from Walt Miller001
'eo VIA FACSIMILE
City u.erx 562 -431 -4067
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 8th Street Original by Certified Mail
Seal Beach, California 90740 Return Receipt Requested
Re: Appeal Conditions Adopted by City Council June 25, 2001,
to Minor Plan Review 01 -06, Architectural Review
Planning Commission Resolution No. 01 -22,
229 Seal Beach Boulevard - Walt Miller, Owner
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I hereby file this appeal to 1) Include action on my 6/13/01 request,
2) Reverse the subject action taken by the City Council of the City of
Seal Beach and 3) Further deny the four concerns voiced by Soretta
Fielding found in City Council Staff report dated June 11, 2001, based
on the following facts:
The Planning Commission passed subject Resolution 01 -22, five to
zero, on May 9, 2001, to activate expired Resolution 96 -21, which
was passed four to zero, including ayes vote by then Planning
Commissioner Campbell, with one absent May 8, 1996. See May 10,
2D01 letter enclosed. The Applicant, Walt Miller, is the only
person who can legally appeal a Minor Plan Review Resolution,
other than a person who presented evidence at the May 9, 2001
hearing. Lee Whittenberg erred when he cast the letter dated May
16,2001, addressed to him, from Soretta Fielding as an Appeal of
Planning Commission Approval filed in a timely manner (7 days
after the hearing), in City Council Staff Report dated June 11,
2001. Ms. Fielding was given due notice of the May 9, 2001
Planning Commission hearing and failed to appear and /or file her
objections at the hearing. She has no legal standing to file an
appeal to the subject resolution, and the City Counsel has no
venue. If I am in error, then . . .
The City Council, without public hearing, passed a condition
which requires that the entire project be redesigned to
accommodate a three foot by fifty foot opening between the north
side of the Fielding building fire wall and the proposed fire
wall of my proposed commercial building. This condition does not
address any of the four issues raised by Ms. Fielding, and as
outlined in the City Council Staff Report dated June 11, 2001.
Discussion on this condition was held in close session, without
the input of a licensed architect. The City Attorney ruled that
no new evidence was admissible. The City Council erred because
no public objection had asked the subject 3' opening be added.
Had there been a licensed architect present, the opening would
have been identified as a security and fire hazard to the
project. The opening creates an opportunity for a person(s) to
enter the three foot wide opening unseen during the day and /or
night to engage in illegal acts or vandalism to either building.
The opening is a public nuisance in that water and debris will
collect unnoticed to return to the flooding concern of Ms.
Fielding, item B. She will no longer have the access she once
enjoyed to drain off the flooding.
The fire department cannot consider this opening an access to
combat a fire coming out of her second story window now opening
on her north property line. The corridor must be on her property
unless she has an easement on mine, and she does not.
The opening cannot be landscaped because there is no sun and no
windows in either building that would light this fifty foot long
three foot wide proposed opening.
When Ms. Fielding, or subsequent owner, tears down her building
to build a new residential structure, I will need to install a
six foot razor wire fence to secure this opening because my
commercial building and residential rear building will no longer
be protected on side by her building from access and vandalism.
The three foot side setback for the commercial building is in
conflict with the setback of the proposed residential building at
the rear of the property, which requires the setback to be 108 of
the lot width, but not less than 3 feet. The lot width is 62.5
feet. It appears that the City would have me tear down my
commercial structure if it were ever required, as non - conforming,
to be converted to residential because it would comply with a 25-
30 foot width lot, but not my 62.5 foot width lot.
The City has allegedly discriminated against me by selecting the
provisions of the L -C zone that it wants to enforce, such as "in
lieu parking ", "covenant to deed", ^occupants of the residential
unit be involved in non - residential uses ", "transportation tax"
be assessed although it contradicts "City's goals to reduce
vehicle trips and encourage people to live close to their
business location ", while denying me the provisions of the L -C
zone that I meet the building standards (ref D. staff comment
City Staff Council report dated June 11, 2001, copy enclosed),
including building a commercial building on zero property line.
Architecturally the project now fails because the limited
commercial frontage is further reduced and obscured by a three
foot by fifty foot long opening to the south side, serving no
commercial or residential function.
Architecturally the project further fails because the retail
entry platform to the door is reduced to four feet as a turning
radius for a wheel chair. The required turning radius in a
restrooms is minimum five feet.
Architecturally the project further fails because three feet are
removed from the east west connecting commercial building,
thereby eliminating the hallway. To keep the hallway, retail
space at the entrance has to be reduced a like amount. Retail
space is the heart of a small business. My son has waited ten
years for a new building, and has been providing sales tax
revenue to the City for the last twenty years. Motive?
The City Council rejected a motion by Council member Yost to
continue the matter until the owner could be present. Lee
Whittenberg was aware that Kent Trollen, my representative was in
Las Vegas on a job assignment, I was in Colorado, and my son was
in Switzerland on a job assignment at the time of the hearing.
Continuance would have had no financial impact on the City.
I never received a copy of the agenda in advance of the meeting,
nor any notification of the results of the meeting as they
related to me. My information has come from telephoning James at
the SUN, and asking him what happened; it may not be complete or
accurate, but it is the only information I have today.
As a result of the orchestrated delays after Planning Commission
approval on May 9 to present, adding on the three month delay of
Acceptance of Code Language Interpretation (letter dated December 20,
2000 to March 12, 2001), the time (82 days + 47 days), money, and
emotional stress experienced by myself, my wife, my son, Greg Miller,
her son and wife, Dann and Jessica Isbell, has created a need for
recovery. I am seeking an attorney who might take this case on a
contingency basis. The daily delay cost, using the maximum legal rate
of interest is $109.58 for interest, $3.03 for property taxes, and
$2.33 for gardener, or a total of $114.94 starting December 20, 2000.
Additional out -of- pocket costs to me will be what I pay for changes
charged by the Coastal Commission, what I pay an architect, surveyor,
structural engineer, and grading engineer to redesign my project, and
what I pay an attorney to represent me, and what an attorney might find
as emotional damage to people our age, my son and her son and daughter -
in -law.
I reserve the right to amend this Appeal as errors and omissions are
discovered, or the right to have it resubmitted in proper legal form by
an attorney.
I respectfully request this appeal be heard the first City Council
meeting in August 2001. That will give me time to seek counsel and
return from Colorado.
Respectfully, u_ "'
Walter F. Miller, Owner
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6596
Tel. 562 -598 -8455 FAX 562 -430 -0912 e-mail waltfm @earthlink.net
Temp tel. 970 - 453 -5664 FAX 970 - 547 -1686 through 7/31/01
Enclosures -hand carry to first meeting
Distribution: Mayor Doane
Council Member Yost
Council Member Larson
Council Member Boyd
Council Member Campbell
City Attorney Barrow
Director Lee Whittenberg
-ROM
June 27, 2001
Joanne M. Yeo
City Clerk
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall - 211 8u` Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
:970 -547 -1686 Jun. 27 2001 03:24PM PI/4
VIA FACSIMILE
562- 431 -9067
Ordinal by Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Re: Appall COnditi-5 Adopted by City Council Ju • 26 2001
to Minor Plan Review 01 -06, Architectural Review
Planning Commission Resolution No. 01 -22,
229 Seal Beach Boulevard - 'Walt Miller, Owner
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I hereby file this appeal to 1) Include action on my 6/13/01 request,
2) Reverse the subject action taken by the City Council of the City of
Seal Beach and 3) Further deny the four concerns voiced by Soretta
Fielding found in City Council Staff report dated June 11, 2001, based
on the following facts:
1. The Planning Commission passed subject Resolution 01 -22, five to
zero, on May 9, 2001, to activate expired Resolution 96 -21, which
was passed four to zero, including ayes vote by then Planning
Commissioner Campbell, with one absent May 8, 1996. See May 10,
2001 letter enclosed. The Applicant, Walt Miller, is the only
person who can legally appeal a Minor Plan Review Resolution
other than a person who presented evidence at the May 9, 2001
hearing. Lee Whittenberg erred when he cast the letter dated May
16,2001, addressed to him, from Soretta Fielding as an Appeal of
Planning Commission Approval filed in a timely manner (7 days
after the hearing), in City Council Staff Report dated June 11,
2001. Ms. Fielding was given due notice of the May 9, 2001
Planning Commission hearing and failed to appear and /or file her
objections at the hearing. She has no legal standing to file an
appeal to the subject resolution, and the City Counsel has no
venue. If I am in error, then . . .
2. The City Council, without public hearing, passed a condition
which requires that the entire project be redesigned to
accommodate a three foot by fifty foot opening between the north
side of the Fielding building fire wall and the proposed fire
wall of my proposed commercial building. This condition does not
address any of the four issues raised by Ms. Fielding, and as
outlined in the City Council Staff Report dated June 11, 2001.
Discussion on this condition was held in close session, without
the input of a licensed architect. The City Attorney ruled that
no new evidence was admissible. The City Council erred because
no public objection had asked the subject 3' opening be added.
Had there been a licensed architect present, the opening would
have been identified as a security and fire hazard to the
project. The opening creates an opportunity for a person(s) to
enter the three foot wide opening unseen during the day and /or
night to engage in illegal acts or vandalism to either building.
SUN -27 -2001 14:45 970 547 1686 93'/.
P.01
FROM :WALT MILLER FAX NO. :970- 547 -1686 Jun. 27 2001 03:25PM P2/4
The opening is a public nuisance it that water and debris will
collect unnoticed to return to the flooding concern of Ms.
Fielding, item B. She will no longer have the access she once
enjoyed to drain off the flooding.
The fire department cannot consider this opening an access to
combat a fire coming out of her second story window now opening
on her north property line. The corridor must be on her property
unless she has an easement on mine, and she does not.
The opening cannot be landscaped because there is no sun and no
windows in either building that would light this fifty foot long
three foot wide proposed opening.
Nhen Ms. Fielding, or subsequent owner, tears down her building
to build a new residential structure, I will need to install a
six foot razor wire fence to secure this opening because my
commercial building and residential rear building will no longer
be protected on side by her building from access and vandalism.
The three foot side setback for the commercial building is in
conflict with the setback of the proposed residential building at
the rear of the property, which requires the setback to be 108 of
the lot width, but not less than 3 feet. The lot width is 62.5
feet. It appears that the City would have me tear down my
commercial structure if it were ever required, as non - conforming,
to be converted to residential because it would comply with a 25-
30 foot width lot, but not my 62.5 foot width lot.
The City has allegedly discriminated against me by selecting the
provisions of the L -C zone that it wants to enforce, such as "in
lieu parking', "covenant to deed^, "occupants of the residential
unit be involved in non - residential uses ", "transportation tax"
be assessed although it contradicts "City's goals to reduce
vehicle trips and encourage people to live close to their
business location", while denying me the provisions of the L -C
zone that I meet the building standards (ref D. staff comment
City Staff Council report dated June 11, 2001, copy enclosed),
including building a commercial building on zero property line.
Architecturally the project now fails because the limited
commercial frontage is further reduced and obscured by a three
foot by fifty foot long opening to the south side, serving no
commercial or residential function.
Architecturally the project further fails because the retail
entry platform to the door is reduced to four feet as a turning
radius for a wheel chair. The required turning radius in a
restrooms is minimum five feet.
Architecturally the project further fails because three feet are
removed from the east west connecting commercial building,
thereby eliminating the hallway. To keep the hallway, retail
space at the entrance has to be reduced a like amount. Retail
space is the heart of a small business. My son has waited ten
JL#4 -27 -2001 14:46 970 547 1686 95% P.02
FROM :WALT MILLER FAX NO. :970 -547 -1686 Jun. 27 2001 03:26PM P3/4
years for a new building, and has been providing sales tax
revenue to the City for the last twenty years. Motive?
3. The City Council rejected a motion by Council member Yost to
continue the matter until the owner could be present. Lee
Whittenberg was aware that Kent TCOlIen, my representative was in
Las Vegas on a job assignment, 1 was in Colorado, and my son was
in Switzerland on a job assignment at the time of the hearing.
Continuance would have had no financial impact on the City.
4. I never received a copy of the agenda in advance of the meeting,
nor any notification of the results of the meeting as they
related to me. My information has come from telephoning James at
the SUN, and asking him what happened; it may not be complete or
accurate, but it is the only information I have today.
As a result of the orchestrated delays after planning Commission
approval on May 9 to present, adding on the three month delay of
Acceptance of Code Language Interpretation (letter dated December 20,
2000 to March 12, 2001), the time (82 days + 47 days), money, and
emotional stress experienced by myself, my wife, my son, Greg Miller,
her son and wife, Dann and Jessica Isbell, has created a need for
recovery. I am seeking an attorney who might take this case on a
contingency basis. The daily delay cost, using the maximum legal rate
of interest is $109.58 for interest, $3.03 for property taxes, and
$2.33 for gardener, or a total of $114.94 starting December 20, 2000.
Additional out -of- pocket costs to me will be what I pay for changes
charged by the Coastal Commission, what I pay an architect, surveyor,
structural engineer, and grading engineer to redesign my project, and
what I pay an attorney to represent me, and what an attorney might find
as emotional damage to people our age, my son and her son and daughter -
in -law.
I reserve the right to amend this Appeal as errors and omissions are
discovered, or the right to have it resubmitted in proper legal form by
an attorney.
I respectfully request this appeal be heard the first City Council
meeting in August 2001. That will give me time to seek counsel and
return from Colorado.
Respectfully, � � ��,
L4 ,.,�
Walter F. Miller, owner
229 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6596
Tel. 562 - 598 -8455 FAX 562 -430 -0912 e-mail waltfm @earthlink.net
Temp tel. 970 -453 -5664 FAX 970 - 547 -1686 through 7/31/01
Enclosures -hand carry to first meeting
Distribution: Mayor Doane
Council Member Yost
Council Member Larson
JUN -27 -2001 14:46 970 547 1686 95/. P.03
:970 -547 -1686 Jun. 27 2001 03:26-11 P4i4
Council Member Boyd
Council Member Campbell
City Attorney Barrow
Director Lee Whittenberq
JUN -27 -2001 14:47 970 547 1686 95% P.04