Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1983-08-17 '. . :et, Minutes of the Seal Beach , Planning Commission of August 17, 1983 The Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, August 17, 1983 in the City Council Chambers of the City Administration Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Goldenbe~g, and the pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Murphy. ' PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: Goldenberg, Jessner, Perrin, Murphy and Covington None Charles Antos The minutes of August 3, 1983 were approved with corrrections with .the foll owi ng vote: AYES: NOES: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Covington, Goldenberg None P,ublic Hearings A. The Villas Specific ,Plan (Growin' My Way Nursery Site) The applicants are proposi~g to construct 50 cond~miniums on the site, with. three stories over ground level parking and incorporate a small section of City property intathe project. Staff report presented by Mr. Antos. He indicated that the Commission held an informal study session at the previous meeting regarding the Growin' My Way site. He presented a table showing comparison of the project with the base R3 criteria. ' He indicated that all factors would be handled through a development agreement between the City and the applicant, with tne implementation being through a Specific Plan. Public hearing opened. Jeff Stone, 5150 Candlewood Street, Lakewood~~pakB as the applicant for the 50 unit condominium project. He 'stated th~s project represents 4 months . of , preliminary planning for development of Growin My Way site. 'Last week was spent integrating' thoughts and ideas before the C6mmission during the study session. What they are asking for now is approval of the specific plan for this project. The principals in the proposed projectaiY'eMichael Sarkin who has owned the property for the last 21 years; Stonatto Development Company that has been general building contractors and developers for past 15 years, involved in all aspects of development; Greg Combs, the architect,' who has prepared the preliminary drawihgs for the project. "What we are proposing are 50 units of condominiums done in a Mexic,an c010nial motiff, 3 stories over 1 ground level parking. Originally we proposed 38 units to your staff and it was they who suggested the possiblity of adding additional units by building somi affordable housing. There are now 12 affordable units priced around $125,000. Under the rules of the O.C. housing authority, this meets their criteria. The housing authority will have complete control over these affordable units. By adding those , ..A. P. C. Minutes Page 2 .- ",. 12, we were able to d~crease the base price and make all of the units more affordable. Taking some thoughts and ideas from the studdy session, we ~dded another s~condary entry off Marina Drive at the west end of the ~roject and after hearing your internal discussion reg~rding in lieu park fees an~ the trade off~ available, we have altered the courtyard to intlude a park like'setting to include a water fountain, planter wall, and'a14 ft ' " . SWlm spa. Greg Combs, architect for The Villas, 1535 Monrovia A~e, Newport Beach. "Initiallythe idea we wanted was t~ create the villas as being a residential village. The property, as you kr:lOw, is triangular, in shape~The effoy't has been to design a project that creates openness, varied roof planes, extending surround~ng areas into the project and vice versa. ' The plan is primarily anL-sh!lped project bounded by Electric and }th with the closure of th~ Lon Marina Drive. The major entry point from a resident stan~point is off 7th Street. Paiking istotiilly scr~ened fromvie~iand will n6t: be seen from any side of the project. A resident entering the Villas would come into the parking 'area (u~derneath) and come up intb the project by elevators. The villas above the parki ngl eve 1 are abOVE! 3 stories and the roof heights vary as you move around in the project. There is a large courtyard ,in the center. It,is a Mexican colonial theme, a theme which we have develo'ped over the year's and has been successfu'l, It is particularly appropriate to our lifestyle in Southern California, design~d to blendirito the community. We have five different floor plan, . types. ' The affordables range from 800 sq. ft., the next unit siz'e is 1135,1250, 1350, 1700 and one unit is over 2000 sq. ft. The materials are stucco, with wood and tiles from Mexico. Doors and windows may be made of teak." . , Mr. Covington asked, for ~ictures of past developments. A photograph was circulated whieh won the Golden Nugget award for architectural in Costa Mesa. ' Mr. Jessner stated th~y had received a letterdescribirig the amenities and asked for further clarification. Mr. Combs stated that'thei'ntent was to work on the courtyard later. But after ,discussion during the study session, there was a tradeoff mentioned which iness~nce stated y00 spend , money to save money. vJhat you see are some thoughts and ideas we have for the, court yard. . Our plan at this -time is to provide a park atmosphE!re with benches, trees, tile, planter boxes.' We don't know yet what morE? we will add to it. We were looking to spend a figure around $100,000; we came up with a,figure of $250,000. The 14' swim spa is something by'and new. 'What you aCtua 11 ydo is' get 1'n the center of the spa to control a rotor ,and it controls the amount of water coming at you and you swim, against it, and 'you don't actually move.1I ' , Comrfli s i oner .Jes~ner stated 'that the deve 1 opeY7s-are propos i ng a pri'vate spa for each unit exc~pt for the affordables~ The reply fro~ developers was yes. ,e /~ " , Commi ss i oner Covington wi shed to cl arifyagreememt~conclict:l~ons'~;)~:'TI:\e City can sell or lease ,property to developer.: I usually am a ,very strong advocate ~ " 8 . P. C. 'M, nutes Page 3 , .- : " '-. ....~.~...;. .....;... - .." ,'=' .1(1. ," . t-} S-: ~'-:. 6 -10\.:::.at-e ,that parkland ot" any size: remain in the City.' What is the size of the City' property? ~taff replied it was approximately 6,700 s.f. ~n area. Mr. Covington stated it is our understanding that if the City se_1Js~1~a_t__ proPerty it would be predicated on the overall value of the -aeveloperrs~" land; $] mi 1 lion dollars. ',' The next condition the Developer is to provide amenities within the project with a value not to exceed a 50% credit on remaining parkland in lieu . fees. Covington asked if there has been a dollar figure given to developer, by staff. Mr. Stone replied that $100,000 was the figure given. They, are spending $250,000 for proposed amenities. Covington as~eJ if the values stated her~ are the construction values or'actualretail values. ~eply from developer indicate they are gue~timates. Mr. Covington stated that ther~ ~s'obviously no 6bjection on the developer's part to note the wording ba modified to indicate that it would be a City determined construction value not 'to,'exceed 50% credit. - . " ,- Regarding item 6, the developer expressed no objections to those standards -being ~sed. The'y,-,were agreeable to using higher density., Regarding Ite~9, origi~al sale Mould be,b~whatever agency developer selects, resale would be by HUD. Orange COljnty has alist of people that already quali,fY under their terms. r~r. Covington stated that it 'would be-preferable for owner to determine who will 'live ther~,. Staff indicated that the O.C. housing authority's only function would b~ to qualify prospective buyers. Anyone in the City who falls in the required range, could make 'an offer on these units, and Orange County ~ould determine if they qualify in this range. In 'answer to ~uestions by Mr. Goldenberg, to make this development more marketable you have to have to provide fee title. A lease is t6ugh to. handle. Staff indicated the City Council has three ways to deal with this piece of property. it can sell property outri ght, 'can enter into a 1 ease; or: ' roadway abandonment procedure,based upon phil osphy that at onetime the area paved for a road was part of the adjoiningproperti and the City. took,that right tif, way as a road, and if the City has n6 use for th~t right of way, it could ibandqn than prop~rty. Mike Goldenberg preferred any owners to have the chiince to :own property, desired to strike lease portion from opti'on. Mr. Goldenberg ,desired to give new owners sole ownership of their property. Jay Covington stated the viable option would appear that should'this property be approved, the recommendation wo~ld always be to purchase" Staff replied th~ appropriate step would beto,(on page 3)to strike the words or lease "to sell City property to developer.' ' Covington stated he wanted to ensure that should this plan be ~pproved, that provisions would be made to assure that the relative bargain values of the affordable units be as presented, not change significanTlY . , tit e P. C. Minutes Page 4 Mr. Stone stated that he intends to make affordable units as stated. This could be made a part of the final agreement. Those numbers would retain the bargain value as discussed, and"in keeping with housing authority. Mr. Murphy asked about the property on southside, corner of Electric and 7th avenue, where there is a commercial enterprise there now. How would condominiums affect that? Mr. Stone replied that he wished to reach an agreement with' owner to absorb this property, but they do not wish to sell. He will build around it. He doesn't believe the units will suffer, but it is an eyesore. Duey Groshong, president of board of trustees of Seal Beach Church of Regligous Science, located very close to project. "I live ina projl~ct of similar design and in taking a poll and looking at the membership of our church, we think it will be a good thing for our church. The merchants ,nearby are looking forward to adding new people to the City. Our church is in favor of the project." Roger Cunni ngham, Costa Mesa. "I am a property owner i n to~n. I am speaking in favor of the project, but I do have questions about pa~king," Mr. Antos stated that there are 2 parking spaces on site per unit with additional parking for gue~ts (3 on site). The code requires 7, however, on the southside of Marina Drive it is presently bnly used fot nursery patron parking and on the northside of Electric, it is only used for nursery parking and on the westside of 7th Street, very little on street parking is used. Wa It Mi 11 er, 706 Ocean. ."The Costa Mesa project is a project that we used as a theme and it is a very impressive project. I think that if its the same quality construction, then it will bea superb project. I am concerned that maybe there should be another project the City should look for on that site. If that is possible, I will come back and give you some thoughts on it. Oppos it ion Gerry West, 1201 Electric Avenue. (Statement attached). Staff replied to statement, that regarding abandonm~nt, State law says it has to revert back to original owner. Planning has recommended that property be sold at a fair market value. Mrs. West thought that it was part of the PE right of way and as such was dedicated and could not be'sold. Staff replied that 100 feet of that property is park, the rest is road.. Staff also stated that with regard to specific plans; they are authorized through State law and are not in conflict with California constitution "\ '-" otherwise,' Irvine would. -not-\exist. As far as being perm"itted to exceed allowabledeve~opmentcriteria, they are laws within the last year in California that ~ave not been challenged which say,in effe~t, if a developer is proposing a project that has any type of affordable housing in it, the City must consider some sort of trade offs and they speCifically talk about relaxed parking requirement, increas~,~ehsity, increased building heights, relaxation of unit sizes and also relaxation of building codes. We have to address those. The Hellman pro~erty included such trade offs, ,',- --:,: ~" -- " ': ':'0_- " ,'. .,;~ ",' -', ,,";"~,e -' ".. .- "'""- - ~ . ..-' . -' -' P. Ci'. Minutes., Page 5 as did the Leisure World development. One comment about County of Orange, they are dropping some of their deed restrictions. What is being proposed, here is that the housing a~thority qualify people but not that the units be turned over to the County 'to utilize County regulations dealing with these particular units. Jim Gilkerson, 1011 Electric. He feels that the specific plan is a means 'of cirGu~venting our zoning ordinance. A few years ago approval was given for a 3 story commercial building. Staff indicated that this site is in the inland Planning District (District 3), which is the same zoning as Leisure World. The building height allowable is 35 feet. The height limits '~ays above the height of the building you can install antennas, stairwell, access, etc. Mr. Gilkerson replied that it says nothing about towers. Staff replied that would be an architectural projection. Mr. Gilkerson asked how parking spaces will be assigned. Mr. Stone replied that owriers will own the tandem spaces (2 to 1 owner). The compact spaces would be assigned to those owners desiring them; Gilkerson felt that everybody thought when we got our 20 units p~r acre that it applied to Old Town and we feel this site is in Old To~n. Staff replied that planning districts have different boundaries and different zoning requrements. ' Three of the six districts have R3 zones, the other districts do not. Mr. Gilkerson said he felt there were a lot of people that felt as he does, that this site is really Old Town. Mitzi Morton, '1513 13th Street. "Gerry West has given you most of the facts. I am appalled that this is the second hearing you have had on this project that a project that violates all the req~irements needed such as parking, height limitations, that you have given the developer' all this time when he is not complying with our requirements. I feel . that this has alreadj been decided. I am also very disturbed as a private citizen in this town who has worked very hard all these years trying to get lower density. I have even given up monetary value myself, when I put in the foundation for 3 units and we tore it ~ll 6ut when the density would not be allowed. The people who had property gave up a lot financially to get this lower density. We consider this site in Old Town and we are concerned that there are no setbacks, that density is increased. There is no sun, no air cirulation any more. I can't understand why staff will allow developers to come in and knowing what our code allows, spendr so many hours with these developers and planning this thing with them to go against all our codes and regulations. The developer came in with 38 units and right away our staff says why not build 12 more. 'What is the good of havinc requirements. I am'opposed that the developer is coming before you with 7 variances and you are sitting there as though you have accepted every single one of these. I think the design ii beautiful, if they could comply with some of our variances, that would be fine." Mr. Gilkerson brought up some other points about planning districts. Mr. Covington suggested that staff review all of these comments received tonight and that the public hearing be extended until next meeting, where answers to these comments could be given so the Commission could base their decision on facts~ . It /e P. C. ~~inutes Page 6 Roger Jacoby, San Clemente. "My biggest problem is the zoning change. I think it will create a future imposition on my mother who now owns thl~ welding shop. If you have residents in houses, they are going to come down and talk to Council who would rather listen to many people instead of one and it will be zoned R2, with the possibility of making the"property Rl, which would make her property worth less. I am a fire fighter arid when, you have increased density, you have increased problems." ' Nancy Kredell, 1615 Seal Way. "I am appalled at this. It hasn'tbeen two years since we passsed the different zoning where the whole council chambers were packed meeting after meeting where the community was asking for help. ~ve only have one building on Main Street that is 4 'stories. I canlt imagine this in ,Seal Beach. We feel the natural boundary of Old Town includes this site. Parking is already impossible ,in town. All these people who will live in the villas are going to impact the City. If th~ people in th1s community knew about four stories coming in when we only have one on Main Street, they would have attended this meeting. 'In 1969, people used to wear t-shirts that Seal Beach is not Newport. Youwjll:wipe:outwhat we have worked for for years. We only'have ~9 police officers and they can't now tow aw'ay the cars that are ille'gaTly parked. II Diane Jacoby,San Clemente, daughter-in-law of shop owner. 'II have heard more arguments, against the project. From an outsider's point of view, you have made a decision already.'1 Mr. Goldenberg stated that until such time as the Commission votes, there should be no inference as to how thl~y will vote. Mrs. Jacobi asked what advantage will this have for the City. Staff r~plied that the advantage is the 12 affordable hous'ing units within the coastal zone. Helen Wilson, 252 17th Street. "Having heard all this I '~~uld like to make a statement that it is nice to 'have affordable housing, but is it a reality in o~r City where land costs are so high." Brent Matthews, 218 8th Street. 1'1 am opposed to the specific plan as, presented to the Commission. The Planning Commission administers th~ code of the City a~d from ~hat I have seen they administer in favor of~ the~u~lic, commuaity. I can't weigh this project of affordable housing to offset .the' other tradeoffs. I~ ' , Walter Miller. "I am opposed to project based on,scale of.project. I believe that being the height that it is, it is totally out of stale of the rest'" of the City. ,No matter what street you drive down, you ar~' goihg to see this project. The-~rchitecture'rivals the Cit~ H~ll. The City Hall was the c;enter of. town'. Now this project would have the towe,l" as high as the City Hall, but be extremel'y dense. This, will always remilin a four stor.y. ,I have bvo houses on 7th' street, \'Ii th no other income property. I could build a unit on the back and ask for $200 a month and that would be considered affordable housing, but when I remodeled my home there was , n6 way the City would consider that unit and it is certainly more affordable th'ari what this project is." ,I '. e' - P. C. Minutes Page~/J Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue. "I was a member of the Commission a few years ~go when the issue came up before the Commission to rezone or to down zone, in essence, the property in Old Town. I anguished over that for quite a while. I hope that wh~t I was dealin~ with was the future of Seal Beach, not my own property. I voted for downzoning because I really believe that it was in the best interests of the City. The City' Council thought it was right because' all five of them voted for it. I think that the stand that this property, because it is across the street, is not consid~red part of Old Town is wrong. The number of 1350 sq. ft. which is necessary for a unit, and the size of the property is 36,000 " sq. ft. I just dida calcul~tion. I multipled 1350 by 38 and I came up with 51,000 sq. ft. How,do we g~t 38 units cif 1350 sq. ft. on 36,000 sq. ft. Staff replied that City property was included. Mr. Cook says that 6,000 sq. ft. still does not add up to 51,000 sq. ft. Anoth~r question was raised rel~ting to estimated sales price. 38 units at the selling . price of $200-300,000 would mean a gross return of $7,600,000 ,to $11,400,000 p~r 30 acres. Then to take 50 units at $125,000 to $195,000 means that the gross return would be $6,250,00 to $9,750,000, in other words, $2 million dollars less. Why would the developer want to put 50 units which would bring him $2 million less than 38 would? Could someone tell me what the maximum height of any living unit in this project? Answer from staff was that 44t ft. and above that is a 20 ft. tower, that would make it 64t ft. I would like the Commission address yourself to hold this for the next several months in order that this Commission study as to what policy should be for the development of the Old Town are~. I think you should know that the density development in this City'was passed unanimously by the Commi~sion and the Council. I wo~ld like to know if you have adopted a policy that density is a tradeoff for affordable homes. Why does Old Town have to pickup the affordable housing for the City of Seal Beach? I would like to know has the City previously waived in lieu park fees for somebody building affordable units?" Staff replied, no. The only other affordable housing built within the City was the trailer park. There were nq in lieu park fees associated with the trailer park. The in lieu fees were with the condo project adjacent to the trailer park and were based on a lower scale. Mr. Cook stated that if we allow increased density on that property by considering it R3 rather than R2 and do not require in lieu park fees, that was not'understandable. He also asked why this project was planned with a 0 setback. Staff replied that was done in order to fit parking garage. Mr. Cook asked how much sq. ft. would be lost to project if it had ,to meet City's setback. Staff replied it would be about 5,000 sq. ft. Staff also stated that the specific plan if adopted would rezone the property. Mr. Cook asked why conditions could not be set by,the City ;'f the property would be rezoned. There is nothing that says this has to be zoned R3, zone it R2 or Rl. That is what is happening to the rest of us. Many citizens have lost a great deal due to downzoning. I think you have gone a long way with faulty information, some questionable information. I would want you consider that you postpone this long enough to hold another study session with the community and ask them to ~ell you what th~y want this co~munity to'~e. Rebuttal Mr. Stone stated he believed that due to points rai~ed tonight that he has to work with staff to develop some answers. 7. -~ " P. C. Minutes Page -S The Commission voted unanimously to hold this public hearing over until the next meeting. Commission recessed for 10 minutes. Residential Overlay Zone Staff~eport presented by Mr. Antos. The idea behind residential overlay zone was to provide economic incentive in the area of 1700 block of Electric Avenue and 200-300 block of S~al Be~ch Boulevard to encourage property owners in that area to upgrade their properties. A letter from Richard Grossgold was received objecting to proposed amendment a~ he felt Seal B~ach Boulevard is now predominantly commercial and should continue to be so. Public hearing opened. Heleri Wilson, 252 17th Street. If housing such as Happy Holiday motel which does not meet building standards are to be renovated, then that would be the better alternative. There are fights, noise, disturbances, late hours noise, traffic and unhealthy aspects to the motel and should be renovated." Jim Gil kerson, 1011 Electric Avenue. "There should be other methods of ~akingplaces such as Happy Holiday and Bay Motel come up to standards. I feel Electric Avenue should be kept residential." Geraldine West, 1201 Electric. (Statement attached). Walt ~1iller, 231 Seal Beach Boulevard. ' "When I bought my building it had an apartment over it. I was told when I changed to commercial that it would stay that way. I feel that this would mean a rev~rsal of that situation. I think with increased residential, there would be difficulty finding parking for commerc,i:al enterprise and those opportunities would" drop." Mr. Miller also presented a street parking plan for Seal Beach Boulevard. Jay Covington thought this might be an opportunity to have an ad hoc committe to study this situation and that Mr. Miller might like to serve on it. Nancy K~ede 11, 1?15 Seal Way. She approved .of ~~r. ~1i 11 er' s plan. Bob Cook, 441 Central Avenue, strongly'recommend that the Commission make specific parameters on what should be done in this area. Public hearing,closed. ~. tit /' . P. C., [qi nutes Page 9', '-, Jay Covington moved that this item be passed back to City Council and ask them to assist by forming an ad hoc commi,ttee whose 'members would be appointed by t~e' Council from a list of volunteer pr6perty owners in the general area of concern. Based on that the Commission and,staff and property owners, along with the Naval Weapons station, can make recommendations back to th~ Commission fo~ its final det~rmination. Mr. Perrin seconded the motion, which passed uhanimously. NEW BUSINESS Resolutton Denying V-1-83 Staff report presented indictated that a variance ,was filed to permit a portion of a building to encroach into a 3ft. sideyard at Bl14 Surfside. The building was constructed so that a portion of it encroached on the neighbor1s ~roperty. , Recommendation was to deny the variance. Res. #1300 Commissioner Covington moved to 'adopt res. #1300, Mr. Jessner seconded ,~he motion which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: Covtngton, Jessner, Murphy, Perrin, Goldenberg None Re~cilution on County Flood Control Project, Res. #130l Commisi,oner Perrin moved to adopt resolution finding the proposed channel impr6v~ments_ in:'conforrnity withthe.Cityl.s Ge-rieral-:Plah., ,Mr. Covington.. seconded the motion which passsed with the followi~g vote: "1;. ,;' AYES: "-NOES: Covington, Jessner, Murphy, ~errin, Golddenberg None . Oral Commuhications Mr. Bob.Cook, 441 Central Avenue, spoke of the pier project and its poor preJi~inaryre~ort. ' Meeting adj~urned at~l~ p.m. ~..~ ,Recordlng Secretary . .J 0' III' e -- " T t ' 1 '7' '1' 9 0 ~ '1',,', ., 1 ~ Pc' -.. '~Or.v }IU:':-'lQT. 1 i -, " ," ...,;.:.:J _Lid J..IJ. .' .L:-.......... v .__ ...... -:' __-'-'-~ Specific Ple.n Gentlemen: First we i'.fish to POiri,t out that ab~ndonment of ci ty property' , , t ' t L '~..L. f" -.,' so that ad(;veloper may use l t COnS"l u-I"es' a gll (, 0_ PUD..LlC funds as 3uch i:; 2_ ,violation of statE; 1 av! . If tJ-:E': l[ind ~ Y'I ,...; __..._J..~ is to be leased, or sold fair market value must r, e 1"'1'''"i ~ y,:r-c" d or lo,.... -.il! ----l:~.'-' .. this also would constitut~ a gift of public funds. Staff report' indicates thc~t Villa Specific Plcm is authorized by Section 65450 et seq., of the California Government Code. The justification far acting wlder this se~tion of t~c code is the systematic implementation of the general plan~ There is a law which pre-empts this code, namely the California Consti tution and E;peci:f'ic2~11y its due p"C_OCt;~3S claus8" Article I" Section' 7 ('h): "A "l' +i '? :,,'n' or (' 1 ~l <c C; l..' .....- <J __,;...l~.. J. _ '.... _'-..lo.o...Jo_ of' ci tizerlS rna.j~ , 'l- noT. ,)e granted privileges or ir:ml1...Eji ti::;s not gr~"1t8d on the same terms to 8,11 ci tizens." 'The U. S. due process c12,use ,-"Iso pre-empts. Justification for acting under these COde sectians ,is given as the s~stemati~ implementation of the general plan. We contend that thi s' justi fica ti on is Vii thOtit merit and an improper inter- pretation of the code. The de\relo.I='E.)'Y- as}(s 1....0~ in ef'fect a cornpJ.9te 2.bc~.!1cic.ru!~ertt of zoning prdinarlce~, Inr1d use plaris 211d' develop6Gnt criteria ~arefully devel.oped O'/CJ' a lODE I~2riod of time after lBuch study and as a Y"eSllJ.t of m~1.~1Y pliblic }iearings. We COl1tend. that the benefitS,"-the CO~)rnl; -Ly ~!ill Y'6c0.ive i11 eXCl'lan~e for t!1is Testimony" 17 August 1983 - Villa Specific Plan - Page 2 .' rash proposed action does not exist and 1n fact the proposed development would be detrimental to the community both in real and psychological terms. The de'veloper 1, <'< .::> --l ("'. '-'1 ",,-, ....... c.~...':;.' ---...;. .;. t:) for and t~e staff recommenas that he be allo'/18d to eV0eca' ~o"~'OD0rn+ c-r'tcrl'rl.' -~ .,.. ".,. ,:: \".~ ~ v .~ ..'_ ...._. d ,;;:.... .. 1.. '..... .... (: as respects number of l..mi ts, building height, parl<:ing requirements and unL,; size. In addition tandem spaces are requested which are, no longer permi tted the ordinary property ov-mer' as are compact spaces which to our knowledge have neve~b8~n permitted to property ovmers in this city., In addi tion to all of this he asks for zero set backs. " He askes that he be allowed to develop to the density of one unit per 600 'square feet of 18nd. To Dut this in prespective under t:'lis cri terion we. v!ould be able to put 10 plus units on " our property which is arrproximately 61.5 by 110 square feet, and a 25 by 117.5 foot parcel would be allowed 407 u.nitso R-J zonirtg in effect does not exist in Seal Beach. Beginning in 1969 the number of garag8sp~r unit was increased, tandem parking was allowed then disallowed, square footage was increased per unit and set b2.cks were increased/v- ~~~~: Oricinally two unlts were allowed oh a 25 foot lot, then it bee "Jy!e nOr>0C:sc~""'... v t'o h;-.vc ~7~ Tr.,c-'t - ...... -.", .J" ...... J .....l.. \... J .t.~ ......... ,_ frontage for two units and now .', i 11 only a single unit is al16wed on either a 25 or Jj1 foo+ J0+ for the ordinary property O~TIero Testimony, 17 August 198J - Villa Sijecific Plan - Page J .: All these actions were developed and taken by the city after much study and exhaustive public hearings and the majority of citizens have been willing to abide by the criteria as developed~ The Vlai ver of in-lieu park fees based on a 12_nd value of $1,000,000 is inadequate. To build a single family residence in Seal Beach one vlOuld have to ovm or to buy property valued at approximately $100,000. On this basis fees should be based on $5,000,000 as 50 units would bring in the same number of users as would 50 separate units., -/ I, I , . Finally, at this time the County of Orange is in the pro~ess or has revised the housing element of their General plan 0.1- lowing own~rs and developers to eliminate restrictions on deeds 2.S to resale., Density bonuses at 'this time (J,nd under these circumstances now that I have made you aware of this would also constitute a gift of pUblic property forbidden by state law. In conclusion, on the basis of these objections, we ask that you not approve the resolutj,on:, as propo-sed. and that you reject the specific' plan as proposed 0' Geraldine & Roger West 1201 Electric Aveo II Seal Beach, Cao 90740 I I I ~ -- ~-- '- Testirnol1j', 17 i~'lJ.gU:::;t -'0'-'3 '-'-"-'v,+';'l' ...... ;- v -... .. e S J. Cl e:. 1 ;J l cl...L CV~rlaY Zon~ ZTA-4-SJ Ge11 tl Gr:cn: We object to the inclusion oflot 15, block 218 (the property on "h 1 " 1" .... '" co ~'o -;. ~ 1 c' -'-- .., Y'> rl '" ) ~ lv..!... "...J... L.r:ic' ;;~ vC ~ L(__lL"-~.:.J in the overlay zone for the same ,phil.cso~[Jhical, poli tical and legal, reasons we object to the Villas , .... SDeCl.l.1C plan. There is no logic in the inclusion of this property in the residential overlay zone proposed other than to be~efit the property o'/mer [;rossl.y in excess of those b9nefi ts aI:Co-;8.ed other property O"/Y',;'q~':: :::>Q'; -i~r'ent III J.. '-" -...... ...... t..: _... -'... 0 (;.c.r"O'Q';ne ,J'. Ro~""r I:Test ......... c..;.__.....~ \.,.4".... t::: C "... 1201 21Ectric AV9. Seal ~ , Deacrl, Ca. 90740