Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-06-06 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1990 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning CommlSSlon was called to order on June 6, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in City Councll Chambers by Chairman Sharp. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by CommlSSloner Flfe. ROLL CALL Present: Chalrman Sharp Commissloners Flfe, McCurdy, Dahlman Also Present: Barry Curtis, Admln. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Joan Fillmann, Exec. Secretary, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Chairman Sharp introduced Dr. Anton Dahlman, appointed to the Planning Commisslon for Dlstrict 3. ThlS is Dr. Dahlman's flrst meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1990 Mr. Whittenberg requested the Mlnutes of the May 16, 1990 Planning Commisslon meetlng be removed from the Consent Calendar so they could be reviewed by the Cl ty Attorney. Chairman Sharp sald they were belng removed for corrections. 2. MINOR PLAN REVIEW 5-90 249 FIFTH STREET Staff Report Mr. ,curtis dell vered the staff report. ThlS lS a request by applicant, Mary Sokoloff, to add a thlrty-six square foot extension to the second floor deck and a twelve square foot addition to the second story of a non-conformlng property at 249 Fifth Street. Commlssion Comments The Commlssion asked what was under the requested extenslon? Mr. curtis said a rottlng roof with leakage problems lS being substituted wlth a deck. Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion M1nutes of June 6, 1990 '. MOTION by McCurdy; SECOND by F1fe to approve Plan Review 5-90 subject to three condit1ons set forth in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCurdy, Dahlman, Sharp *** 3. MINOR PLAN REVIEW 6-90 1313 SEAL WAY staff Report Mr. Curt1s del1vered the staff report on Minor Plan Review 6-90 Wh1Ch is a request by the appl1cant, John G. Matheson on behalf of the owner, Jean Ashmead, to extend the second floor bedrooms over the eX1sting f1rst floor den of a non-conform1ng single fam1ly home at 1313 Seal Way. The property is non-conform1ng due to inadequate setbacks and one parking space is sub-standard. Staff's 1nspect1on found several sub-standard Code 1tems that must be brought up to standard. . Commiss1on Comments Mr. F1fe asked about Cond1t1on #5 Wh1Ch have an 1rregular r1se and run. Mr. Curt1s said he could not speculate as to how they were bU1lt except to say that at the time they were built the C1ty'S inspection process may not have been that strict. . Mr. Fife asked 1f 1t was true that at some p01nt backward 1n time the C1ty didn't have good records as to what was built with perm1ts and what was the approximate date the C1ty started keeping better records? Mr. Curtis said that pr10r to 1970 the city's Build1ng- Planning Department records were "h1t and miss" --- before the 1950's the records are "kind of shoddy" --- after 1970 the records are good on most propert1es. The Commission asked Mr. Curt1s about a 1979 C1ty-wide survey and would it be correct to say that after this survey the C1ty is "legally and formally in charge of everything?" Mr. curtis said this 1S the rule but there are some 1nstances where things have sllpped through or been bootlegged in and are discovered at a later date. Dr. Dahlman asked if someone has a non-conform1ng house ("dat1ng from before then") and the Comm1ssion approves a 10% or less than 10% remodel, 1S that construed as approval of the prev10us work done on the place? Mr. Curt1s repl1ed staff analyses of a request for alterations to non-conforming structure 1nvolves rev1ew1ng building permits and any other plann1ng actions having occurred on the property. The site 1S inspected by Plann1ng staff and Building Inspectors to see 1f 1t appears any add1t1ons were built to Code. Mr. curtis sa1d "somet1mes we do have to speculate on whether it was permitted". Once we do these Minor Plan Rev1ews, 1f staff feels 1t is a legally non-conforming structure, then from that point on those additions become grandfathered in as legally non-conforming. We are doing Page 3 - Plann1ng Commiss1on Minutes of June 6, 1990 . the grandfather1ng here. Mr. Dahlman asked staff why they recommending tempered glass w1ndows on the west exposure? curtis said it 1S a UBC requ1rement due to the height of windows from grade. are Mr. the Mrs. Jean Ashmead * 1313 Seal Way. Seal Beach Mrs. Ashmead said the west side glass windows were 1nstalled in 1962 and they have weathered the 1982 storm and all out earthquakes. She said she understood the eight cond1 t10ns but asked about the smoke detectors. She said they could not hear the smoke detectors if they went off on the first floor and would llke them upstairs only. Mr. Curt1s said current codes requ1re that fire alarms/smoke detectors be installed throughout all Ilveable floor areas. He added, most of the requ1rements to be brought up to Code are of a safety nature and staff didn't feel r1ght 1n passing them by when they could be corrected in conjunction with this addition. Dr. Dahlman asked 1f this was a very large amount of w1ndow space that would be of great expense to them? Mr. Curt1s sa1d the w1ndows would obviously not be 1nexpens1ve but he d1dn't know the exact cost. The heaV1er windows are necessary because of the1r height from the floor; it 1S a UBC requ1rement. . John Matheson - No address glven. Mr. Matheson said he is employed as contractor John Matheson's estimator. It would appear the whole w1ndow has to be changed to tempered glass. The way th1S cond1tion is wr1tten is confusing and we would llke it clarified to f1nd out 1f the dimension is correct for using tempered glass 1n that first area but not hav1ng to change the glass above because 1t's plain plate glass. Mr. curtis said Planning Dept. and Building Dept. staff would be glad to re1nspect the property to clarify exactly what needs to be done to minimally meet the UBC requirements. Staff does not 1ntend to requ1re the applicant to go beyond UBC requirements. Mr. Fife noted the UBC requ1rements are to keep person(s) from tripping or walking thru a patio door or a low sill window; tempered glass just explodes 1nto bit pieces versus jagged pieces. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Minor Plan Review 6-90 with all conditions described in the staff recommendatlons except Condition #6, to be immediately effective and part of the approval process. A certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until such time as staff, wi th the assistance of the Plannlng Commission, has resolved the requirement of Condition 16 under the lnterpretations of the UBC. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCurdy, Sharp, Dahlman . *** . . . Page 4 - Plann1ng Commiss1on M1nutes of June 6, 1990 4. MINOR PLAN REVIEW 7-90 1605 SEAL WAY staff Report Barry curtis del1vered the staff report on Minor Plan Review #7- 90. It 1S a request by applicants/owners, Andrew Schne1der and D1ane Frolov, to enlarge an eX1sting third floor, 1ncluding a new bathroom, not to exceed the maximum 10% addition to a non- conform1ng resident1al structure, and exterior remodel to an eX1sting non-conform1ng structure. This structure is non- conform1ng due to several factors, one being the rear setback of the garage, the front unit presently had a third story not allowed by Code on a 25' lot, over dens1ty with three un1ts, less park1ng than requ1red by Code. Staff recommends approval to square off the dormer roof as well as the aesthet1c mod1f1cations to the bU1lding's facade and the third story bathroom. Commiss1on Comments Mr. Fife asked about squaring off the A-frame style roof. Is th1s to be squared at only the area involv1ng the addition? Or squaring the roof for the ent1re building? Mr. Curt1s said there's an A- frame roof at the front and rear of the third story. This would create a rectangular third story. The he1ght of the presently squared off portion is 28 feet. Andrew Schne1der * No address glven Mr. Schne1der said he and his w1fe are currently in escrow on 1605 Seal Way. His appeal, he said, 1S based on what 1S the spirit of the law versus what 1S the letter of the law. They feel their plan meets what the spir1t this community wants and would increase the qual1ty of their and their son's life by not 1ncreasing rentals or automobiles. The concern of creating an extra un1t and putt1ng in sprinklers 1nstead of an extra staircase is f1ne with them. The sta1rway was put 1n so they could conform to the C1ty'S Code. Mr. Schneider sa1d the plan would lower the existing roof Ilne by a couple of feet. Virgil smith - Contractor * No address glven Mr. smith said they would llke to have a standard eight foot ce1ling. W1th )Olsts, 1t would be about n1ne feet. Code allows a 7'6" ce1ling. The Commiss1on and staff had discussion on the height of th1S bU1lding. Frank Pad1lla * Present Owner of 1605 Seal Way Mr. Padilla said it was rebuilt in 1977 and it was the f1rst house on Seal Way to have steel added to the front of the build1ng. There is a beam three feet down, solid cement, in front of the house w1th three steel beams going up to the th1rd story welded to steel and com1ng back through the house. It is des1gned and built . . . Page 5 - Plannlng commi slon Mlnutes of June 6, 1990 wlth Coastal Commission approval at that time for a third story. He didn't do the two AJframes at the tlme because he didn't have the money. The first Ifloor is a slab. He doesn't know if hlS origlnal structural dra~lngs are in the Buildlng Dept. flles. He has an old copy of the engineerlng section that was stamped. Mr. Sharp asked Mr. curfiS lf there was any legal reason why they should not do their r model except it is making 1 t more non- conforming? Mr. Curti said two lssues are brought up by that question: (1) it's b~en the long-tlme policy of staff and the CommlSSlon to not incre se a non-conformity. Sectlon 28-2407 does allow structural modifl ations. The Commlssion's discretion would determlne lf something hat lS non-conformlng wlth the Code can be allowed. (2) Staff w uld argue that it needs a varlance to go forward with the additi n. Mr. Flfe asked how the 10% of allowable floor area calculate 0 t with three stories? Mr. Curtls said it was calculated on the to-story Ilmlt and 375 square feet could be added. The approximate 400 square feet is slightly over the 10%. Mr. Smlth said the bu Iding's footprlnt lS not belng changed; existing space is bein enclosed. An lnterlor designer has been hlred to develop a des~gn would have a good aesthetic lmpact on the communlty. Mr. Filfe asked Mr. Schneider if he intended to rent? Mr. Schneider satd they will rent out the two unlts that are being rented out curren lYe They wlll live there on the top unlt. Mr. Schneider said he w uld accept a prohibitlon on an observation deck. The third floor balcony will be partially enclosed. Frank Padilla * 1605 Seal Wa The balcony has leaked from the first wlnter the house was built. The contractor went ban rupt. He said it's difflcult to plug leaks on Seal Way. Pete Arnold * 1316 Seal Mr. Arnold said he had of questlons and concerns that he and his wlfe Barbara compil d plus pictures. H1S dlstributed these to the CommlSSlon. He has know Mr. Padilla over 20 years and has lived here for 40 years. His questions are: 1. The side parking may be over the property line, lnto the neighbor's yard. (Picture #1). The single family dwelling next to Mr. padlll 's dwelling is off-center. His concern is where the propert line is and could lt be used for non- conforming parkin ? 2. The zero-lot line on the garage (Plcture #2) shows that the garage building i li terally on the property line on the Opposlte side. On May 19, 1976 when the proposal was made for the reconstruction of the third floor. H1S concern (reading from the staff report t that time) "the balcony added dormer 3. . . . Page 6 - Planning Commi sion Minutes of June 6, 1990 4. w1ndows on both sires of a sta1rwell to provide headroom and additional 11ght for an access to a balcony/attic. The parking est1maIe of the 6' on the back versus 12' concerns h1m because a car ~annot be parked 1n SlX feet. It hangs over the alley f1re lane. There is a two-car covered garage with non-conforming tan em park1ng on the slde. 5. If the cars are pa ked on the slde of the garage, may 1t not be accessible on e1ther side of the bU1lding whether the property 11ne 1S correct or not by emergency vehicles or the f1re department. There would be no access from the rear of that build1ng. The bU1lding perm t to remodel the rear apartment after the 1983 storm is not 1n eX1stence. staff told h1m there was no permit on file. A that time the upstairs floor was enlarged and sllding doubl doors were added. A sloped roof was made 1nto a roof deck. Now that the roof deck can be enclosed, there could be tw bedrooms at the back. The morator1um dog houses 1S in effect but a roof access looks like it has ecome a bedroom Wh1Ch is now to be expanded into a bathroom also. 6. What happens to th single family dwell1ngs on e1ther slde of the bU1lding when they dec1de to build a 25' h1gh building? [NOTE: FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPTION FROM COMCAST VIDEO TAPE] Mr. Curt1s said staff s aware this build1ng has non-conformities and that staff lives wi h those unt11 such t1me as 1t'S demol1shed. Staff was aware of this when the staff report recommendat1ons were made. Sh Kr del - 1633 Seal Wa Mr. Krydel sa1d he is Ian owner on Seal Way but represented his mother, who 11ves w1thih 100' feet of 1605 Seal Way. He stated he feels approval of thisl expansion opens a Pandora's box --- that ne1ghbors who have a t~o-story apartment build1ng could apply for an 1ncrease from two td three floors. He felt th1S expans10n was 1nconsistent with what-Ithe c1tizens of Seal Beach want - Wh1Ch is downzon1ng and more re~ldential buildings. Mr. Sharp asked staff 10 clar1fy if that area 1S zoned for three stories. Mr. curtis r~plied that Mr. Krydel was referr1ng to the unit next to his houselwh1ch is an apartment build1ng with 11 or 12 un1ts. Theoret1cally, as the Code is presently wr1tten, that owner could apply for a third story expansion. Staff would recommend aga1nst 1t. . . . Page 7 - Plannlng Comml slon Mlnutes of June 6, 1990 Mr. Flfe asked staff a what time was that area zoned for third storles? Mr. Curtls re lied he dldn't belleve third storles were allowed, even back ln 1 77. Frank padllla * 1605 sell Way Mr. Padllla sald he sta ted to bUlld ln 1976 but didn't get all the permlts approved until 977. Three storles were not allowed back then. The permit was 'ssued to work on the new/rebuilt buildlng and was not to include ncreasing the roof's helght or the number of rooms. He noted p rt of the Schnelder' s applicatlon is to rebulld the orlglnal ho see He said there has always been two or three rooms upstalrs. He said they applied for a thlrd story addltion, and applied 0 rebulld the old house at the eXlsting helght and work on the duplex. The back house is the original garage. Mr. Sharp asked Mr. Pad lla how he got three unlts if they weren't legal? Mr. Padllla re lied that the Coastal Commlssion said the house to be worked on ~~as considered a legal duplex and the back house was non-conformln due to the site, the garage belng built on the property Ilne a d being under square footage for a unit. The Coastal Commlsslon slaid he couldn't do anything except repalrs. The permlt was granted fbn the basis that he not work on the back house. The house now i the same height as when he bought it. In 1976 lt was a legal dup ex with a non-conforming thlrd unit. Mr. curtis said there. Ire three legal unlts on thlS property but only two are conformln;l Nothlng was bootlegged In. [END OF TRANSCRIPTION F~OM VIDEO TAPE] D1Scussion ensued regarl'lng a third unlt. It was noted that ln 1976 lt was a legal %Plex with a non-conforming third unlt. Permlts were not obtalntd until 1977. Mr. Curtls said there are three legal unlts on th property. There were three legal units but only two of WhlCh w re conforming; nothing was bootlegged in. Now, two of the units a e non-conformlng because only one would be permitted. Mr. Flfe sald he felt h previously understand a thlS tonlght. The appli escrow and to buy the continuance. Mr. Shar study. was inundated with information he dld not d he was not ready to vote for or against ant sald he and hlS wife wlll contlnue the property and he would not object to a said the Commisslon needs more time to MOTION by Fife; SECOND 7-90 to the June 20, 19 Dahlman to contlnue Minor Plan Review Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCurdy, Dahlman, Sharp . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-90 12121 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD RESOLUTION # 1582 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. The appl1cant, Craft Master Sign Corporation, on behalf of the owner, Rossmoor Business Center, is request1ng to amend the orig1nal condit1ons of approval of CUP 8-85. The applicant is asking to replace the Rossmoor Business Center identif1cation sign w1th a new slgn integrating a center identificat10n slgn, a theatre identification slgn and a theatre 1nformational marquee. Staff recommends approval thru the adoption of Resolution No. 1582 and subJect to three cond1t1ons. Commiss1on Comments Mr. Sharp spoke to Condit1on #3, saying Old Town which required one type of signage, Pac1fic Coast Highway which requ1res a different type of signage due to high speed traffic, Le1sure World Wh1Ch is completely d1fferent. H1S recommendation was to remove Cond1tion # 3 and to ask the staff (wi th1n the next few months) to do a complete study of the different types of signage regulations that we would need for these different areas and come back to the Plann1ng Commiss1on with a recommendation for a change 1n our regulat10ns so that we can better deal with signage. Mr. Fife agreed with and supported Cha1rman Sharp's suggestion adding we need more flex1b1lity 1n the sign codes to be more responsive to 1ndividual circumstances. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp that in accordance with Chairman Sharp's suggestion that we eliminate Condition #3 of the staff's recommendation and open the Public Hearing on the remaining two Conditions. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCurdy, Sharp, Dahlman Public Hearing Opened Dottie Phill1P * Manager of Rossmoor Center Ms. Phillip said she disagreed w1th the 98 feet but felt "it's beS1de the p01nt now". She p01nted out that when the signage study 1S done to please consider Rossmoor Center as unique. She sa1d that under 1deal condit1ons there 1sn't enough room for everyone. There was a time when the City forced Rossmoor Center to rebU1ld signage at tremendous expense and the City dictated the mater1als to be used. The Center has not amortized that cost yet. Staff sa1d there are 9 large pylon signs and Center ident1fication sign, the F&M Bank sign and one other sign. Mr. Sharp said no business 1n the Center is to put a slgn up unless it is cleared with the . . . Page 9 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of June 6, 1990 Center and the City. There lS control over what goes up. Ms. PhilllP said no more towers wlll be added. Mr. Sharp explained this is a unique situation because they have the theatres wlth seven theatres wi thln itself and the movies must be dlsplayed. Mr. curtis added the Commisslon has the right to make discretionary actlons concernlng a planned sign program however lt would not be bound by subsequent requests to enlarge any other slgnsi a precedent would not be set. Leonard Wllson * 12121 Seal Beach Blvd. Mr. Wllson said he is the co-chalrman of the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee. The Commlttee has studled this program for two weeks and they reached the same conclusion on Condition #3. The vlsual lmprovement and additional identificatlon will result in increased trafflC and sales volume. He asked why the Center has been put in an adversarial position --- why has that POllCY been adopted and sustained for a long period of time? For example, small requests for tenant improvements have been met with an adversarlal attl tude on the part of Cl ty staff. Mr. Sharp indicated it's not because the request comes from Rossmoor Center but rather that each request goes through all the same steps. The Commisslon has no hOStlllty toward the Center. MOTION by Sharp i SECOND by McCurdy to approve Conditional Use Permit 7-90 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1582 by omitting all references to Condition #3 but with the first two conditions remaining: 3. Wi thin four ( 4 ) years of the date of approval of condi tional Use Permit 7-90, the Rossmoor Business Center shall submit plans for a new planned sign program to the ci ty for Planning commission approval. Said planned sign program shall attempt to bring the center's signage more into conformity Wl th current design standards and the City's zoning ordinance. (CONDITION DELETED) MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCurdy, Dahlman, Sharp *** SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark noted the alley behlnd the new houses faclng Electric Avenue where large posts have been placed. Mr. Stark feels it's impossible to make a turn down the alley coming off Seal Beach Boulevard. He recommended the City look at allowing cement filled steel posts belng placed in the alleys. . . . Page 10 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion M1nutes of June 6, 1990 Mr. Sharp asked Mr. curtis to reV1ew Planning Department records and Fire Department and to report back to the Comm1ssion on this 1ssue. STAFF CONCERNS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6-90 490 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY STAFF MEMO TO COMMISSION Mr. Curt1s presented a staff report to the Comm1ssion regarding the sale of beer and W1ne in conjunct1on with the sale of gasol1ne at the ARCO MP&G Tune-up Center at 490 Pac1fic Coast Highway. Staff has ser10US concerns regarding the sale or beer and wine 1n conjunction with the sale of gasol1ne. Staff will provide the commission W1 th a more detailed report at the June 20, 1990 meeting. Mr. Curt1s ind1cated that the first meeting 1n July 1S on July 4th, Independence Day. The Comm1ssion can table that meeting or it can be rescheduled. Mr. Sharp recommended the Commission cancel the meeting of July 4th and resume on 1tS regular session of July 18th. No formal motion was made. COMMISSION CONCERNS The Commission Concerns were transcribed verbatim from the tape at the request of the Director of Development Services. F1fe: I wasn't able to stay up late enough --- what happened on Monday night regarding Mola? Sharp: The Public Hearing is continued for one week - to next Monday n1ght. F1fe: The possibil1ty remains that Mola could come trailing back to the Planning Commission st111? Sharp: Yes, that poss1bility is st111 there and if it is, I think I'm going hunting! F1fe: Do you th1nk we'll survive Mola? Sharp: (Laughing) While I'm on the a1r I'm not going to make any predict1ons. Fife: Along those lines, one of the things I've noticed is that the seismic risks of the construction on the Mola project site and spec1fically the Alquist-Pr1olo Spec1al Stud1es legislation seems to be a tOp1C of great concern. I've read that code and I have the pamphlet of the Department of Conservation and Division of Mines and Geology on Page 11 - Planning Commisslon Mlnutes of June 6, 1990 . Sharp: Fife: . Sharp: Flfe: . that. It seems to me that lf that lS gOlng to be an item of that much concern and lnterest on a proJect of Mola's scope I fail to see why lt isn't simllarly a matter of concern when you have a person bUlldlng one or two houses ln thlS Clty. We've never taken lt up before. They checked to flnd out about havlng a thlrd seismlc person or company (geologlst) do a study lndependently and they got the recommendation from the powers that be. I couldn't tell you who it was. They had three organizatlons that they recommended. Two of them are already working for Mola. So, they had not declded. They are gettlng a thlrd oplnion and hope to have it in tlme for the meeting. It Just remalns to be seen what wlll happen when the tlme comes. He hasn't glven them an extension, the 13th is the deadllne. If they do not take actlon by the 13th lt's automatlcally approved. My concern is (you know, I thlnk) that there is some argument that the Newport-Inglewood fault ln that area, the dlsplacement zone, is as wide as perhaps 5,000 feet and it's about 3/10 of a mlle from the Pollce Statlon to the property line of the houses on the Hill. If that were really true, the Pollce Statlon, WhlCh is an important emergency buildlng, was built wlthin the displacement zone and lf we're gOlng to take that positlon it seems to me we should start considering requiring similar geology reports when someone wants to come ln and bUlld one house in the same area. I still thlnk where the 5,000 square feet came in was the gentlemen, the expert from Mola made the statement that the ground movement from this lf lt was generated here for approximately 5,000 feet in both directions would be approxlmately the same. So lt wouldn't make any difference if you were 100 feet from it or whether you were 400 feet from lt - you would get approximately the same ground action. I thought that was his answer. Someone picked up on the 5,000 feet and said that was the width of it but I don't understand all I know about It. I heard those remarks too. I understood what he was saying and I lntuitively agree with hlm that not having 2 - 3 feet dlsplacement at each and every locatlon over 5,000 feet --- because you're talking about 10,000 or 100,000 feet of displacement. There's been a lot of dlScussion about llquefactlon risk in that potentlal development area and lf you look at the maps of the Department of Mines and Geology all of downtown Seal Beach from the Paclflc Coast Highway toward the Ocean lS high liquefactlon risk zone. I don't recall we've ever Page 12 - Planning Commiss1on M1nutes of June 6, 1990 ~ raised liquefact10n risks when someone comes in to build two or three homes or SlX homes or ten homes 1n the Old Town area. McCurdy: A great deal of this is based upon what could happen. Let's take an actual case which did happen. Liquefact10n - very much so. MeX1CO C1ty quake. That quake was 230 miles away --- not 5,000 feet away or some such f1gure - -- 230 off the coast and Mexico City which 1S on a bad llquefaction basis, settled, broke, buildings came down, tremendous loss of life. So making a zone 5,000 feet 1sn't going to do you any good anyway because an earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood fault could very well cause a major llquefact10n in other parts of Orange County. F1fe: ~ Sharp: Fife: ~ Whatever, you know, our various decisional bod1es thought might be the seismic risk I have trouble W1 th focusing all of that safety concern just on one site where perhaps two to three hundred homes are being considered and 19noring it when we've got twenty bU1lders build1ng ten homes apiece. It seems to me when you get 200 homes whether 1t'S built by 20 bU1lders 10 at a time or one builder two hundred at a time it e1ther 1S or is not an issue of concern. Whatever the dec1sion 1S 1t should be uniformly applied throughout the City wherever the seismic r1sks are the same. And according to the Division of Mines and Geology it's v1rtually the same, at least from a llquefact10n potential, up on Mola and right down here 1n Old Town - make no dist1nction. College Park East is rated as medium. But the Mola slte and all of downtown 1S rated as high. That's Just like the latest San Francisco earthquake. My daughter Ilves in Foster City and 1n Foster C1ty 1f you go down two feet you'd probably h1t water and 1t's all filled. The whole town is filled --- there was nothing there for them to bU1ld homes. They had practically no structural damage. It moved the furniture six 1nches away from the walls in my daughter's house. Everything in the house was moved but they had absolutely no structural damage whatever because it was bU1lt to withstand it and 1t is on what it was required to be on for the k1nd of land 1t was built on. So all those th1ngs can be mitigated as long as they know what they're doing. It seems to me that 1f the ult1mate decis10n (is) that those th1ngs can be, will be and are mitigated on that slte, sim1lar requirements ought to be la1d on building within the areas of the City which are also subject to . . .' Page 13 - Planning Commisslon Mlnutes of June 6, 1990 llquefaction risks. It seems llke we focus these just on large developments and I don't thlnk I've seen a geology report on any of the smaller developments that have come through in the two years I've been on here. I don't understand why we should only require lt on big developments and ignore it on others. Sharp: Are there any other concerns? ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sharp adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m. These Minutes were transcribed from an audio tape by the secretary; the secretary was not present at thlS meetlng. Respectfully Submltted, ~~~~cv-,~ Jo n Fillmann, Executive Secretary Department of Development SerVlces *** These Mlnutes are tentatlve and are subject to the approval of the Planning Commisslon. *** The Planning Commisslon Minutes of June 6, 1990 were approved on q4 \t 1990. ~ ~;'::;1-f . . . SE.Al BEACrl R:CREATIO~, DLPAF,THE:,I E'ISTl\G FA'!\~~S \.:ITHlt, Tn CIn OF SEA!.. BIt,CH Sltes Acreage 1 Edlson Park (Leased) 10.0 2. GuIr. Grove Park (Leased) 10.0 3. Shapell Park 1.5 4. ~ariDB Communlty Center Bnd Park 'l.~ 5. ~iseDho""er Fark n.4 6. Gummere Park 1.3 7. Schooner Park .8 8. ~orth Seal Beach Comunity Center .5 9. , Heather Park U.6 ~/7.e .t.';- 10. P. E. Rlght-of-Way 7.9 ~3 II. \il\ster Park .5 12. Armed Forces ReserVE Center SHe 13.0 + TOTAL ACREAGE 49.9 13. .Beaches (including Surfside) 52.0 *Beaches are NOT under the jurlsdlction of the Seal Beach Recreatlon Bnd Parks Department or the Seal Beach Recreation and Parks COmID1SS1on. ATTACHMENT to the Mlnutes of June 6, 1990 Plannlng Commission Meeting. Submltted by Bruce Stark.