Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-05-15 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 15, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of May 15, 1991 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chalrman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Dahlman. ROLL CALL Present: Chalrman Fife Commissioners Sharp, Orsini, Dahlman, McCurdy Present: Department of Development Services staff: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Michael Cho, Intern Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of May 1, 1991 Minutes MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the Planning commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 subject to two changes: Page 2 - correct "mater" to "master" and Page 11 - Change "... the condition of the Bixby property at Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard ..." to "the condition of the property across from the Parasol Restaurant by the Mobil Station where the street is fenced in and has debris ... Chairman Fife indicated there should be a chain fence across the street at Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard wi th reflectors to help eliminate accidents where someone may want to cut through after dark". MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 2. Minor Plan Review #3-91 C-24 Surfside Staff Report Mr. Cho presented the staff report. [Staff report on flle in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Gary Goodwin, requested an after-the fact Minor Height Variation (Minor Plan Review #3-91) for a safety rail above the 35 foot height limit at C-24 Surfside . The maximum height elevation with the safety ral1 is 35~' and is within the 7' allowance per Section 28-2317 of the Code but based on preVlOUS Plannlng Commission concerns regarding height limits - - e Page 2 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes of May 15, 1991 staff recommended denial of th1S application because there is no significant safety advantage gained by allowing this ra111ngi it appears aesthetic to staff. Mr. Cho presented color photos of the roof area, showing the ra1ling, to the Commission. commission Comments The Commission asked for clarification of the two railings. Mr. Cho explained this applicant was before the Commission in March seek1ng after-the-fact approval for a safety railing around skylights. At that meeting the Commission requested an extra course of pipe be added to the safety railing around the skylights in addition to what the applicant was applying for. It was approved because safety concerns needed to be met. Tonight, the same applicant is seeking after-the-fact approval for a second railing around the entire perimeter of the roof deck. Commiss10ner Sharp, indicating the City's height measuring point was recently changed in Surfside, asked how this property was originally measured, from the road's crown or from the h1ghest point on the property? Mr. Cho said the railing was installed prior to the change in measuring policy. Mr. Cho said the applicant was not in compliance when this ra1ling was installed. According to the plans the top of the roof deck safety wall was 35'. Chairman Fife asked if the railing was shown on the plans submitted to the Building Department? Mr. Cho said no. The Commission asked for an explanat10n. Mr. Cho said the perimeter railing was installed at the same time safety railing was installed around the skylights. Because they put patio furniture on their top deck and because they do have small children who come by to visit the applicant felt he needed a safety railing that would also match aesthetically and blend with the skylight railing. The Commission expressed their desire to speak to the applicant but he was not present. Comm1ssioner Ors1ni indicated the parapet wall is 42", not 48" as indicated in the staff report and this rail1ng has never been approved or permitted. The wall is only 42'" and a child would need more protection from falling. Commissioner Sharp said that because the Commission has had problems of exceeding height limits in Surfside and because the Commission wanted to adhere to the height limits he suggested a motion. MOTION by Sharp to deny Minor Plan Review #3-91; SECOND by Dahlman. The Commission discussed the design of the parapet wall and the curvature of the railing, not1ng a child could climb up on the parapet wall using a utility box and/or light on the wall for ass1stance. Some Commissioners felt a child could use the rail1ng . . . Page 3 - P~anning commission Minutes of May ~S, 1991 to pull himself up onto the wall and some felt it would be an adverse safety factor. Mr. Cho, indicating he had received two letters from neighbors of the applicant, read the letters into the Record from Patricia Taylor of Surfside and from the neighbor at C-25 (name undistinguishable). [Attached]. Chairman Fife called Mr. Cho's attention to the staff report, page 2, where the attached sketch shows the parapet wall to be 48" and 42". Mr. Cho said the correct wall height was 42" and the total height of the wall with the railing would be 48 5/8". Commissioner Ors1ni said he favored keeping the railing because 42" was low for a roof deck wall when the roof is 35' off the ground. Chairman Fife said he agreed, stat1ng it is a safety feature not simply a feature to enhance to property. MOTION and SECOND WITHDRAWN by the maker and the second because when the Motion was made the wall height was thought to be 48" tall. Commissioner McCurdy expressed concern that word must be gotten out to get building permits before any work is started and not counting on coming to the Planning commission requesting after-the-fact approval and permit(s). Commissioner Dahlman asked staff if they considered what homeowners may subsequently want to do with their properties and make any recommendations when plans are approved in the Building Department? Mr. Curtis advised that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires a 42" parapet wall around a roof deck. When Mr. Goodwin built this house he built it 6" higher than the plans showed and staff made him cut it down those 6". He was therefore aware of the allowable height limit of 35'. After the house was built, the 42" required parapet wall was up and the building was finaled by the Building Department, then the two railings were put up. When staff became aware of the railings it started a enforcement process; that's how this application came before the Commission. The house doesn't impact its neighbors because it backs to Pacif1c Coast Highway the houses on either side are 39' tall so they are 4' higher than this home. Commissioner Orsini asked if the ra11 were torn down, could it be rebuilt? staff said yes. He expressed frustration on how to get people to get permits first. He said he would vote against this application because they didn't get a permit first. commissioner Orsini asked how long the rail has been installed? Mr. curtis said 6 to 12 months. Mr. Goodwin applied for the Minor Plan Review recently, when he was told he had problem. Mr. Orsini said he was not in favor of anything without a building permit . . . Page 4 - Planning Commieeion Minutes of May 15, 1991 first and felt the Planning Commission should not encourage owners to build without permits by allowing them to apply for after-the- fact permits, variances etc. Commiss10ner Dahlman asked what penalty could be applied in this situation? Mr. Whittenberg said for any after-the-fact permit fee a double permit fee is 1mposed by the city: in this case it would be a small amount. Commissioner Dahlman said he could agree with a penalty but not to having the applicant tear down his rail. Chairman Fife discussed the fee structures and penalty fees with staff. He suggested the solution of approving Minor Plan Review #3-91 on the condition that the applicant pay a $150 penalty to the City of Seal Beach. Comm1ssioner Sharp wondered if that would be legal? Commissioner Mccurdy thought this could be done in the future but fee structures could not be changed for this application. Chairman Fife, indicating the Commission was not bound to approve this M1nor Plan Review said if the municipal ~ was strictly applied the applicant would get nothing. Therefore, Chairman Fife felt a condition of a $150 fine should be placed on the approval. Commissioner Sharp sa1d he felt there was no doubt in the applicant's mind that he was violating the municipal Code when he built without permits because he had been requested to remove 6" of the original wall to not exceed 35'. He agreed with the penalty due to the flagrancy. commissioner orsini asked if he could make a motion to continue this matter so staff could check with the City Attorney on this? Chairman Fife said he could but the attorney's fees would exceed $150. Cha1rman Fife said he would approve it and if the applicant wanted to challenge it he could appeal to the City Council. If the City Attorney thinks it's unconstitutional he could toss it out wi th the net result being he would not have the Minor Height variation approved. He would have to take his railing down and go through the regular processing methods. MOTION by Orsini: SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review #3-91, with the conditions that (1) the applicant pay a $150 penalty fine to the City of Seal Beach and (2) the proper building permits be approved by and obtained from the Building Department. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCUrdy, Sharp, Dahlman, Orsini *** . Page 5 - P1anning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 3. Minor Plan Review #8-91 125 Cottonwood Lane staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Dana Williams, requests architectural review to build a two-story cabana in the Seal Beach Trailer Park at 125 Cottonwood Lane. On May 1, 1991, the Planning Commission continued Minor Plan Review #8-91 until the May 15th meeting for the purpose of revising and clarifying the proposed plans. The present trailer is 899 square feet and the applicant proposes to add 1200 square feet, having four bathrooms and four bedrooms (two on each floor). There are no roof decks and the roof has been changed to solely a pitched roof. Regarding the creation of two units, staff feels the plans do not show a second story kitchen. However, there is an easy way to part1t10n the entry and create two units. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commission Comments Commissioner McCurdy asked Mr. Cho if the Commission was limited to exterior architectural review only? Mr. Cho said the language of the ~ does not specify interior or exterior architectural control, therefore staff takes the position the Commission has control over the entire project. . commissioner Orsini asked if the plans have been changed? Mr. Cho said the rooms were renamed. The pitch of the roof was changed thus removing certain windows above 20'. commissioner Orsini asked about kitchen facilities, noting there are converted units that have no kitchens. Mr. Whittenberg adv1sed the UBC prOhibits having two kitchens in a structure, except under certain circumstances. To have a legal living unit you have to have a k1tchen. Mr. Cho said Title 25 mandates the kitchen be in the existing trailer. commissioner Sharp asked staff what they found out about having a sliding glass door as the primary front door? Mr. Cho said he got no definitive answer from the State as yet. So, staff has left this issue up to the plan checker. Commissioner Orsini asked if trailer owners can sub-lease their trailers? Must they be owner occupied? Mr. Whittenberg said he believed they could be sub-leased with the owner's permission. He noted the City does not get involved in this issue. He indicated the new tenant would have to qualify under the income criteria. . Asked about the four bedrooms and four bathrooms, Mr. Whittenberg said a person can have as many bedrooms as he wishes if he has the required parking. . . . Page 6 - P1anning Commission Minutes of May ~5, ~99~ The Commission discussed the hallway, noting its 2' width and a window near a bedroom and bath. Chairman Fife asked lf the applicant was present; he was not. Chairman Flfe asked if the applicant had been contacted? Mr. Cho said he spoke with the architect last week and was also sent a notice of this meeting. The architect indicated he didn't know if they would attend and Mr. Cho strongly suggested they do attend, considering the discussion at the last meeting. commissioner Dahlman raised his concerns about the change in density by potentially creating two units on this lot. He said he clearly indicated at the last meetlng that the Commission wanted to talk to the applicant and he was very disappointed they didn't show up. Chairman Fife suggested that, in view of that discussion, the Commission hold this over for thirty days. Staff should notify the applicant, Dana Williams and his architect in writing of this decision and the Commisslon's desire to speak to them. MOTION by Fife: SECOND by Dahlman to hold over Minor Plan Review #8-91 to the Planning commission meeting of June 19, 1991. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, Orsini, McCUrdy *** SCHEDULED MATTERS - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit #5-91 208 Fourth Street Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The appllcants, Edward and Marla Wicorek, requested to remodel and do a major addition of approximately 1211 square feet to the front unit of their duplex located at 208 and 208~ Fourth Street. This property is non- conforming due to density and tandem parking. commission Comments commissioner McCurdy said the Commissioner's did not get a full set of plans, they had only the top view of the roof. He asked about the fireplace, Conditlon 2, and was told by the applicant they had discarded the idea of having a fireplace. Commissioner McCurdy indicated that at the present time there is no direct connection between these two buildings but the plans show a connection between the two buildings via the new stalrwell and the existing rear unit landing. Mr. Curtis said the municipal Code requlres a 10' . . . Page 7 - P1anning Commission Kinutes of May 15, 1991 separation between habitable structures and putting the stairway at the rear of the front unit would decrease that below the 10'. The only other way the Code would allow the placement of the stalrway is if the two buildings are actually touching. Commissioner Dahlman clarified that the applicants are requesting a 1200 square foot addition, WhlCh is more than 10%, an additional room which meets the criteria as being a bedroom and it's a non- conforming property due to density. Commissioner Sharp noted the property has four required parking spaces but the ordinances have been changed to not allow tandem parking. Additionally, they are over density. commissioner Orsini noted the stairway from the first floor to the second floor is on the outslde and is boxed in to be part of the unit. Stairwells are not counted for square footage. commissioner McCurdy, discussing staff's concern on the location of a door, noted the entrance to the new stairwell to the second floor allows a rear exterior entry. Public Hearing Edward Wicorek * 208 Fourth Street. Seal Beach Said his application is identical to Conditional Use Permit #4-91 which was approved by the Planning Commission in April 1991. He stated he worked with that applicant in developing his application. He said the door relocation posed no problem to them and they did not plan to have a fireplace. Regarding the front yard setback, staff indicated the existing structure is set back 15' from the property line. The dining room extension will be 8' from the property line. Commissioner Dahlman expressed concern that the 30' x 117~' lot is zoned for one unit. Mr. Wicorek said they are exclusively building up and not adding windows. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the property was over density. There are two units on the property and one unit would be allowed if a new structure would be built today. The two units which exist do have the required number of parking spaces although they are tandem spaces. Commissioner Dahlman sald he would prefer to see plans for properties that are over density make some effort to come closer to meeting zoning requirements. Commissioner Orsini said the applicant could conform only by removing the apartment over the garage. Chairman Fife clarified that "density" is dwelling units per lot size and not intensity of the dwelling unit on the lot. 2178 square feet of lot space lS needed for one unit and this lot is 4,000 square feet approximately. Chairman Fife and Commissioner Sharp indicated they didn't see this application as materially worse than anything they had seen approved at this level or on appeal at City Council level. Commissioner McCurdy noted that all the houses on that side of the street are one story in front and two stories on the rear and those houses would probably apply to go to two stories in the front. . . . Page 8 - P~anning Commission Minutes o~ May 15, 1991 Chairman Fife noted the Plannlng Commission disapproved Al Brown's plans on the same issue only to be overturned on appeal by the City Council. commissioner Dahlman, referencing the previous measures, said he felt the City Council had no problems with the rule 'no new bedrooms on non-conforming units' but overruled the Planning commission where the applicant was being subjected to more rigorous standards retroactively than was fair. Mr. Wicorek said the tandem parking spaces were being used for storage and a gym, not parking. Commissioner Sharp said he felt the Commission would be doing a disservice to Mr. Wicorek if they denled this application because he could appeal it to the City Council and they would probably overturn the Commission. Bruce Stark * Old Town. Seal Beach - Stated he was in favor of CUP #5-91. He objected to moving the exterior doorway (the double doors at the end of the landing --- one that goes lnside and one that leads outside) to a place away from the stairs because he was required to do just the opposite in his own application. He felt this gave mixed signals to architects and cost applicants extra fees. He suggested clear instructions be given by staff. Commissioner orsini said the Planning Commission looks carefully at the plans to avoid bootlegging units after approval. Mr. Stark said he was told his exit was required by the Fire Code. Mr. Curtis said Mr. Stark's unit, due to a quirk in the Code, was allowed to have a third story on 37~' lot. The Uniform BUllding Code (UBC) requires two separate exits from a third story which need to go all the way to the ground; that was the reason for the extra door in his stairway. Mr. Stark stated both his units are three stories but that one has the exit and the other does not. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing no one wishlng to speak further in favor or against this application. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit #5-91 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1626, subject to four Conditions of approval and with the deletion of Condition 2 on the basis that the applicant states the fireplace is being eliminated totally: 2. The family room fireplace shall be relocated to the southeasterly corner of said room. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOE: 4 - 1 - 0 Fife, Sharp, McCurdy, Orsini Dahlman *** . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 5. Conditional Use Permit #6-91 550 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite #111 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, David Bonadonna, applied to upgrade an existing on-sale beer and wine license to a general liquor license in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 550 Pacific Coast Highway, #111. This is Los Cabos Restaurant. Mr. curtis explained Bonadonna's Restaurant relocated, this is the site where Bonadonna's Restaurant use to be. Mr. Curtis noted this restaurant is located in the City's highest crime incident reporting district, District 7. Staff contacted the Seal Beach Police Department and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control re over-saturation of liquor permlts within the Bay City Center. The Police Department had no concerns regarding the service upgrade. The ABC allowed the proposed upgrade since it is a continued use and not a new license. ABC does not take into account whether it's in a high crime reporting district --- only when it's a new use do they look at it carefully. All of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway is considered to be in the City's highest crime zone. Because the reporting district includes Pacific Coast Highway it has an availability to crime. However, the ABC stated a new use proposed for Police Reporting District 7 would be reviewed under more stringent standards. Staff recommended approval of this application via adoption of Resolution No. 1625, subject to nine conditions of approval. commission Concerns Commissioner Dahlman asked staff to review the Police Department's crime reporting districts. Director Whittenberg explained that for each city in the State crime statlstics are aggregated by districts by each city's police department and are based on incldence reports. In Seal Beach, the area that has the highest crime rates are in Reporting District 7. When new ABC licenses are sought the ABC has the authority under State law to not approve any new liquor licenses in high crime districts. The police reporting districts have no correlation to Councilmatic districts. There are 13 Police Reporting Districts and 5 Council districts. Chairman Fife asked staff if they had completed the parking study in Bay City Center? Mr. Whittenberg said that study is still on hold. Public Hearing Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. The applicant was not present and no one wished to speak for or against this application. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearlng. . . . Page ~O - P~anning Commission Minutes o~ May ~5, ~99~ MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit #6-91, with nine (9) conditions of approval, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1625. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini *** 6. Zoning Text Amendment #3-91 Transportation Demand Ordinance staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report on Zoning Text Amendment #3-91. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. This is a request to add a new article (Article 32) to the City's zoning Code, establishing a trip reduction and travel demand section. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the history of Proposition 111 and the implementation requirements of Orange County's Congestion Management Plan. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked what employers in the City of Seal Beach, other than Rockwell and the City, singly employee one hundred people? Mr. Whittenberg said he couldn' t answer that but noted this ordinance applies only to new construction. City businesses emploY1ng more than one hundred persons are currently under Air Quality Management District (AQMD) regulations, entitled Rule 15. If Rockwell adds a new building which adds one hundred employees it would come under this new ord1nance and if less than 100 persons they will be regulated by Rule 15. This new ordinance does not cover remodeling work. commissioner Sharp reinforced that this trip reduction ordinance applies to commercial construction only. Mr. Whittenberg said it' s only for employment centers that employ more than one hundred persons. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Bill Orshevsky * 85 Riversea Road. Seal Beach - Spoke in favor of any ordinance which would encourage people to live closer to where they work and to ride bicycles to work. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach - Spoke on the Government Code and the Transportation Demand Ordinance indicating he favored implementation at one time. He stated the City could lose its gas tax funds unless it has a Congestion Management Program in its entirety. He indicated the Congestion Management Plan should be a part of the Transportation Element of the City's General Plan. He . . . Page 11 - P1anning Commission Minutes of Kay 15, 1991 suggested this ordinance be held over until staff presents the entire Congestion Management Program to the Commission. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff provide the Commission with the pertinent sections from the Government Code. Mr. Whittenberg responded to Mr. Stark's comments by stating (1) the preparer of the new ordinance was Michael G. Colantuono of the City Attorney's Office and not Michael Cho; (2) the requirement is that the City must have a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Transportation Demand Ordinance is a portion of that CMP. The Orange County Transportation Commission is the local agency which has been given the legal authority to certify compliance with those provisions for all Orange County jurisdictions. The Orange County Transportation Commission requires the Transportation Demand Ordinance to be adopted by July 1, 1991. It requires the CMP to be adopted by January 1, 1992 and that document is still in preparation. This particular portion has been brought to the Commission because the Orange County Transportation Commission, in working with all the Orange County cities, determined it was most appropriate to develop an ordinance that was substantially acceptable to all the citles, Orange County and to the Transportation Commission. This new ordinance has gone through an extensive review process by a number of technical review committees at the County level. The new ordinance meets one portion of the Congestion Management Plan, this is not the entire Program. It does need to be in conformance with the Transportation Element and the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. To make amendments to General Plan documents requires Public Hearings and the County realizes it takes a long time to go through that process --- a longer time that to simply adopt an ordinance that sets forth certain standards for constructlon purposes; (3) the one hundred person criteria evolved from the Orange County Transportation Commisslon's technical review process; (4) the rest of the program will be forthcoming to the Commission; (5) the capital improvement program is a seven year capital improvement program that the City has to develop. It is not ln this year's budget, it would be an amendment to the budget document. The budget, by Charter, is to be adopted prior to July 1, 1991. Chairman Fife asked if the Orange County Transportation Commission was developing a model CMP for adoption by Orange County cities? Mr. Whittenberg said they are preparing a guideline document as to how to prepare a CMP. The final draft of that document has been glven to the technical review committee by the cities. That is to be back to them by June 15th. At that point they will adopt that as their official guidelines on how to prepare a CMP. Dennis Jue, former City Engineer now contracted from Wildan, has been attending a number of those technical meetings particularly ln regard to the seven year capital improvement program. . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 Chairman Fife asked if a requirement exists or develops that residential developments of a certain size shall, as a condition of approval, come up with a trip reduction program, would the adoption of this ordinance impliedly rule out a parallel ordinance for residential development? Mr. Whittenberg said if the guidelines require that additional City control, the City will respond with whatever is required. Mr. Stark said he didn't understand why the City had to address compliance with this provision of law in piecemeal fashion. Additionally, he questioned why the City was "regurgitating what Orange County tells us 1.S best for us ..." and said the City doesn't have to accept that to comply. Also, Orange County has spent a lot of time considering this measure and Seal Beach should do the same. He sa1.d the statute did not contain the arbitrary January 1, 1992 deadline and said the statute as passed was to become effective July 10, 1989. Chairman Fife said this appears to be another example of State- mandated legislation which is not followed up by funds at the local level for the agencies that have to implement it. Mr. Whittenberg said that the Orange County Transportation Commission, not the County of Orange, is a County agency responsible for all transportation planning within Orange County. It is separate from the Board of Supervisors. It is funded by Federal funds, State subventions, gas taxes, Federal highway funds a number of different agencies and sources. That Transportation Commission is empowered by Proposition 111 legislation to establ1.sh the program to come up with a CMP for the County. All cities in Orange County must then adopt a plan that the Orange County Transportation Commission must approve in order for the cities to obtain the funds to which they are eligible for. Again, the Orange Country Transportation Commission does not require the CMP until January 1, 1992 but the do require the TMD Ordinance to be done by July 1, 1991 in order to receive some gas tax monies that have been collected since January 1, 1991. Although it would be nice to have the entire package, the process to determine what is necessary and appropriate to be included in the CMP is not easy to resolve because, for example, there are developed cities, cities that have major undeveloped areas etc. This requirement was transmitted to the City V1.a a letter sent to the Department of Public Works. Mr. Stark spoke, discussing non-conformance with the CMP and underscoring prior comments. The Comm1.ssion discussed a proposed mixed use development along Seal Beach Boulevard, reviewing how the new ordinance would effect it. . . . Page 13 - P~anning commission Minutes o~ X~y ~5, ~99~ commissioner Sharp said the Planning Commission would be recommending this proposed ordinance to the City council and felt the Commission should take the recommendation of Director Whi ttenberg. Chairman Fife agreed with this comment and stated his support and belief in Director Whittenberg. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach - Stated he worked for Orange County in the Environmental Management Agency, Transportation Function. He said that when proposition 111 was passed, no one in Orange County knew who would adminlster the funds. The Orange County Transportation Commission was told they would be doing it. They were charged with larger sorts of transportation issues, like super streets. They developed the idea of doing the CMP piecemeal. They will rely heavily on EMA/ Transportation for model ordinances. The County has been doing a lot of things with transportation that cities haven't and have been doing them piecemeal for a long period of time. There are groups dealing exclusively with mOdeling. Data is inputted based on, for example, land use or no land use, what's happening with roads and what's going to happen. This particular model is called LockTem2 and projects transportation needs now and for many years to post-2020. They know exactly what will happen if a 100-unit development is placed in a particular area. They can tell where trips are going to come from. He stated the City of Seal Beach doesn't have the ability to do this type of work and will have to hire a transportation consultant group to do models for the region or rely on Orange County who's doing modeling. If the City only adopted this ordinance and did nothing else the City will be found to be in non-compliance further on because the City has not identified the deficient intersections, analyzed land uses, required transportation mitigation --- the City will have to deal with transportation modeling, regional growth impacts, do intersection analyses, adopt a seven year capital improvement program. Otherwise the City will lose the Proposition 111 monies. He recommended the Planning Commission adopt this proposed ordinance and the work the other cities or a traffic consultant. He said it is necessary for all the cities to talk one another because transportation problems go beyond a city's own boundaries. This is a big plan. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach, California amending the Code of the city of Seal Beach to Add Article 32 Entitled "Transportation Demand Management" to Chapter 28 of that Code. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Dahlman, Fife, Sharp, McCUrdy, Orsini *** Chairman Fife called a recess from 9:50 to 10:12 p.m.. . . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 STUDY SESSION 7. Public Study Session Addi tions and Remodel of Non-Conforming Residential Structures staff Report Director Whittenberg presented the staff report, background of the three prior study sessions questions asked at the last study session. [Staff in the Planning Department]. reviewl.ng the and answering report on file Marilyn Hastings * City Councilperson/District 1 Said she appreciated Planning Department staff and Planning Commission energies on these study sessions. She said she had seen a large advertisement in the Seal Beach Journal on this session. She said she was sorry more citizens didn't come out to participate. Leroy Brown * 705 Ocean Avenue/ Seal Beach - Asked for a definition of 'habitable' living area, when bedrooms could be added, what else could be added and under what parking conditions. Chairman Fife clarified, that if you're talking about a single family dwelling or duplex which does not have the current parking and could not add additional parking you could add square footage but you could not add bedrooms. Bruce Stark * No Address Given. Seal Beach - Asked what the Planning Commission was trying to achieve in Old Town --- a velvet ghetto of all single family homes? He suggested reducing the house footprint on a lot. He said there is no definition of 'density' and no evidence of a parking problem in Old Town, therefore he felt people didn't know what they were talking about. He said he is satisfied with the way Old Town is now and would like to see government get their nose out of what people are doing with their properties. Chairman Fife said the Planning Commission has been wrestling with the problem of what the people in Old Town really want. Instead of tearing a building down when it has reached obsolescence it's rebuilt in situ. It stays at the same lot coverage. He asked do the residents of Old Town want Rl zoning or to tear down the non- conforming buildings? The Code is giving mixed signals. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Stark to further explain his comment that he'd like to keep Old Town the way it is. Does it mean that nothing is to go on, to let it go? He noted that this is the fourth meeting on this same subject. Mr. Stark said "In the absence of people storming City Hall demanding change I wouldn't make a change ... things never remain static ... thl.ngs always change ... slowly because of private ini tiati ve or quickly in response to a demand ...". Chairman Fife and Mr. Stark discussed what is the Cl.ty's objective? Chairman Fife said we have R-l zoning and yet we are allowing buildings that are clearly non- . Page 15 - P1anning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 conforming which clearly don't meet zoning to stay in perpetuity and that mystifies the Commission. Mr. stark suggested putting it on the ballot and let Old Town vote on it. commissioner Orsini discussed the lot coverages in various areas: College Park West - 45% on an average 5000 sq. ft. lot. Marina Hill - 45% on an average 5000 sq. ft. lot. Old Town - 75% on a 2800 sq. ft. lot. . commissioner orsini said he favors apartments but was not in favor of the current growth pattern, allowing larger and larger apartments. He didn't want to see large apartment complexes come in either. He said he favors keeping Old Town the way it is and cutting the footprint down to 65% lot coverage. He d1dn't see a way to do away with non-conforming buildings because a bulldozer would have to be brought in to destroy every other house. Terry O'Sullivan * 123 Second st.. Seal Beach - He said his vision of Seal Beach is lower density. Urged the City to get more facts out to the people of Old Town and put it in a format people can understand, for example, how many 25' x 117.5' lots are occupied by single families? In that way, people could see what the effects of zoning are. He would not like to see anything larger than a duplex and predominantly single family homes in Old Town. He didn't see many parking problems on Second Street and himself uses his garage for his sports equipment. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street, Seal Beach - Said reducing the lot coverage from 75% is not accurate because taking the minimum lot setbacks you don't come anywhere near 75%, it's 67% coverage. Smaller footprints won't necessarily get rid of the "monstrous" houses Mr. Stark referred to. Greenery, trees et cetera could be accomplished by increasing the front yard setback requirements. He suggested the City Council gave the Commiss1on direction based upon the appeal reversals of Al Brown's two proposed projects. He suggested the Commission have staff compare what proposals were submitted up to that time compared to the large applications and f1gure out what the problem 1S. No one wiShing to speak further, Chairman Fife closed the Pubic Hearing at 11:20 p.m. . Chairman Fife said Mr. whittenberg had talked about revisions to the definition of 'bedroom' and one was to strike the clause '... for the purposes of determining required parking spaces' and adding some other specific types of rooms, such as dining rooms, family rooms. Mr. Whittenberg said he has not completed his thinking on this subject but he would like to take all the comments received to this point and prepare a couple of alternative draft documents for Commission consideration. The major issue is expansion of existing . . . Page 16 - P1anning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 non-conforming structures. Nothing has been discussed regardlng removal of existing non-conforming structures and the City has not restricted the maintenance of those structures. The concern has arisen because of applications for the extensive additions of those structures. Staff would like to develop one set of criteria for what are considered minor additions with a cap as to the size of the structure that could be built. That could come before the Planning Commission if appropriate or it could be delegated to staff to make sure the minimum requirements are met when they go through the building permit process. Larger additions over a certain level would come before the Planning Commission for Public Hearings and would have Notices to adjoining property owners. There would be set criteria for additional amenities to be provided on the property. Drafts could be provided to the Commission at future study sessions and Public Hearings could be scheduled. commissioner Orsini asked if the public notifications in the newspapers could have a few blank lines where comments could be written in? In that way, if a person couldn't attend a meeting s/he could mail their comments in. Commissioner Sharp asked if a joint work session would be a good idea between the Council and Commission to massage a document before it becomes final? Mr. Whittenberg said a joint work session would be good and made smoother by documents reflecting comments from the four study sessions thus far. Chairman Fife agreed with the comments above and said that after four study sessions "... I don't think I'm much closer to knowing what Old Town really wants for itself than I was when I started this". Mr. Whittenberg said it was a shame more public comments were not received despite notifications to the newspaper and four separate study sessions. commissioner McCurdy said the way Old Town is now is that anyone who wants to expand his present property for whatever reason goes ahead and does it. Nobody means to freeze it like it is, to freeze the number of dwelling units. No one wants a solid wall of two- story houses with 'doghouses' on top of them. People have said to get more setbacks and/or at the least to keep the setbacks we have. Chairman Fife expressed concern of a fire disaster when the homes are built only 3' apart. He felt Mr. Whittenberg's suggestlon was appropriate, to come back to the Commission with a distillation of comments received and once satisfied, suggest a joint work session with the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg said staff will prepare two or three alternatives for Commission consideration at the earliest available meeting for review. Once they are in the proper format, then the joint session will be requested. The issue of increased setbacks can be addressed as a separate area that's related to this issue. Mr. . . . Page ~7 - P1anning Commission Kinutes of Kay ~5, ~99~ Antos said the front yard setbacks date at 6' in 1974 per Ordinance No. 948. That was carried over from an earlier ordinance. The 75% lot coverage was also a carryover from an earlier ordinance. There was no modification to the lot coverage requirement with the height/setback study because of the 12' average. The purpose of the floating average setback was to given the homeowners and architects an opportunity to be creative with the front elevation of the house. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Orshevsky * 85 Riversea. Seal Beach - Suggested that when long meetings are anticipated, the Oral Communications portion of the meeting could be moved forward on the agenda to accommodate citizens who wish to speak. He suggested bolder messages, like a town cr1er, to get advertising out on these study sessions. He said he perceived a "directionless drift in the City" with large issues leaving the City in political decay W1 th our leadership subjected to undeserved character slurs. He said the attacks must stop and courage, independence and vision need to be brought into discussion of issues. The Planning Commission and City need d1rection from the City Council so they can enforce ~ on the best use of City land, what businesses shall be encouraged et cetera. He spoke of a "systematic insensitivity" to low and fixed income individuals in the City"... which constitute half of the population" and felt there must be a best use plan generated from the Council level. He urged citizens in Seal Beach to enjoy simpler lives. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg distributed a draft staff report reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement on the Navy jetty expansion proposal to each Commissioner. This same document has been given to the City Council, Environmental Quality Control Board, Surfs ide Colony and the Seal Way Association. There is a Public Hearing conducted by the Navy on May 16, 1991 at the Clarion Hotel in Long Beach to receive comments on this draft EIS. The EQCB will consider this document at their May 23rd meeting, the City Council at their May 28th meeting, with formal comments to the Navy pr10r to June 3rd. He noted the Navy's proposed ship, the AEO-6, is a supply ship for aircraft carriers. Chairman Fife asked staff realistically what can any local agency do to control what the Navy plans to do? Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the existing Navy proposal would not involve any immediate construction at the Naval Weapons Station. The Navy plans to build two ships to be berthed and supplied at Bremmerton, Washington. If the Navy can convince Congress to appropriate monies for further ship building and if those ships are located in the Southern . . . page 18 - P1anning Commission Minutes o~ May 15, 1991 California area (Long Beach or San Diego) the Navy will come back with a future environmental analysis regarding specific construction details for the Naval Weapons Station. The Navy (federal agencies) must comply with certain rules of the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Act. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner McCurdy asked staff to invest1gate a business called "Red Wagon, Mobile Car Detailing" at the Leisure World Shopping Center. It's under a canvass frame. Commissioner Dahlman noted the sulky horse racing at Los Alamitos on June 8, 1991 to benefit the Cancer Support Foundation. commissioner orsini asked staff the status on the Seal Beach Boulevard striping? Mr. Whittenberg said the report will go to Council May 28th or June 10th. commissioner orsini asked for a status report on 1733 Crestview. Mr. Cho said the lien to shed and rear patio cover within the side yard setback have not been removed. Staff will check the ordinance and will proceed with a Code enforcement action if appropriate. Chairman Fife said there's a pro-Mola brochure circulating in the City which carries a accurate quote attributed to Mr. Fife but he did not endorse or approve the use of his name or his words in support of or opposition to the Mola initiative. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adJourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: ~o.-~U-1-' ~r- Jo n Fillmann, Executive Secretary Department of Development Services These Minutes are tentative and are subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, l~~were approved by the Planning commission on June ~, 1991. . . . e _of Se~i 3~ch Plcmnmg CommIssion SUBMITIEO fOR RECORD I ~!l!}::'~?<3-D, Oare ~/ s: '1/ L ~~ W l--\ \ \U IV 'B Co... '" ]: AlV\ R~'SpollJ!)pJ(;" \h ya~'" k2.ffilr c.O~<:'t"""'I~ Tf.I.. Tr.4I/r.r L-~4'-I~ i3~\-.l,,,,,,,O ?~3 S .12>- 13h.vD A~ Th-r... pr-opc:r1r OlAjr..ar ~a~, ~ ~t.. ~~~c1<J) By ;-r-- \:)\\'"...ZTt...y .4cro~s Tl-l'L (4lh, (J.'-o 17/7:1 ~-r-) SA/-c T;~d...<(1f ~lt'\s ~i:"^" T\4N''L,. ~....,. ~'^"J^,Y mON7f(~ lI'\....~ ~"''5 No' C.Av~~ 1) ANY WU Bk_~ Lu,lH V'V'1 \ i...,vMvTs 'Put:. To tAcc::<.:s~ ... ~ 1l-t "l... Co. ~ ^ ~ l. - ,tv ~(A.'"-"1" Ii Do~ '5 S ~ IT"V '- P Yu o("~ e. s ~ I t..I lH ~ ~ Ii I ':. LA"" t:.rJ..C.~flcZ! 'Scu....D B~f)"t"r fro"- N(~)\SL <..,....llt-f\J".[,..,~ ~rb...... '\.h c:...~\\,.t)r'C.1V ~I Tt-I~ 5'W-\... - I'l\~~ I~ AIV l:.q~c.c.'7i"c. u,Jlfvl) SCfS:~A1 ~"'\I' ThE \A\ Os - T HAvr p.sc:u-ss<ro n-tl S WtIH \'\-\y /t.v.AIV'8 f4.N{j.lTh~r f4../U 1]) r H r\ lJ l (,A.Q, S 0 ~u tc t...y NO 6 [14 E <'it o..v to t~ k,<:..^'/, o.v ~ -r'... ,.'71i~rllY' 0 tI" r TH~ E:C!...~ C>~ ntf: CIlVpOll'lS l~ \1.ti. -SoulN err TN~ -'-N~.I t..<rf/" <f:.Jl.(i.AJ/)s ''''''''<<0 TI./ r. ,.. /It r ~ 70 ~ ,11.1 ~f.I'S.*a \ c. .=rt-f (.. I"UU.J Tl-I t. TY-n./ t.. r ,... S,D t:. - S ~ :r c:. A "" I\J~ "i.)\:)~.rt)1At.-'D \~"i ?f'D~(,...~__ ~"A.t.~" 7\ \ 5 So.,...t. I1-'\t<oC'l: os. T~L SrnAII TD.....IV ''L.- ~Cl.v^,A- Gr:; roc.>" 6'1 N~rOI"V\..'f. tlltil/'S So ~r t:v~ )..q..,..." ; t-J 1\.\, S l"O~ t\..J - -l( 1N'i. h-AIl....'l.V t~ "'~ 1-..t:.c.~J..., u...""y f;.ItJ'lJ 1& {Nt C4rpr..trl' t..t:f."-k "? 1\-\ ... ^- ~ y .. 0# Lu .s. vY\i: t.W ~ rU 1- 6-0 CA -"'14 "AI M,q f1 rI ~ S~ 431 72-"2-0 . . . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CCfTtffi\','J10n SUBMITIEO fOR R[Cftf(j) I e By _C?9~ l~?S Date ltJ/S ,_ 'i' _ Mr & Mrs Frank Gonzalez 212 17th Street Seal Beach,CA 90740 City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach,CA 90740 SUBJECT: Appeal of an Order to Remove a Trailer Located at 233 Seal Beach Blvd , Seal Beach This letter IS In response to the above referenced matter per the City of Seal Beach notification received Wednesday, May 23, 1991 Please be advised that the Fielding trailer IS not a burden nor a distraction to our family life style whatsoever We have 4 children, all of whom live at home, none of WhiCh, including ourselves have ever noticed nor gave any attention to the trailer until receipt of the City's notice of the Fielding appeal and problem Therefore, because the trailer does not burden. hinder. nor bother residents in close proximity, It appears overly harsh to Impose such a ruling In an Instance that would Impact Innocent chIldren protected by the trailer's use as a Windscreen Since nothing In life IS more valuable or Important than the protection of our children as they are surely the future of tomorrow, we hope that the City can put aSide the matter and allow the Fleldlngs to retarn their trailer for the benefit of everyone J~At~ ~~y~ry Frank Gonzalez cc Peter Fleldrng .. . . . CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssion SUBMITTED FOR RECORD 8y CI+Ldi.(}~/J Date &> / ~ j, J ., . Mr.~ Mrs Steve Cala~eJ I 220 17th St. Seal Beach, Ca. -431-0289 Mol' 23,1991 CIty of Seal Beach 211 8tn St. Seal Beach, Co AttentIon. Lee WhlttenD~rg Reguorolng Appea] of Order to Pemove T~~I ler .n ~: ley ot ~~) S~~I Beach. Dear SIr, I am the resld~nt at the ~bove add~ess, 5n~ have ~~~~ fo: a[..f-rc/ITT'Oltely the last 13 years ~,' 9~r~ge 1': alrec-t~~' bt''', ~ll:: FleJolnGs storage tral JeL~ In the alle~' oet"\...el:'n 17th St an:J Sr:':"; Be:"ch Blva. I h~ve never had any complaInts or prcble~s wIth :t's 'c~:~Jcr ever. As a matter of fact, It Is an asset, sInce D~fore the Flelo]~g3 purchOlse of the property, the area wher~ the tral ler' ,:s r,ow d5t"'-: ~ J b~ the- plac~ whc're Past reSIdents wOLild ch:"f,gl;;' rh~re 01 I, and ~r:,,5h col l~cted. As I work at nIghts, The troller heJf-s to reGvc.r:: :T,,- J~' :evel Gown from the preschool durIng the oLitdoor pI OlytJfficS of the crllloren WhIle I f,l SleepIng. In addItiOn, It s~rvl;;',=, oS ~ e c!:'llef,t wlnd DreOl~ when my garage door IS opened,helplng to ~c't'~ t~e O.3t J~veJ acwn I~ my garage and house It ao!:'s not hJGoer my abll .tj tc por~ my car In the garage, as It'S on the Flelalngs prOpl:'ft: corrpletely, not h~~s.ng over. I can see no reason to COffipJaln a000t It s fJcesence's, If there IS to Of: complaInIng about the olley, It 5noula be dIrected at the area of Seal Beach BlVd - L~nalng St wnere the trash and old furnIture are always OverflOWing the cu~psters, wnere the old beat up Cers & truc~s p3.r~ ;t rondor I', th~ motels lot and hang over Into the al ley' and the reSldef,ts COl,]C1 f.t c~re less It thIS place loo~s lIke 3. S]l,TT. or not Tnls tne c>:t-S:',P l~t the al ley -not thIS traIler. For someone whom dot'S ?IC~ U? the tL~sr ololm down the 0.1 ley, who sweeps the dIrt =.nc: rO~ks fruT, th~ : llt_ : 0 r the kId S top I a y r 0 ] I e rho c k '= Y the r e, of, d eve n p::.. 1 n t s t h t:' .. [" ol 1 I e ["' the ~~tchl~S color of the bUI laIng, Mr FlelaJ~g W1 l' alJ~Js hJ' e ~. s0ppcrt It's a sad state of aff::"Jr5 when ~ ::::1., hae tc Ce 3~~n = "BIg Brother" when 5Cjj,t'one \"'hClTl 15 not effected, at ol-,ns t"t propl:'ct1, h~s the notIon that SInce the~' don't ap~rovt:' ot ',:h:-t S::,;j.eonc' else does, on there own prcf.-ertJ', that th(,' [......':-,:- ,_-:r-, thcce o'...'n WIShes or aeSJ[c's ThIS IS corra,f:rcl5.11:/ :orc'.:1 ~L-":'pl:'rt_ 5.nyw5.J'. If tillS IS not the cas!:', tnen I \-10010 e t-lec~ tc '3t-~ tfr.: trucks that park In the alrt lot every d~y Cetwecn trl:' rT':ltC:' I arc: trF- oftlce bUIlding to be banned, as thOlt ma~e5 the p]cc" 1.:-.:- ; 1,_ truck stop As The FieldIng traIler IS not a ha:~ro, or ol c~s-~ Ct I_- to tcafflc, nor an InconV~lnce to c.f,ycne, tn.s rJ,..lttt'C :=.tl:::JvJ::J ;1':- '._ J~- been Drought up In the fIrst place I can be reached at ,2:-C20~ It any furt~er quest Jon arIse. Steve Calm.:!::11 V I ~ k Ie::.. I awe] I ~~ VI' U; ftJI~ ~ tdl ~ ~h If-%?1n'tng tto7rlmisMon StlBt'IIfM3 FOR RECORDJ B,_G:~~~.._.Date 1lJIS 9 f _ May 17, 1991 Serata Fleldlng, Owner Growlng Tree PreSchool 223 Seal Beach Blvd. Seal Beach, CA 90740 . Re' PermlSSlon for Storage Traller - Rear of Property Dear Serata: As I could not recall whether verbal permlSSlon was granted for your storage traller to be housed at the rear of your property, I contacted John Baucke, Dlrector of Development Servlces wlth the Clty of Seal Beach durlng the tlme lt was placed there. I bel1eve thlS was about four years ago. Mr. Baucke does remember a conversa tl on you and he had a 11 oWlng the t rall er to be pI aced there, but does not remember the speclflcs. I am sorry I could not be of further asslstance Slncerel y 1/ "2J Y.,'1J,,,,- ~~;'qUel1ne A. GUldry Executlve Secretary JAG: . ~ ~'<\"" ........-f""'<....,....J........ ~ ~" ~-(~...-17C;:; l1V t' .....-...,....~" . ...:.............- wlll approve \-l"e hope you t your June ~ appllcation a CommlSSlon meetlng. Mr. 5th Watson's Plannlng ell) S11,cerely, . / / ~ '''d1rt~~ 2l:':'lt'? /..w /- " Bvb and Chrlsty Shahnazarlan 23b-14th Street 90740 Seal Beach, Ca. l! · :)ea; bot. '1 p,,", 1; C r1.....I~slon ., l',nUl fl)" Ri"CQP'"l ill' J 5 ,33 tJl1tt._ -;. s, E~~q'!l I ~ v' " City of SeJl Se<,cb ~lafilllf:~ ecif,r~lThw" ';!J5MITTFD ~OR RE'CO~O j S~a:1)r;ct~a~~ fDLS/'1/ ..... Dear Plann1ng Comm1ssioner Orsln1 As homeowners on 14th Street 1n Seal Beach, we are concerned about the development plans for the former Rum ~unner property. We approve of Watson & V\Ssoclates I plan for limited commercl.al development w1th the bUlldl.ng of 11 slngle fam1ly detached houseson 16th and 17th Streets. The houses wll1 enhance OU1, neJ.ghborhood and 1.ncrease the value of existing homes. We are very happy that no restaurant fast food or otherw1se 1S lncluded 1n the cornmerclal development. It is ObVl0US that Mr. Watson and h1s partners are c~ncerned that the 11mlted commerC1.al development must be compatlble w1th the resl.~entlal nelghborhood. Con't. t~ ..~ ,I \, ""- " 1 ? .... . . . !J( athLu.n C!ou'ttema'tahe 315 .::Elxteenth .::Et'tUt .::Ed !Beaah, C!aLifo'tnla 90740 ~~ City of Seal Beech Plclnnmg Commlss ~lJ6't1l1TUJ fOR r:ECORD B.v~~~J.!!;Date.... (PiS/1L May 31, 1991 Mr. Joe OrSlnl 701 Ocean Avenue #1 Seal Beach, Callfornla 90740 Dear Plannlng Commlssloner Orslnl: We are wrltlng ln support of Jlm Watson and Jlm and Dalsy Funk's development plans for the former Rum Runner's Sl te. We are very pleased Wl th thelr plan to bUlld limited commercial development (faclng PCR) and bUlld 11 slngle famlly detached houses on 16th and 17th Streets. Thelr "Alternate No.4" plan lS compatlble wlth our nelghborhood and we belleve they have expressed a Slncere lnterest ln developlng the property wlth the least amount of commerclal development. The 11 slngle famlly homes wlll enhance the property value of our home on 16th Street and wlll guarantee the least amount of trafflc, nOlse and parklng problems. We are very relleved to learn there are no plans for a fast food restaurant or dlnner restaurant on that slte. I feel very fortunate that Mr. Watson and hlS partners are lnterested ln bUYlng and developlng that property. Mr. Wa tson has proven to be a "good nelghbor" Wl th hlS commerclal development ln Seal Beach. He and hlS partners are sensltlve to the concerns of the famllles ln our nelghborhood. We hope that the Plannlng Commlsslon wlll approve an amendment to the general plan and a change In zone for 9 of the 14 parcels from commerclal to resldentlal zonlng at thelr June 5, 1991 meetlng. Slncerely, ~~~~~rn~ DennlS and Kathy Courtemarche (213) 596-2951 -~ Me;'30, 1991 ~~~;~, CIty of Seal B~~~~I~~I~' ~;;~; .SUB\\ITTED FOR RECORD.!.'.$ ~lfv 81 FleLDiiJ(;.---~te -ft>rS!-1~jfj;; _ .....--- ~ ~~~.rfA~ H ~1_ - ---I ......!.1.-...~ . _ =-.' -;: __...:.. 'i.:.l11 "'l ~ ,.,.... _'-- - .rl:- .. _- - -1- - _-~~~~~ 02 "-- ~i~2 Dear Mr Ors1n1, _ --~ -.:~"'- _ _ We have been cOT1cerned about th~ --future :>:_- :..-;.~-=- development of the j old Rum Runner .pr.operty' ~.-::~:ett: . :c for qU1te some t1.me,_ but S1nce read1ng..:' Mr..: ",",,~~~J -~.~Watson' s proposal for that S1t~, -w:e _aE-e~1n~~~~~;: __ _ support of h1s plan - Although we do .noti1:i'ye'::'..~~ $~ on. 16th or 17th Street, we are concerned_-w_i-th}"-o;f.. ~~ . the problems absoc1ated W1 th commerc1a1 --=-~~:''7' t' _ _ development park1ng, traff1C, etc:~'g'Our .~=-~#~.;J!--:? .' ent1re ne1ghborhood w111 beneht:;-..:-from ;;~~~- bU11d1ng 11 s1~gle fam11y detached houses ana -~~~; 1im1ted commercial development on~':h~t~~~~~ property - o,~ . -=~:;;...~? We would llke you to know that we supp6~i J~~;~~~ _.watson's "Alternate No.4 Plan" and'hope that ~ ,.4;- the P1ann1ng Comm1sS10n W11l appro'!e::- his_ -;:- '=~ . ,,_ appl1cat10n at_ ~he }une 5th meetlng:~=~'..;~.- - ;~.::: -:~-:;:...;- ~~ ~~V~ry tr~lY y~)U_rs, - :~:::~~.:=?~-=~~='~~ .~~ ~-:;~,;o;_:Yrf"- ~-- .;a(~L~. (,:::-/J~'J~~~=~- ~i~~ . _ t; ~ ':::7'7~' '0 . .~~~._1. ::.; "_ . .. ~ _ ;:.... _ '::.;" r~ ;;,=-, ---:~;;------- - - ,--_. - .~~.:~~ :-:;~:;=~~~.: _..:.::.__ ~Peter and SeretLa-Ffe1d1ng -- - c; 'fii..;: ~ .;:'f...,,-;:-:'::",f:::~ _ ~ ~. -223~ _Seal -Beach Boufevard - -<- ~~. ....:.1- f~~- ~~~;: ".,'-___ S 1 B h C 1 f 90740 l~ 'hHt""tD"~~~~~" ~'".:: - _ __ ea - eac, a ~ orn1a -,"", ;:::.Lfd"J.\.il:!;:,J. 5::~"'--~;;,.,.~ ,---_'r~, ,-.' _----4-~E L' ..S1t-T...,....., - r ~---1~.I'.....-J- ""'I~' -- ':~~; -:..h=~+\,-;~_ ..._.__7i~.... -'<l~ -""'Ilofi-" - _ t~- r :j~~i': - -~ .:-'-- -;~~~ --r--- ~_ =t. _ _:= : _ _=----T:i: ~~fOfF:11~: , "--/ -, , 'Mr. Joe Ors1n1 _ P1ann1ng Comm1ssioner Ci ty of Seal Beach ; .701 Ocean Avenue "1 Seal Beach, Ca11fOln~a 90740 e J . , l r_f '. ~ - . II' June 10, 1991 I r II !J(athLu.n. Cou'tte.ma'tchz 315 .::Sudu.n.th .::Sh.ut .::Se.al !Beach, Califo'UUa. 90740 Honorable Mayor Frank Laszlo 211 8th Street Seal Beach, Cal1forn1a \-... ~.. // ~ ~- -;i.- :f;.!;?;"/~: ;IC fr Dear Mayor and C1ty Counc1l. As homeowners at 315 Slxteenth Street, we are very lnterested ln "up-grad1ng" the appearance of our end of town. We are very support1ve of J1m Watson's proposed plans for the former Rum Runner slte (lncludlng 11 slngle fam1ly detached houses). We feel these houses wlll enhance the property value of our ne1ghborhood. Now 1f we could Just 1mprove the appearance of Seal Beach Boulevard. We support the proposed plan to have d1agonal parklng on Seal Beach Boulevard. D1agonal park1ng works well for Ma1n Street and provldes other benef1ts bes1des 1mprov1ng the appearance. If 0 ther 1mprovemen ts are made along W1 th d1agonal park1ng, Seal Beach Boulevard m1ght achleve tha t charming "Old Town" amb1ance that seems to be so 1mportant to our cornrnun1ty. We also th1nk 1t 1S 1mportant that a stop slgn be placed at Land1ng and Seal Beach Boulevard. Th1S plan w1ll slow down the veh1cles that are dr1ven at exceSS1ve speeds on Seal Beach Boulevard. F1rst Street 1n the "he1ghts" of Seal Beach looks terr1f1c. One ObV10US reason 1S landscaped med1ans. Landscaped med1ans do make a difference! The C1 ty of Seal Beach has new money from gas taxes (Prop. 108 & 111) Wh1Ch can be used for road improvement purposes including landscaped medians! Too long our end of town has been treated llke the ugly-steps1ster of Seal Beach. F1rst Street was 1mproved, the alleys were resurfaced f1rst -- 1t seems that end of town always has f1rst pr10r1ty. Seal Beach Boulevard bears the name of our C1ty and often 1S the f1rst 1mpress10n people have when they enter out commun1ty. Let's do 1t r1ght -- and soon' Wh1le on the subject of 1mprov1ng Seal Beach Boulevard, why has the deplorable cond1t10n of the apartment bU1ld1ng at Land1ng and 17th Street (Wh1Ch also faces Seal Beach Blvd.) been allowed to eX1st year after year? That apartment 18 Jok1ngly referred to as "T1Juana Flats." It's no Joke to the many homeowners 1n our ne1ghborhood. The cond1 t10n of tha t apartment bU1ld1ng would not be tolerated on the other end of town. It 1 S an eyesore and the tenants crea te many park1ng problems. That bU1ld1ng was or1g1nally a motel but has been rented out as apartments for years. I have spoken to many people who know for a fact that there are numerous electr1cal and plumb1ng bU1ld1ng code v10lat1ons at that address. I am sure the C1ty 1S aware of these v1olat10ns. I am told that the reason the C1ty of Seal Beach hasn't done anyth1ng 1S that they are "unable" to f1nd the real "owner" of the property. That 1S not an acceptable reason to me to do noth1ng all these years. --- ./ -----~ ---- - ~ .. ~ . \..: !J( ath!.u.n. Cou 'ttElna 'tchz. 315 .:Eu:tE.u1th. .:E hut .:E~ !Bw.ch, CaiJ.lo'U1ia 90740 - 2 - Seal Beach Boulevard 1S 1n need of some attent1on. There are many th1ngs Wh1Ch need to be done to 1mprove our 1mage and enhance property values. We are hop1ng the C1ty Counc11 w111 support the plan to 1mprove th1S boulevard. We've been wa1t1ng SlX years now -- let's get gOlng' Slncerely, "/ /1 c:; II vl/N. / J 'I j I; ,/ ),/ }I (/i Ir J,- .(1/ Denn1s and Kathy Courtemarche -