SEAL BEACH : Activist’s Remodeling Spurs Council Action

The City Council will consider ordering a longtime civic activist who made changes to his duplex in the city’s Old Town section without a permit to knock down a wall and make other corrections, although he would be permitted to leave some of the changes intact.

The council Monday gave preliminary approval for modifications to Bruce Stark’s duplex. The council indicated that it will require him to tear out utility lines and remove a wall he built without permits because the modified first-floor area could potentially be used as an illegal third living unit.

Under the permit to be drafted by city staff members, Stark will be allowed to use part of an area previously designated for parking to make improvements.

Stark said after the council’s decision that the city routinely ignores code violations but singled him out because he is an outspoken critic of construction proposed by the Mola Development Co.

“I’ll probably end up suing the city,” Stark said. “I am opposed to these conditions because they mean the destruction of my property.”

Because density standards have changed since the duplex was built, its construction would not have been permitted today. Therefore, Stark must get permits to make modifications.

In 1989, the city issued a remodeling permit. In 1990, it granted permission for him to convert the apartments into condominiums.

In January, 1991, the city received a complaint that Stark had illegally converted garage space into living space.

Although the city has yet to inspect the area, drawings provided by Stark indicate that space previously used for parking, laundry and storage has been converted into two bathrooms and three other rooms, one with kitchen appliances.

Stark said he plans to use that space for condominium amenities, with one room for a spa, one for a recreation area with kitchen and the third for the condominium association’s office.

City officials said the configuration of the three rooms would make the space too easy to make into a bootleg apartment.

The council asked staff members to draft a resolution that would include these conditions:

* Removal of a stove and dishwasher.

* Scaling down kitchen cabinets.

* Possible removal of one of the two bathrooms.

* Removal of utility lines.

* Removal of a wall.

“He has no absolute right to anything that’s been added to that building because it’s nonconforming (to city codes) and requires a conditional use permit,” City Atty. Quinn Barrow said.

“The council has the discretion to approve the project, . . . but staff recommends that if you do so, there be sufficient conditions to prevent a bootleg unit,” he said.

Several residents, however, supported Stark, saying he should be entitled to improve his property and provide the amenities he chooses.

The city Planning Commission had denied a permit with similar conditions, but Stark appealed to the City Council.