Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2002-12-09 #Y , a, - AGENDA REPORT DATE: December 9, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services - SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL OF PLANNING COMyIISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02 -16 AND HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, A REQUEST TO PERMIT A MAJOR ADDITION/REMODEL AND CONSTRUCT A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE TO A NONCONFORMING 4 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application for the approval to permit a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue would be approved, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the City Council. 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution sustaining the appeal and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application -- - for the major addition/remodel and construction of a covered roof access structure .to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue would be denied. BACKGROUND: On November 6, 2002 the Planning Commission conducted - a public hearing and determined to approve the subject requests subject to certain terms and conditions. That same evening, the Commission adopted resolutions 02 -40 and 02 -41, approving the requested conditional use permit and height variations, respectively. The Commission determined to approve both matters 1 Agenda Item Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 on a 4 -1 vote, with Commissioner Deaton voting "No ". Please refer to Attachment 2 to review Planning Commission Resolutions No. 02 -40 and 02 -41 for the findings and determination of the Planning Commission regarding the conditional use permit and height variation approvals, respectively. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 2002 and to Attachment 4 to review the Planning Commission Staff Report of November 6, 2002. An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed in a timely manner (please refer to Attachment 1), and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. FACTS: ❑ The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 6, 2002 to consider Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the request. At the public hearing 4 persons appeared in opposition and the City received three written communications in opposition to the request. Copies of the written documents received in opposition are provided as Attachment 5. o After receiving all public testimony on November 6, 2002, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and after discussion, voted to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 02 -40, and 02 -41, approving CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5, respectively, on a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Deaton — no vote). ❑ On November 15, 2002, an appeal was filed (See Attachment 1). The appellants have provided 16 reasons as to why they feel the Planning Commission decision was in error. The matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & HEIGHT VARIATION APPLICATIONS: Conditional Use Permit: Under Code Sections 28 -2503 and 28 -2504, all conditional use permit requests must be evaluated in light of three issues: 1) Is the use conditionally permitted in the zone; 2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and 3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general? 2 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 Height Variation: Additionally, Section 28- 2317(4) provides for height variations for non - habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317(4)(A) states: "Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered'stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7) if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section." In addition to the overall height requirement previously discussed, the Planning Commission, in reviewing an application for a Height Variation, shall consider criteria set forth in Section 28- 2317(4)(C) and make findings pursuant to said review. Said criteria is stated in Section 28- 2317(4)(C)(1) as follows: "(1)... In reviewing an application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following criteria and make findings thereon: - (a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the building. (i) Whether all roofing materials of a covered stairwell to an open roof deck are in substantial conformity with the roofing materials of the remainder of the structure. (ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is located along peripheral exterior walls of the structure. (iii)Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the minimum area, both horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover the stairwell. (b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. (c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any property located within 300 feet. (d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work. " OVERVIEW OF APPELLANTS REASONS AS TO WHY THEY FEEL THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WAS IN ERROR: Provided below is an overview of the Appellants 16 reasons, indicated in italicized text, as to why they feel the Planning Commission decision was in error, with staff comments where appropriate: "1. A Conditional Use Permit is not automatic based upon precedent: 3 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 The decision of the Planning Commission must be based on whether it is consistent with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission must consider every aspect of the proposal. It must consider all other alternatives, for example, the possibility of increasing the size of the residence by using portions of the other units, increasing the amount of parking provided by the elimination of one or more of the other units or parts thereof or their combination and other considerations. There is no evidence in the record that any of these were considered by the Commission." Staff Comments: The Planning Commission made its determinations, as required, based on the three criteria set forth within the Code of the City of Seal Beach, set forth above: (1) Is the use conditionally permitted in the zone; (2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and (3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general? Please review the Planning Commission Minutes of November 6 (Attachment 3) and the . written documents in opposition to the requests (Attachment 5) to review the various discussions of the Commission and Staff regarding the ability to approve or deny the subject requests, and the concerns as to the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding uses and the community in general. The Commission may consider whatever options it deems appropriate is reaching its decisions regarding the issues of neighborhood compatibility. The City Council may consider all comments and documents received at the Planning Commission meeting and all additional comments and documents presented at the public hearing in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. "2. A Conditional Use Permit is entirely up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. "In reviewing the tape of the meeting it can be seen and heard that when asked, the City - Attorney sitting as advisor to the Planning Commission on November 6, 2002, so advised the commission as follows. He said, "In this case you definitely have discretion." Three times he repeats this advice when asked by members of the commission for his advice as to the aspect of their responsibility and their ability to reach a decision without reference to precedent. . 4 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 The evidence recorded on tape of the deliberations of the Planning Commission shows that the majority of the Planning Commission sitting in judgment ignored and/or refused to understand and/or deliberately ignored the advice of it's own legal advisor." Staff Comments: The Planning Commission may consider all evidence and statements in reaching their decision. As to how they apply that information in voting is an individual decision for each commissioner to make. Please refer to Staff Response to Item 1 above for discussion as to the applicable areas of concern that the Commission, and ultimately the City Council must make their decision on. The City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. "3. Seal Beach City Code — "Section 28- 2407.B.2: Inspection — Any person requesting approval pursuant to Section 28- 2407A.(3)(a) or (b) for any building which was constructed prior to 1965, shall request a special investigation of the subject property prior to filing such an application. The Building and Safety Division, after the investigation request is made and fees paid pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, shall" inspect the subject site and building, both internally and externally, to determine the condition of the site and building, including but not limited to the wiring, plumbing, structural integrity, roofing and condition of the walls, ceiling, floors and garage. 1210 Electric Avenue, according to a title search of the property, was built prior to 1965. There is no evidence that this mandatory special inspection was applied for or paid for by the applicant, nor was it provided to the members of the Planning Commission to assist then in their deliberations. This is evidenced by, among other things, the discussion of the fact that no one either on the commission or staff was able to provide information as to the contents and or condition of the garages on site." Staff Comments: An inspection of the property was conducted by Senior Building Inspector Chuck Feenstra, and his inspection notes are included within the project file. His notes indicate that the foundation and electrical for 1210 Electric Avenue are "OK ", and to "Relocate the water heater into house." He also noted that the plot plan is not correct. Upon reviewing the plan again, it was determined that the plot plan was correct. "4. The Planning Commission must be provided with any and all information available to them to make a reasoned decision on this Conditional Use Permit. 5 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report - December 9, 2002 By not ordering the mandatory Special Investigation and providing the Planning Commission and the Public with a copy of the resulting report, the Department of Development Services erred grievously in their duty to provide all necessary information to allow a reasonable decision to be made on the facts. By not requesting and paying for this Special Investigation, prior to the filing of the application, the provisions of the Seal Beach Code have not been followed by the applicant and the application is not valid. The approval of the Planning Commission of the application and their vote on the resolution is null and void thereby." Staff Comments: The only requirement from the Building Department was to require the water heater to be relocated to inside the structure at 1210 Electric Avenue. This condition will be imposed at the time of building plan check, if the project is ultimately approved by the City Council. The issue of the location of a water heater is not an issue rising to the level of concern for evaluation by the Planning Commission as to the overall neighborhood compatibility of a proposed 1,892 square foot addition to a nonconforming residential structure. The City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. • "5. Inappropriate citations of properties in support of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. "a) Previous Property Approvals: Staff cites the three apartments attached to 1210 Electric Avenue when these were built in 1969 and the Conditional Use Permit approval permitting the enclosing of the existing porch to enlarge the existing living room and dining room in 1977. No other previous property approvals are cited and the property itself is inappropriate to be used for the purpose at hand. b) The other properties cited are not appropriate to the issue as they are both single family residences. c) Height Variation: The cited property is not similar to the subject property. The staff report provides inadequate information to support the decision of the , majority of the Planning Commission." Staff Comments: Following are responses to each sub - paragraph of the appellants reasons as to why they feel the Planning Commission decision was in error in regards to the Staff Report citations of previous and similar project applications: a) Previous property approvals — Staff provided this information to the Commission to provide a clear understanding as to how the property has been approved for • 6 Public Heanng — Appeal of Plann trig Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 development over the years through discretionary project approvals. There are no other discretionary project approvals for the property to the knowledge of City Staff. Staff generally does not provide information to the F tanning Commission regarding construction activities permitted by right, and did not in this application. Staff did provide information as to the necessary building permits finaled for the referenced discretionary project approvals granted by the City for the subject property. b) Other project approvals cited not appropriate as they were for single family residence— Staff provided information to the Commission regarding recent major expansions of nonconforming residences on Electric Avenue approved through the CUP process in the nearby area. The Planning Commission determined to ultimately approve the requested major expansion, with conditions, through the adoption of Resolution 02 -40. The Planning Commission resolution does not cite the other approved projects as a basis for approving the subject request. Planning Commission Resolution 02 -40 finds that the project is in conformance with the General Plan and, as conditioned, is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and is permissible by code. The City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing Staff will generally provide information on similar types of approvals within the more immediate vicinity of a particular application under consideration. Staff has also prepared a more detailed summary of previous approvals granted by the City for major expansions to nonconforming residential structures. Please refer to Attachment 6 to review the complete summary. Provided here is a summary of previous approvals granted for properties that had two or more residential units on the property at the time of consideration by the Planning Commission, and that summary information is provided below: 7 o h m i �.i -0 -0 'O p O a) �o :Is & O > > > O Q QCa :r. 2 2. 2 4. ❑. = C y N C -- c U U N 50 o A N N O m NU 0 w Q Co lt5 1 U v ca O 0 9 04 c U Q CD 0 o F e N _ _ co O Z O M N r" O ^ a , N NI c'y r = € k (n 1 d O O O ay J — F- N 'y y Q O ° 0 0= N a) z a • .- .y W a� � coax a o > a. v' as OL_'z 0 c.) C...) WQZ� L (13 0 0 ' o a) .. .� LO cn o C c.) a Z H c T m 0 2, c c. < QC/) y ° 0 0 LL W �_ �. 0- MI 0 18 .o ` � fX a0M 0 a0 'a 0 O 0 I„ 0 � cu a) 0 .a o Z u) Z � u c 0 00 0 0 000 a co Y U = z 0 v; a "0 c vi a a m "a 0 ° ° X 00 . ° � 0 . Q 0 Z 1-- c c' 'vi c z N `a� ca N O J Q 0 0 ca O C �Q U L o � cn U o o V c o a Q H Z p 40 coc � c C m M 0 .c Q Z W Z O V U L a�" ci O '1 U L O Q .O Q O O L a) 0 O a) 0 • Z o 0 a • o o o ns ' o °- o . E (/) V Q CO c c a`. � Z 0 Q. mod- c moo_ o W o c o C o D X no - z o a) oo., ) Z • a a ' c °R 22 a w' _ U N o -. N Z W c y" a) ,.. rn m C a) "r o c c a a Qs Q c 0 a so o cn 0 vi . n0 a O W Oa � ¢ cco am w =� ¢o W0� 0) M LL N = to a o ; m c^ O S, .r o >, c N m in c/3 cn _ Q) y 0) e. 4 .. C c . C Q 0 C 0. " O vt' = O i- = O O = O -a G N N 0. W N a O d O- Q Z N a LO co i' t 7. O No 0 O o.. o_ 0_ c 0 0 D o_ . 0 0 h d �� - - a - � , o v o o cu C O o� y , > > > > 2 2 2 A p��c� Q D.. • G U - Q Q Q d C Q Q Z"' l V vl - 5.1 Q Q C y o� O L t ; = u N q 0 4 10 T Nt. O O 0 9 T T cO U U N N O ti 4o - 4 co 0 T O b Z C 4 O M co N O - r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. m 0. y C � . O = -Fe O O o O O o co c MI 0 as u o - -0 a N . �. 0 - ca vi L. C aj U a) �y _ Y a) U) C U C O 4 o ° C' as .°cap O a) b N c o co � � � co N 173 a) Qs O O ai iii c c o m° c a o c=v O N 'D 1 uj ?' 2 N x --li 2 N f N C C ti a i N C O a' cB C O o cB ca co O j O. co O G > �' O -t > C M ca U Q. O 0 O Q N CC U O j U CO m c . p c a 0 c 4 `a) aa) .c m .� -2 Q a E Q -o cu: E z Q o c o E ce Q 1, Q� o 0) m� o o CD QE • o •() 0 E c a c o E c c C a C c d j a a i o co a C O C o = - � O Q -.- . 0 Z � , a) • a) z ,., a) a° co Z ) a •3 Z - a a) m E c m • : c Q Q. o. - a) o ` -Q . — c= a '. co N c 73 m o a� x a .N co_ c x a c) .. a) x a • Q D W ca w pm Wp w pm W o° 5 a¢ m c c c c c _ c C c6 o a o 0 c o- 0 0 C o O. O 0 0 I, = O ti O 2 I , C O T Q. r' N O.. r' � - c.. T a T .� '.0 �.. CD �.. CO M T N - c? O O O O co 3- d d , 2 2 0 0 ‘--, @ t 2 %/(k 2 \ w 2 2 %// ¥ 0 0 0 0 0 \\ƒ % a 0. . a 0. a. - ct k « < « « .5 « 2 \ / § k 2§\ 0 0 0 0 @ ■t �2 0 2 @ @ 0) § a Q % %' 7 / 0 1• 0 0 0 . /�' �\ o n o .7 o [ 7 9 G G %© 0 % E 2 c � ' 7/ \ k o CtS 'a -6 E _ 3 / \ \ C.) 0 '05 � 7 ® 0 Q . O 0 ¢ ® vi 0 3 a k 2 § � 2 0) -o q -0 L. m o 4- 2 a % « as • § L. a) u 2 ƒo f 2 @ ` o ) • k k k .0 a § o E mri o a) f o f @ f o 6 2 3 c •% ca. c E • G z m) • / o k / k % k o k 2 E 3 \ k 0 k/ E 0 § 9 U § "' 0 E 2 k m 2 7 @ g- » E A E k ° c ® Q m § 7 « .� «. « « o ƒ 2 o 2 4... q 3 . \ 2 2 ) 7 - q °= t' Q g c o § 3 E k 2 ® 0 k-0 o - 0 a. § 2 c® a. a) 0- a_ Ci ()- a E o S o 0 2 E o § - o E 0 0 E a) ® k a -. J 2 J 2 Z > 3 / Z 2 2 c k k k' )§ C C E Z$ •t § 2 @° 2 Z M k •_- k Q 74 • o k R k 2 Z Q - 2 c= @ o / c= 0 = ' = t Q ƒ q m • Qƒ q 3R Q ƒ .t 7 O ƒ cz _ • Q ƒ q m III • / _ c E c 2 a a c cn en •\ .- a p 0 0 CU/\ k? k 0. 0 k 0 Z----N k 0 co \ 0 � � � a CO 0 0- � CL 'I' CI. n - o 'T n G o 2 0 k 0) k - 2 2 k 2 \� §/ 2 2 ) \� > 2 2 .3 A � / m a_ c. a M =tka « « « \ / § - \ 2\� c c o e(%)IN U 9 ? 9 k ® ? 2\ g 4- // 0 0 0 §/ - Q n q 03 o \ 7/ 0) 0 @ / - \ \ : % Co ? R / : o q \/ _ � � � \/ 2 0 • 7 2 o / 0 • C. � � ��� �k 0 2 CC 0 ' o E @ c 1 / 0 0 6 c 0 0 0 6«2 -0 �7 0 / c 2 8 . .0 3 @ z A U c _ 0 0 //\ 7 U E § § k 2 L 0 c a k c z ® 0 o : § 2 o ¢ Z 2 \ 2 m .- -0 L. k c k R 0 o CD • 0 0 / al q a 2 0 la Q a 0 0 6. U E DO . c ® E 2 E = k 0 @ u o k 2) 2 0 k « c . < . 2 � § \ 2 8 i i CO 6- 3� 2 crj § 0 0 2 2. § 3' 0 2 ' § c 2 ¢ / % \ 2 6& R 0 0- % 2 ® 2 2 2 2 2 ® 2 0 Z 2 § _ 0) C Q u w@ «® o c 2 7 2 c a t m ; a = w = 2 0 0 0 ' % '0 7 § _ \ R k 2 2 k \ Q '% w n 't c as § o 0 u) / / \ N 0 ( § 0 3 § o ��� co�� 0. . q CV k k 0) 0) ƒ ƒ D 2 2 0 U ^03 \2 -c - - - > ° \ 3 \ k > > § 2\ ° 2 @ \\ / < < « < 0 q§§ \ / /\� a) % � a) [%te co A Q� C c 9 0 \ 0 3 % /\ �\ o _ q o ( c) % ® 0) a) a) @ a. ' 1 -••• � ...... @ a) co 22 to \ . � § k o E _ ..,6-. .co / 0 0 Cu 0 3 ¢ § @u 2 � 3 @o m / 2 { � / - - k @ - 2« Q 0 co 0) 0 0 co a ƒ - �. @ § 2 @ 2 3 ± \ co L. ?k q o �c 0 { 2 7 o 0k k @ Q. 2 0 2 0 0 - 0 22- \ 22 v 3 ® E. @ ��' 66 & iii a o o 1« m 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 § 6 _ k « o 2 - R 0 % / E » / 2 % / 2 — k S @ o o (13 1F3 2 2 3 2 k -- 7 \/ k 3 %® 0 _ Z » 2 � % @ E ® c a) E2 < o § k• 6 « 7 § \ «ƒ o 2 o 2 o f 2 ƒ — E 2 2 2 c 2 2: 2 2 = t 0: ,/ 0 @ f 0 / : k c 0 a. k d- c 0 R k c...:-. � a- E a c a_ 2 k 0 7 k k Z ) k ' E k » k k ® 0 a) c a 2E k% $ 2 c cn c § 2 g « a) 3 2 c ) _ = a S 0 ' 0 [ _ 13 • _ 0 _ 0 ± • 0 = 0 LLi \ k 0 o o x Q k k 3 S. - o ƒ 3 k§ 3 -0 Lu IX • c 75 0 2 § - ,- 0 > . o > / \ / ( / \ ƒ / a) rn \ 2 '\ o �\ o ® 7 k o C C a ' (0 C0_ CV C q n 9 ¥ — a) a) 0) 0 0 0 0 U `co m z° > > > > > a a��c� o O 2 2 O 2 a L~ o� 0. Q 0. O_ a �.. - � - a a a ¢ a coo), — ol C) "" W e d r. , ?o o Q e ' O a a0 R y N V C -- in C7 N O o) U U` O O r. bob 0 O O O O c CI 4 (O r" Cr) N N. N CO o i co co LS D 1- C 0. r. e- l- r y �_ 0 CD C o m 3 -C C O C ,C o Q ,O O m 3 U a t c Q. 0. C U L- c . a N U 'j m •� i 4 0 Q 4. m C O O -Op '_ Q a v1- 0. 0 .. a 0 o m m Q E 0 .c 0 0 C U . O - ' L. c7 �. a m Z O a) O r' Z � O ;� U C Q ci. u3 o cn Q o ` 0( Q 0 o m C • O cn O E a E = i C a m : �, vi t o 0 'O a) iii 2 C y m C to O a C c) 4i 2 C U N 0 o 0 0 ,;B p u U Q o et O 0 O co O 0 O O C a L c L c �'o c ;3% c ,.. Q _, a) m 4 m m e 0 4 a 0 N 5 ai O O ° a' a) • • C a' L. o 'o .E 0 c 'o .E 8 • - ' o x m m o a- o r) c m o a a= c O C a i Y 0 N 'O i o o Q E o ._ -0 L a O ' U Z m 0 a m Z . cD Q. Z Q) Q 2 Z a a) o a- 2 Z .a a) 10 I'S CL .. m u) d cn m c n a) m a C v) m m c v) CD Q C_ a) y Z C c 0 a V) a) a o . cn 0 a cn a) a u) . cn m a co CO m a) a 0 w 0 Q w 0 Q w 0 Q m W 0 Q co . w Q CL - a) a. ) c c o a .4' c A c ,,.. o A - o a o A 'i N a) u) - t a) _ cn "t a) v) = ( 0 t m u) E Q c Q c a c °- C Q 0o cn z 2 N. U) O 2 0 0 2 N. = o 0 c O C v N v Q vQ _ In ti Q ... r r - r- a) ap i CV a, a. a. a. a m D D D D 0 0 0 0 0 o - GIs @ - k \ / \ \ ¢ \ 2 k y 2 k\\ • 0- S « ( \ / / § / : 22� £ � � CO t\ \\ o \ 0 \/ - 0. �/ IG L § 2 \ o k\ ? cn § 2 'a \ c. a o 2 CB § E 3 Z * 7 2 * . 7 _ 3 CT 2 `@ * iii 3 CO . C § « — k � 2 0 Z '/ 2 CL > 0 L ._ « 4 u E 22 3 3 � % k o 0 0 .@ E ° u 2 � 0 0 CI) 0 § \ E cn � CD o k 7� o _J •C . 11.1 C4 c . _ o >' ir) 22 E C. . %� = 2 q L0 9 0_ D 0 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 c) Height Variation — The cited example was for a property located at 1606 Ocean. The Planning Commission determined to ultimately approve the requested height variation on the subject property, with conditions, through the adoption of Resolution 02 -41. The Planning Commission resolution does not cite this other approved project as a basis for approving the subject request. Planning Commission Resolution 02 -41 finds that the project is in conformance with the General Plan and, as conditioned, is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood and is permissible by code. The City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. "6. It is stated by the applicant in his application that four parking spaces are provided. Testimony before the Planning Commission and evidence provided by the property owners in the immediate vicinity show that this is an erroneous statement on the part of the owner because the owner allows two spaces to be regularly and consistently blocked over long periods of time by an automobile parked sideways in front of the double garage on 13th Street." Staff Comments: The Planning Commission devoted extensive discussion to the issue of availability of garage parking spaces on the property. Please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes, pages 9 through 13, Attachment 3. the City Council may consider this opinion as to erroneous statements in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing "7. The use of a Conditional Use Permit in the manner being utilized by the City of Seal Beach is an abrogation of the City's responsibilities to the citizens who supported the effective down zoning of their own properties by supporting in public hearings the changes in garage requirements. Properties in the area were down zoned with the property owners support and assent to the economic disadvantage of the owners of these properties property then and today. This was done by the city with the assent and support of the property owners because they were promised by the city that this would alleviate 15 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 parking problems and retain the residential character of Old Town. It was the intent of the change to discourage the upgrading of the existing non - conforming structures so that as their economic life expired, new conforming structures would replace them. Today, the City is abrogating it's compact with these property owners. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and those similar are extending the economic life of non - conforming structures, thereby compounding the density and parking problems rather than easing them as promised." Staff Comments: This concern relates to the policy issues embodied within the Zoning Ordinance regarding allowable expansions and additions to non- conforming uses. The Code currently allows for additions and expansions to non- conforming residential properties, and provides standards and approval processes for requested additions and expansions to 1 and 2 unit properties, and different standards and approval processes for properties with 3 or more units. Staff has prepared an "Ordinance Summary re: Downzoning and Addition/Expansion of Nonconforming Uses" to clarify the previous actions that the City Council has taken in regards to the density downzoning and to the addition/expansion of nonconforming uses concerns raised by the appellants. Please refer to Attachment 7 to the review the Ordinance Summary. Provided below are excerpts from the Ordinance Summary regarding those ordinances adopted by the City Council between 1974 and 1993 that deal directly with these issues. 16 o '^ m ' '' _ o C • O 0I y rs4 N (p p.. o o - t � 0 0 0 Q C l v 2 Q C '^ co C , w V :j V/ N m W cm a. = q 0 • m o U r. O U ✓ v 0 Z O c6 e c Z a b m (n cn o > o cn a oz. ` p �, vi R.0 0 a r 0 o z `� O -- •0 W . O co c -o U Z c cn o . vi Z Z N . c N o u v W 0 O ° ' N O" '> -0 Q Z C 0 ca) U= 4 LL c N w O c c Q O O N = 0 t o 0 0 Ce N � Q Z O -� o 8 o co • O >- �, �, �. r �. 0 0 _ O 0 c r' N 11 N C a c M Z Q c N v v v 0 'to • Q .- c - n - 0 O —`- .-�. 0 j 0 c N �' y E - N t N cn co c • X O E "5 W a ' N � _ - 0 , N 0_ �« a 4 2 E3 ES _ 0 O a) U W > ca . v vi ui vi . o) E .. < Z c c ti ° o c ° ° n u-) o cn a) O N v 00 In N c7 0 O ' C E C Z c u) r N r r ti w- ct) O CD O � / ( Q N E C (0 E E E c 1 co 'D I.L. 0 E c co 7 7 0 7 = = c co '0 c 'c 0 O 4) o o N .— ,— N r r O Q N Q CO) cm Z COI Q CI Z z .Q � w N- I- f— 0 O. N Z Q • 0 N Z w 0 Z 0 Qm co 0 Z v 0 Ce Z _ - 0 ' N ' N O C O d ' y to CO N ° P Q'Z"'c. E > '5 O O q, � V 0 0 O o 0 �^..``.. s. 2 Q ca O 2 O. Z a y d as CL .0 ° c ca O 0 c O d s c ' ,' is cn U c v °' o 0 0 U� U 0 O 00 c 3 yo E c �- 3 ° po b U 0 i5 en O 0 ca a) • E�� • rn " a s N -C a `�^ U._ c ° -• /-7 O 0� ° = N 0 0 c -, u) 'E E c o — E• 0 w C 43 Cr 0 0 0 c (j) C 0) o N 0 ° 0 CL a 0 @ th O 3 0 O L -O N Y g ° In O L = p w C fa cl) 1� O O c O E c N 0 CO_ N. 6 ca c GO C .0 L. U U y c N .7 .0 . ._. - — c ,O fa ? 3 .0 C ? O 6 -- 7 ZZ 4-'•� u)E -o 7 �,. N ' O 0 a ' O C N T .— • y CO V C L • c U -O o 0 0 >, 0 >4 0 r. cn + � • c c 4 fa O N O c as ca ° ca 0 O w 0 - • Cl) c O - o L 0 O (1) a O c C O E ❑ > U a 0 s c 0 " O ` ` N C 2 0 0 i-. O 0 o c 0) o N N.- a) C G It � O CL d °. . O -0 2 N N V E 7 O° o O O cn N 0 2 Ti � 1 c 2 0 c E ca L to 0 y 0 ca ^— r ^ 1 2 �a O ° 0 ` 2 o O 0 c T N N d o - L •N 0 73 to p 0 .r .r 0- c Q c ° > 0 .c . � ° C 0 U U U U ch 0 p Z p ca c v) O � 0 U re 0 .� N 0 0 iii 1 I- o c cn o' E a c 2" cn c n O (n c a) 0 �- N E c X o 0 i • `° p p p N p cn ca c c o ° -p 0 O 1.- 0 0 • O •. 0 Q O O - p O N v 0 o c a � c L i , 0 .� M N N , 0 O > 0 O 'E 1 U cn = N N ,, p p 0 0 CD . E c 0 ,- ` O co N.0 v 1 1 Lo O • c o cl 0 0 1 in c o cz N to to M T c'� O E 1 1 N N 1 E N ti ( 0 0 0 cn .• N N O c c d " 0 O �. U G c u) T .7 T - O f 0 O O a) O co La ca La N 0 C c • N . > > 7 7 7 0 � , 15 as N < 0 < N W O p a) a) N T T N T r T 0 0 N N Q a) Q c o l c a ) Z 0 Z co) cm co co I • T T N 0) to O T O C C c c o y y c O O c - c Q m m • ES • " Z 1 c n C N a) m 0. c • Cl) m N E ca a) co c 0) m Z 1 U `] Z Q al O 0 N N N N cB a _ a c m. x .— 72 O-0 0 'o to 'a 0 w cc > > L • > ` 2 0 2 'j •> r, d N L O a) ca O 2 p yo p C a 0 iii a a N a c 0 Z" 0 a) a) 2 . E 2 - 2 iii Q c 0 ? L a) ` m ca o N V im• V 0 D) N a) +.+ „, 8 N ' w c 0) 0o c E c co Q) '> p a, c a, c a, 0 a, b a) 0 c 0) a 0 O c _ N c o— C O N C C N C 0 Q. �� E 0) c _ E 0 E 0) = vi o - N a) , •E = • � Y c c O = O N c 0 o N o C O o Q. a) U c 'a ' U c U 0 . U O p U y N Y T 0 L O A N 1 E � o c E c o N p g -a v 4 E U 0 0 ) • U c U -p N U u N ) = C 0- O N CO c .- 0 vi 0 •O a) 0) O E N Xx .o N m .c c m O O CO O ( L N O U 0 Q v N N ' O •> O N a) c O • a . • a U t c 0 c m O p O c o o p o Q c aa a) U c . cm E a) a a) >. ca E> 4 U N "'' c - c.. c 0 C c c OO o O ~O C ca ca a) ( a, 5 ca m Ca Z a) E ' c N ' - � C 0- Q c 0) c Cr) N c c 1 >> t0 co 'a N a) o c C c N C N C co c '5 N 0)) � I c N '° O a) 'o N 0 '0 N O c c0 O N 'u) O p co N 0 c0, c ca c • > L a O 0 Q •N c 2 • y O N c al c . a .0 2 a 0 O a) L) x c O N. c O C c E 0 ` .r N C a) 'O -1- O `) O Z N IR p N t- c m a N ' N U E i N .- c 2 m N N N •- C U m o m co p `- co :E co Ur P r >_ 2 N c t c n cod u, `� - ' ` � .. C_ O .N c c ct 1 c0 w O ._ w O O o ' O c o 1 o c o O ..• o o .•• N o O o ~ O 0 ac s M 0 E.- a c N nc c .2 ac c N ac a.c oo p O o a) > oo p ow O N 00 O >, o N a) 0 0 E Q ti a0 N o 0 E ' Q) " E v) c o f • N ° E co X ,0 0 c E N N N Q c j a a) p m o a) - c6 a) a) o !o coo') W O Z co U coI c0) co') .c 15. Z co fY Q Z m (Y a Z m fY '0 z m 0, a 0 o r ' rn 0) , i 0o O CO CV Cil O o t M . o , O tf) O r CM N M c- r - r .. I- o - 0) :- N o \ % / & 2 c G E - \ : -� g o \ 2\ \ E § 0 u) k q E q 0 Z.. 9 © @ 0- ° l _ \- s 3 a D 2 0 4 CO ▪ % j $ \ \ 0 u 5 ti / 2§ n 0. a o k )2 0� 2 2 $GC 2 3 \ C1 g 7c ca / \ x k k o ' O k CL § � @ c c �� c u § \ $ ' E o R c : a. 2 2 2 g 8 _ \ 773 c ` § § . Q § \ E 2 0 0 c�� 0 � CD \ 0 2 c & E$ & \ / 2 @ ® cn : P m m '% a) ` ° @ c P 73 "0 3 2 s > o � � 2 q c @ q $g / = d k E k k 2 \ 2 @� ��� 0 1 0 @ "0 "0 7 = m Ili; CD N"' 2 U § 2§ G @§ c 3 a. I a o @ / 8 0 @ = m c .° � @ 2 2 2 a) $ E 5 > • �2 k 22 � 0 2 O • �' 2 2 E« D 2 { 0 § 2 ¥ ) D 2 § ® 2 - C@ m m E t a) 2 $ U) ? @ 5 , •zr @G 7� @� � k1 � @ E m / 1 2 co / O o � 0, k k > § q Ca 3 m & 8 = ecn ® @ Zji u a � �b / « 2 f 0 « 2 f 49, Q C • 2 ui \/ 2 2 > , _ cn E § a _ 2 ££ c@ c c c a c c, .7 c c c @ § = @ S ° 0 0 S ° . g @ _ S ° § 0 ^ @ / : k f 2 . ® f : • 2 \ CL In 2 " § / B � k k $ $ 2 k $ % ¢ o Uw3azco CC CL 2co C _�zco q 9) 9' a) a) e - � A G % o o — ¥ N o • N- CO ,- Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 "8. Roof access should not be allowed on legal non - conforming income property. This has not been allowed on any legal non - conforming income structure in the area. Staff Comments: The provisions regarding "Height Variations for Non - Habitable Architectural Features" are set forth in Section 28- 2317(4) of the Code. These provisions allow for any property within the City, regardless of whether the property is owner- occupied, residential income property, commercial or industrial, to apply for the height variation. The review criteria for these types of requests are clearly set forth in Section 28- 2317(4), and the Planning Commission considered those criteria, adopted findings, and determined to approve the requested Height Variation. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report, pages 6 — 8 (Attachment 4) for a discussion the requested height variation and a review of the criteria to be considered in approving such a request. Refer to Planning Commission Resolution 02 -41 (Attachment 2) to review the findings made by the Planning Commission in determining to approve Height Variation 02 -5. Refer to the Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment 3) to review the discussion that occurred during the Planning Commission meeting regarding these issues. "9. The set backs on the proposed structure are not conforming and therefore the Conditional Use Permit should not be approved." Staff Comments: This statement is incorrect. As indicated in the Planning Commission Staff Report, pages 5 and 6 indicates that the proposed addition setbacks will conform to the current Code required setbacks. The Staff Report also indicates that the existing structure does not comply with current setback requirements. The Planning Commission has with general consistency required that additions to structures with nonconforming setbacks must meet current setback requirements, while allowing the current nonconforming structure setbacks to remain. That is the case with the subject application. "10. In addition to inadequate setback along the alley, the existence of a block wall along the alley property line runs the entire length of the property. The result is that there is no space provided by the owner for the required trash containers within the confines of the property. All trash containers are continuously and regularly placed within the alley right of way creating a hazardous and unsanitary situation. This Conditional Use Permit should not be approved unless this hazardous and unsanitary condition is eliminated." Staff Comments: This is an opinion of the appellants, and the City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or - 21 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. "11. The addition of a second story to 1210 Electric Avenue plus the addition of the proposed non habitable architectural feature resulting in the increased height limit to beyond the maximum allowed will adversely effect the view of the surrounding property owners on or near the greenbelt. It will adversely effect their environment increasing the massive appearance of an already massive building which is not compatible with the surrounding area. Absolutely no landscaping is provided to aleviate the existing stark barrenness surrounding the three units attached to 1210 Electric Avenue in 1969 and none is being proposed by the owner or required by the Planning Commission." Staff Comments: This is an opinion of the appellants. In approving both the CUP and HV, the Planning Commission considered compatibility and impact on primary views as a result of the proposed project, and ultimately determined the project as proposed and conditioned for approval was compatible with the surrounding community and did not substantially impact any primary view. Please refer to planning Commission Resolutions 02 -40 and 02 -41to review the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission. The City Council may consider this concern in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing If the property were to be demolished and a conforming residential structure constructed, it could have the same height and bulk as the proposed structure can . have. Building setbacks along 13 Street and the alley would be different, assuming a new garage was provided with alley access. "12. The public hearing was improperly terminated before all testimony was taken and the, chair refused to allow this further testimony." Staff Comments: The public hearing was opened, testimony received from all those present that wished to speak, and the public hearing was closed by the Chairman. During Planning Commission discussion of the applications, one individual approached the podium and indicated they wanted to respond to comments made by the Commission. The Chairman properly refused to re -open the public hearing, as the purpose of the hearing is to receive comments, not enter into a back - and -forth dialogue between the Commission and a person or persons who spoke during the public hearing. 22 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 "13. The granting of the permit to increase the size of 1210 Electric and allow the exceeding of the height limit by 7 feet will change the scenic views from existing surrounding residences." Staff Comments: This is an opinion of the appellants, and the City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. If the property were to be demolished and a conforming residential structure constructed, it could have the same height and bulk as the proposed structure can have. Building setbacks along 13 Street and the alley would be different, assuming a new garage was provided with alley access. • "14. The granting of the permit to increase the size of 1210 Electric and allow the exceeding of the height limit by 7 feet will change the scale of the building and will exacerbate the already out of character building in the general area of the project." Staff Comments: This is an opinion of the appellants, and the City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. If the property were to be demolished and a conforming residential structure constructed, it could have the same height and bulk as the proposed structure can have. Building setbacks along 13 Street and the alley would be different, assuming a new garage was provided with alley access. , "15. The proposal will result in a substantial alteration of the present and well established long time planned use of the area." Staff Comments: This is an opinion of the appellants, and the City' Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. 23 , Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 The Zoning. Ordinance provisions specifically allow these applications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, if the proper findings can be made regarding each subject application. "16. The proposed project will result in the obstruction of scenic vista and open views to the public and will serve only to increase the esthetically offensive site open to public view." Staff Comments: This is an opinion of the appellants, and the City Council may consider this opinion in deliberating the merits of the appeal and the application being considered, and may determine to sustain the appeal, deny the appeal with no change in the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, or to deny the appeal and place additional conditions on the project as determined appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at this public hearing. If the property were to be demolished and a conforming residential structure constructed, it could have the same height and bulk as the proposed structure can have. Building setbacks along 13 Street and the alley would be different, assuming a new garage was provided with alley access. DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE "STANDARDS OF REVIEW" FOR CUP AND HV APPROVALS: The subject application is a conditionally allowable project in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -2407, which allows this type of proposed expansion subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The requested height variation is also conditionally allowable through a minor plan review approval process in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -2317. The Planning Commission determined both proposals are properly allowable in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 -2407 and 28 -2317, respectively. Regarding whether the applicant's proposed use is compatible with the General Plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the Planning Commission determined that both applications were consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Please refer to the "findings" section of Resolutions 02 -40 and 02 -41 (Attachment 2) to review the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission regarding these issues. Upon conclusion of the public hearing before the City Council, the Council will also be required to make appropriate findings regarding is compatibility with the General Plan and with the surrounding neighborhood. Resolution of the remaining issues will depend on the Council's view as to whether the proposed development is consistent with the intent, purpose and vision of the General Plan and the implementing zoning ordinance provisions of the City. One member of the Commission felt that such an expansion was not appropriate. Additionally, it will depend on the City Council's view of the evidence presented during the public hearing regarding 24 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 impacts to the surrounding community of the proposed expansion project at the subject property. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application for the approval to permit a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue would be approved, subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the City Council. 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution sustaining the appeal and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application for the major addition/remodel and construction of a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue would be denied. FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal impact to city receipt of property tax revenues based on additional valuation if the requested addition were to be approved by the City Council. NOTE ' • • 'PROV • re Whittenberg John B. B : ► orski Director of Development Services City M. • :er Attachments: (9) Attachment 1: Appeal of Geraldine West, Terry Mewes, and Warren Morton, dated November 15, 2002 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolutions 02 -40 and 02 -41, adopted November 6, 2002 Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes: November 6, 2002 25 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 Attachment 4: Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5, Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 6, 2002 Attachment 5: Written documents submitted to the Planning Commission on November 6 in Opposition to CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5 Attachment 6: Summary of Minor Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Approvals for Expansions to Nonconforming Residential Structures — 1985 to 2002 Attachment 7: Ordinance Summary re: Downzoning and Addition/Expansion of Nonconforming Uses Attachment 8: Communication received in Opposition to Proposed Project from Thomas Greeley, 1629 Seal Way Attachment 9: Project Development Plans 26 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planzng Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 1 APPEAL OF GERALDINE WEST, TERRY MEWES, AND WARREN MORTON, DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2002 27 p D � APPEAL APPLICATION i T Lir - O CITY COUNCIL For Office Use Only 02 -40 & j Planning Commission Date: 11/6/2002 Planning Commission Resolution No.: 02-41 Planning Commission Action: • ..rova Denial Other Date Appeal Filed City Council Date: - Notice Date: City Council Action: Resolution No.: 1 Property Address' 1210 Electric Ave., Seal Beach, CA 90740 1.) Geraldine West; 2) Terry Mewes; 2 Applicant's Name. 3.) Warren Morton Address: 1) 1301-B Electric Ave., 2) 160 - 12th, 3) 153 - 13th be al boeach, -LA 9074 Home Phone: (561 1) 430 -3864 7) 596 -8549 3) 598 -5264 Work Phone: ( ) FAX: ( ) 3 Property Owner's Name: Seta Ghazarian Address: 1819 Redondo Ave., Signal Hill, cA 90780 Home Phone: (56'1 884-1862 - 4 The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach Planning Commission concerning Plan Review No. 02:16 and v. 02 -5. Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission•is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and include your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error. �-C(> 65- ��gL6hya Olers r) W AP\z a t.,,•wtiorti is (Signature of Applicant) (Signatu of Own - (Print Name) (Print Nam - 1 (14/ a •■ (Date) (Date) Page 27 Rev 2/00 ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16 and HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA Statement why the decision of the Planning Commission on November 6, 2002 is being appealed and the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and statements as to where and why the Planning Commission may be in error. 1. A conditional Use Permit is not automatic based upon precedent. The decision of the Planning Commission must be based upon whether it is consistent with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission must consider every aspect of the proposal. It must consider all other alternatives, for example, the possibility of increasing the size of the residence by using portions of the other units, increasing the amount of parking provided by the elimination of one or more of the other units or parts thereof, or their combination and other considerations. There is no evidence on the record that any of these were considered by the Planning Commission. 2. A Conditional Use Permit is entirely up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. • In reviewing the tape of the meeting it can be seen and heard that when asked, the City Attorney sitting as advisor to the Planning Commission on November 6, 2002, so advised the commissionas follows. He said, "In this case you definitely have discretion." Three times he repeats this advice when asked by members of the commission for his advice as to the aspect of their responsibility and their ability to reach a decision without reference to precedent. , The evidence recorded on tape of the deliberations of the Planning Commission shows that the majority of the Planning Commission sitting in judgment ignored and/or refused to understand and/or deliberately ignored the advice of it's own legal advisor. 3. Seal Beach City Code - "Section 28 -2407. B. 2: Inspection - Any person requesting approval pursuant to Section 28 -2407 (A) (3) (a) or (b) for any building which was constructed prior to 1965, shall request a special investigation of the subject property prior to filing such an application. The Building and Safety Division, after the investigation request is made and fees paid pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, shall inspect the subject site and building, both internally and externally, to determine the condition of the site and building, including but not limited to the wiring, plumbing, structural integrity, roofing and condition of the walls, ceiling, floors and garage." 1210 Electric Avenue, according to a title search of the property, was built prior to 1965. There is no evidence that this mandatory special inspection was applied for or paid for by the applicant, nor was it provided to the members of the Planning Commission to assist them in their deliberations. This is evidenced by, among other things, the discussion of the fact that no one either on the commission or the staff was able to provide information as to the contents and or condition of the garages on the site. 4. The Planning Commission must be provided with any and all information available to make a reasoned decision on this Conditional Use Permit. By not ordering this mandatory Special Investigation and providing the Planning Commission and the Public with a copy of the resulting report, the Department of Development Services erred grievously in their duty to provide all necessary information to allow a reasonable decision to be made on the facts. By not requesting and paying for this Special Investigaion, prior to the filing of the application, the provisions of the Seal Beach Code have not been followed by the applicant and the applicantion is not valid. The approval of the Planning Commission of the application and their vote on the resolution is null and void thereby. 5. Inappropriate citations of properties in support of the approval the Conditional • Use Permit : a) Previous Property Approvals: Staff cites the three apartments attached to 1210 Electric Avenue when these were built in 1969 and the Conditional Use Permit approval permitting the enclosing of the existing porch to enlarge the existing living room and dining room in 1977. No other previous property approvals are cited and the pro perty itself is inappropriate to be used for the purpose at hand. . b) The other properties cited are not appropriate to the issue as they are both single family residences. c) Height Variation: the cited property is not similar to the subject property. The staff report provides inadequate information to support the decision of the majority of the Planning Commission. 6. It is stated by the applicant in his application that four parking spaces are provided. Testimony before the Planning Commission and evidence provided by property owners in the immediate vicinity show that this is an erroneous statement on the part of the owner because the owner allows two spaces to be regularly and consistently blocked over a long periods of time by an automobile ' parked sideways in front of the double garage on 13th Street. 7. The use of a Conditional Use Permit in the manner it is being used by the City of Seal Beach is an abrogation of the City's responsibilities to the citizens who supported the effective down zoning of their own properties by supporting in public hearings the changes in garage requirements. Properties in the area were down zoned with the property owners support and assent to the economic disadvantage of the owners of these properties property then and today. This was done by the city with the assent and support of the property owners because they were promised by the city that this would alleviate parking problems and retain the residential character of Old Town. It was the intent of the change to discourage the upgrading of the existing non conforming structures so that as their economic life expired, new conforming structures would replace them. Today, the City is abrogating it's compact with these property owners. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and those similar are extending the economic life of non - conforming structures, thereby compounding the density and parking problems rather than easing them as promised. 8. Roof access should not be allowed on legal non conforming income property. This has not been allowed on any legal non - conforming income structure in the area. 9. The set backs on the proposed structure are non conforming and therefore the Conditional Use Permit should not be approved. 10. In addition to inadequate setback along the alley, the existence of a block wall along the alley property line runs the entire length of the property. The result is that there is no space provided by the owner for the required trash containers within the confines of the property. All trash containers are continuously and regularly placed within the alley right of way creating a hazardous and unsanitary situation. This Conditional Use Permit should not be approved unless this hazardous and unsanitary condition is eliminated. 11. The addition of a second story to 1210 Electric Avenue plus the addition of the proposed non habitable architechtural feature resulting in the increased hight limit to beyond the maximum allowed will adversely effect the view of the surrounding property owners on or near the Greenbelt. It will adversely effect their environment increasing the massive appearance of an already massive building which is not compatable with the surrounding area. Absolutely no landscaping is provided to aleviate the existing stark barrenness surrounding the three units attached to 1210 Electric Avenue in1969 and none is being proposed by the owner or required by the Planning Commission. 12. The public hearing was improperly terminated before all testimony was taken and the chair refused to allow this futher testimony. 13. The granting of the permit to increase the size of 1210 Electric and allow the exceeding of the height limit by 7 feet will change the scenic views from existing surrounding residences of Green Belt. 14. The granting of the permit to increase the size of 1210 Electric and allow the . exceeding of the height limit by 7 feet will change the scale of the building and will exacerbate the already out of character building in the general area of the project. 15. The proposal will result in a substantial alteration of the present and well established long time planned use of the area. 16. The proposed project will result in the obstuction of scenic vistas and open views to the public and will serve only to increase this esthecically offensive site open to public view. Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 02 -40 AND 02 -41, ADOPTED NOVEMBER 6, 2002 O 28 RESOLUTION NO. 02 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16, TO PERFORM A MAJOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING LEGAL, NON - CONFORMING 4 -UNIT BUILDING AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5. The applicant is proposing to perform a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. The property is nonconforming due to: ❑ Density; there are now 4 units on the property and the lot size would currently permit 2 units on the property; ❑ Inadequate parking; there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking spaces would be required for 4 living units on a lot. ❑ Front yard setback: the required front yard setback is 12 feet and the existing structure is setback 7.5 fee; and ❑ Rear yard setback; the required rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing structure is setback 7 feet. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition at 1210 Electric Avenue. No changes are proposed to Units A, B, or C or to the existing garage parking areas. The requested additions require the conditional use permit approval as a major expansion of a non - conforming structure. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect • on the environment. C. \Documents and Settings \LWhtttenberg\My Documents \RESO \CUP 02 -16 (1210 Electnc).PC Reso.doc\LW \12 -04 -02 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -40 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 Section 3. A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November,6, 2002 to consider Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: a. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02- 16 and Height Variation 02 -5. b. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as _ a new first floor addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition at 1210 Electric Avenue. No changes are proposed to Units A, B, or C or to the existing garage parking areas. The requested additions require the conditional use permit approval as a major expansion of a non - conforming structure. c. The applicant is proposing to perform a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. The property is nonconforming due to: ❑ Density; there are now 4 units on the property and the lot size would currently permit 2 units on the property; ❑ Inadequate parking; there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking spaces would be required for 4 living units on a lot. ❑ Front yard setback: the required front yard setback is 12 feet and the existing structure is setback 7.5 fee; and ❑ Rear yard setback; the required rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing . structure is setback 7 feet. d. The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199- 076-27, is located in the Residential High Density zone (RHD). e. The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel having 30.20 feet of frontage on Thirteenth Street, being 117.50 feet in depth. The property has approximately 67 feet of depth along the rear alley. The property is approximately 5,821 square feet in area and contains a single -story living unit (1210 Electric Avenue) and three apartments and four off - street parking spaces. f. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: SOUTH, EAST & WEST Residential Housing located in a Residential High Density zone NORTH Public open space in the Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone. CUP 02 -16 (1210 Electnc).PC Reso 2 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -40 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 g. In response to the mailed and published notice of this hearing staff has received no responses, written or oral to this request as of October 30, 2002. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2407 & 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: - (a) Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The building and property are adequate in size, shape, and topography to meet the proposed use for the land. (c) There is no change in the number of units proposed on the property, and the number of bedrooms in the residence at 1210 Electric Avenue is not being increased over the existing number of bedrooms. (d) All feasible parking given the availability and location of space on - the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. (e) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. (f) The proposed addition is in keeping with the requirements of Section 28- 2407(A)(3) and Section 28- 2407(A)(4) of The Code of the City of Seal , Beach, as the subject property is nonconforming due to density, inadequate setbacks for a legal nonconforming garage, and parking. (g) The property complies with all other development standards of the City as set forth in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 02 -16, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 is approved for a major addition/remodel to a nonconforming residence located at 1210 Electric Avenue. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition and a 497 square foot roof deck at 1210 Electric. CUP 02 -16 (1210 Electric).PC Reso 3 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -40 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 2. All construction shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. 3. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through CUP 02 -16. 4. Before final permit is issued by the City's Building Department, the City shall inspect the property to ensure that the existing four parking spaces are available for the shelter and storage of vehicles. The parking spaces shall remain continuously available for the shelter and storage of vehicles for the life of the building. 5. This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 6. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 7. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp CUP 02 -16 (1210 Electnc).PC Reso 4 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -40 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 NOES: Commissioners Deaton ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D., Chairman Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission • CUP 02 -16 (1210 Electric) PC Reso 5 RESOLUTION NUMBER 02 - 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, TO PERMIT A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5. The applicant is proposing a covered roof access structure at the rear of 1210 Electric Avenue, adjacent to the southerly property line. The proposed covered roof access structure is proposed to be 4 feet wide and 15 feet in length, with a height to the top of the roof at 32 feet. The proposed roof style is similar in nature to that of the proposed second story addition. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application Height Variation 02 -5 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. The record of the hearing of November 6, 2002 indicates the following: a. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02- 16 and Height Variation 02 -5. b. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to construct non - habitable architectural features comprising higher roof elevations in excess of the 25 -foot maximum height limit, but within the allowable architectural feature height provision of 32 feet, in conjunction with a proposed major addition to a nonconforming residential structure at 1210 Electric Avenue. C.\Documents and Settings \LWhittenberg\My Documents \RESO \HV 02 -5 (1210 Electnc) PC Reso.doc\LW\10 -30 -02 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -41 Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 c. The Code of the City of Seal Beach The Code of the City of Seal Beach, (Code) states that no building or structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is located. However, Section 28- 2317(4) provides for height variations for non - habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317(4)(A) states: "Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7) if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section." d. The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199- 076-27, is located in the Residential High Density zone (RHD). e. The height limit for structures on the subject property, which is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, is 25 feet. The maximum height elevations of the proposed architectural features are 32 feet. The maximum proposed height is within the seven -foot (7') allowance provided for a non - habitable architectural feature under Section 28- 2317(4). f. The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel having 30.20 feet of frontage on Thirteenth Street, being 117.50 feet in depth. The property has approximately 67 feet of depth along the rear alley. The property is approximately 5,821 square feet in area and contains a single -story living unit (1210 Electric Avenue) and three apartments and four off - street parking spaces. g. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: SOUTH, EAST & WEST Residential Housing located in a Residential High Density zone NORTH Public open space in the Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone. h. In response to the mailed and published notice of this hearing staff has received no responses, written or oral, to this request as of October 30, 2002. Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §3 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2317 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: HV 02 -5 (1210 Electric).PC Reso 2 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -41 Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 1. Height Variation 02 -5 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits multi - family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roofing materials and siding matching those of the remainder of the structure. 3. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood and permissible by code. 4. No habitable living space is provided within the structure. 5. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation No. 02 -5, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height Variation 02 -5 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the height limit at 1210 Electric Avenue. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 02 -5, with the following modifications: ❑ The size of the covered roof access structure shall be reduced to comply with the adopted City standard of 4 feet wide by 9.5 feet long. ❑ The overall height of the covered roof access structure shall not exceed 30 feet. 3. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims HV 02 -5 (1210 Electnc).PC Reso 3 Planning Commission Resolution 02 -41 Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue November 6, 2002 and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp NOES: Commissioners Deaton ABSENT: Commissioners • ABSTAIN: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission HV 02 -5 (1210 Electnc).PC Reso 4 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 6, 2001 29 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton stated that she believes this project will make a nice addition 2 to the area. She agreed with Commissioner Shanks' perspective that the City is 3 looking like a "cookie cutter town" with the way that every single new house is 4 coming up looking like all the other new homes. She noted that she lives on 'Fourth 5 Street and is very aware of the parking problem. She stated that next door to her 6 home is a non - conforming property with three bedroom units downstairs and 7 upstairs and usually occupants will share rents creating the need for parking for six 8 cars for each unit. She emphasized that this project is a very nice one that will 9 enhance the area. Commissioner Deaton asked that the petition presented earlier 10 be entered into the record. 11 12 Mr. Cummins informed Commissioner Deaton that if she lives within 500 feet of the 13 proposed project, she would need to abstain from voting on this item. 14 15 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Conditional Use Permit 02 -15, 16 subject to conditions, and approve Resolution 02 -39. 17 18 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 19 AYES: Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 20 NOES: None 21 ABSENT: - None 22 ABSTAIN: Deaton 23 24 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02 -39 begins a 10 -day 25 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final 26 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 27 28 2. Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 29 Height Variation 02 -5 30 1210 Electric Avenue 31 32 33 Applicant/Owner: Seta Ghazarian 34 Request: To perform a major addition /remodel and construct a 35 covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit 36 residential structure. The property is nonconforming due 37 to density, parking, and setbacks. There are now 4 units 38 on the property, and 2 are permitted. Inadequate parking 39 - there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking 40 spaces would be required for 4 living units on a lot. 41 Setbacks — the required front yard setback is 12 feet and 42 the existing structure is set back 7.5 feet. The required 43 rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing structure is 44 set back 7 feet. The proposal includes the addition of 45 approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor 46 addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 second floor addition. No changes are proposed to Units 2 A, B, or C, or to the existing garage parking areas. 3 4 To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in 5 excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the 6 applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access 7 structure to exceed the height limit by 7 feet. Seven feet 8 is the maximum height variation permitted. 9 10 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of 11 Resolution Nos. 02 -40 and 02 -41 12 13 Staff Report 14 15 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 16 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 17 stated that the applicant is proposing to move the bedrooms from downstairs to the 18 new upstairs addition and to add a new stairwell to access the second floor. Unlike 19 CUP 02 -15, the number of bedrooms for this project will actually be reduced from 20 three to two. He explained that the new home would have one large great room on 21 the first floor. With regard to the setbacks, the Associate Planner stated that all of 22 the new construction on this property will be in conformance with current City Code 23 requirements, and none of the existing setbacks will be decreased. He again noted 24 that Section 28 -2407 of the Code is applicable, specifically Provisions 3 and 4. He 25 stated that the PC could look at this case individually to determine if this expansion 26 is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01 -16, 27 subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 02 -41. 28 29 With regard to Height Variation (HV) 02 -5, Mr. Cummins reviewed the criteria to be 30 considered by the PC when making a determination on an application for a HV as 31 listed on Pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report. He reported that the proposed Covered 32 Roof Access Structure (CRAS) does not meet the standards as established by the 33 City Council approved Policy Statement for CRAS, so Staff has proposed a condition 34 that mandates that the overall length of the CRAS be reduced to meet these 35 standards. Mr. Cummins then stated that Staff recommends approval of HV 02 -5 36 and adoption of Resolution 02-40 with one additional condition. He explained that 37 as Staff has reviewed the plans they noted that a portion of the 7 foot height appears 38 to be just roofing structure and can be reduced from 3 feet to 1 foot in height based 39 upon the pitch of the roof and still have a roof area. He said that it would be 40 appropriate for the PC to require that this roofing be reduced so that the overall 41 . height of the structure is 30 feet instead of 32. 42 43 Commissioner Questions 44 45 Commissioner Deaton asked if CRAS have previously been approved on rental 46 properties. Mr. Cummins reported that the PC has approved CRAS on duplex type City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 properties, but off hand he could not think of any other properties with more than 2 2 units for which a CRAS was approved. 3 4 Public Hearing 5 6 Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. 7 8 Mr: Dan Hill, representative for the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed 9 changes to the structure and reported that the applicant was in agreement with the 10 reduction in the length of the CRAS. He stated that the floor plan for this project was 11 designed with the intent to be in compliance with current City Code provisions. He 12 said that the project will enhance the surrounding area and recommended approval 13 of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 02 -16 and Height Variation (HV) 02 -5. 14 15 Ms. Terry Mavis stated that she is strongly opposed to approval of CUP 02 -16 and 16 HV 02 -5 because the absentee landlord for this property provides inadequate 17 parking for the tenants. She noted that in order to be compliance with City Code, the 18 landlord must provide 4 more parking spaces. She said the additional square 19 footage will exacerbate the poor parking conditions and the second floor will obscure 20 her current view of the greenbelt and significantly diminish the value of her property, 21 while invading her privacy and obscuring the access to sunlight on that street. She 22 . noted that the proposed CRAS would exceed the height limit and affect the 23 aesthetics of the neighborhood. She recommended denial of CUP 01 -16 and HV 24 02 -5. 25 26 Mr. Roger West spoke in opposition of CUP 02 -16. He reported that in 1969 the 27 owner of the property was allowed to construct 3 apartments on "this sliver of 28 property." He stated that this corner is already severely congested and tenants often 29 come across the greenbelt and park in front of his home because there is no parking 30 at 1210 Electric. He said this is unfair to long -term residents who have sacrificed to 31 keep the town livable. He noted that when he first purchased the property at 1201 32 Electric, he could have constructed 9 units on that lot. He said it was downzoned to 33 6 and then to 3 units, and he accepted this for the sake of saving Seal Beach. He 34 said that now new residents want to go back to the old standards creating even 35 more congestion. 36 37 Ms. Geri West stated that the purpose of her presence tonight was to oppose CUP 38 02 -16 and HV 02 -5. She noted that she lives across the street and will have to look 39 at this project for the rest of her life. 40 41 Mr. Warren Morton, spoke in opposition to CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5 and stated that 42 the previous property approvals as noted in the Staff Report are not relevant to this 43 case. He commented that an automobile is always parked across the driveway that' 44 leads to the two -car garage at 1210 Electric Avenue and allows for no parking 45 access to the garage. He strongly recommended denial of this application. 46 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 Mr. Cummins reported for the record that Staff had received three separate letters, 2 all in opposition to CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5. 3 4 Mr. Dan Hill stated that many of the properties in Old Town are non - conforming and 5 he noted the disparities between the requirements for the current City Code as 6 compared to what the standards were when this home was first constructed. He 7 indicated that the owner proposes to occupy the remodeled residence and will not 8 be renting or leasing it out. 9 10 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. 11 12 Commissioner Questions 13 14 Commissioner Deaton stated that discretion is needed in this case, as the current 15 structure is an apartment building with improper setbacks, which contributes to this 16 being an enormous building. She said that to take this building and add almost 17 1,800 square feet, even though the number of bedrooms would be decreased, would 18 make a continued eyesore of a structure that already presents a poor appearance. 19 She stated that it would be preferable to have the landlord on site and noted that 20 when she drove by the property this evening, the automobile Mr. Morton referred to 21 is still parked across the driveway, blocking the two -car garage. She said that she 22 would not vote in favor of this particular project. She urged the PC to use discretion 23 and deny this request. 24 25 Commissioner Sharp noted that when a bedroom is eliminated, a car is also 26 eliminated. He stated that the applicant is not requesting anything that the PC has 27 not granted in the past and he does not see any way that the application could be 28 denied. 29 30 Commissioner Shanks stated that unless City Council sets up other standards, the 31 PC has very little option but to allow this request. He noted that, he wished that 32 when presenting their projects, applicants would not attempt to ask for everything 33 they can possibly get, but rather be more considerate of their adjoining neighbors 34 and what they will have to live with. He commented that unfortunately the public 35 assumes that the PC can arbitrarily cancel their approvals when the precedent has 36 already been set. He stated that currently the property does not give a nice 37 appearance and the renovations would help improve this. 38 39 Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Abbe what the discretion of the PC is in granting, 40 CUPs. She noted that the differences between the property at 226 Fourth Street 41 and this application are huge. She commented that the property at 1210 Electric is 42 already overbuilt. Mr. Abbe stated that the PC definitely has large discretion in 43 making determinations on CUPs. He said he is comfortable with either granting or 44 denying CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5. Commissioner Deaton stated that she does not 45 believe that the proposed addition will enhance the property in any way. 46 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 Commissioner Ladner confirmed whether 8 parking spaces are required. Mr. 2 Cummins stated that current Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit, so forgetting 3 the density standard, if 4 new units are constructed on any particular piece of 4 property, 8 parking spaces would be required; however, additional parking spaces 5 would not be required for additions to non - conforming structures. Commissioner 6 Ladner asked if the addition were built as proposed, would additional parking be 7 required. Mr. Cummins stated that if the PC determines that the proposed addition 8 conforms to all provisions for the section of the Code regarding non - conforming 9 structures, additional parking would not be required, unless the PC wished to impose 10 creation of additional parking, but for this particular project this would not be a viable 11 option. Commissioner Ladner stated if no additional parking would be required, he 12 would vote to approve CUP 02 -16 and HV 02 -5. 13 14 Chairperson Hood asked for the address of the property that appears in the 15 photograph attached to one of the letters of opposition, which shows a car parked 16 across the driveway entrance in front of the garage. Commissioner Deaton reported 17 that the address is 1210 Electric Avenue. Chairperson Hood said both the Agenda 18 and Page 14 of the Staff Report state that there is inadequate parking on the 19 property. He then noted that Item 10 of the application reports that there are 4 off - 20 street parking spaces provided. He stated that he would like Staff to verify whether 21 this garage, indeed, provides two off - street parking spaces, because if there are no . 22 spaces available, the applicant has misrepresented the facts. He said he is not 23 willing to vote for or against a proposal unless he has all of the facts straight. 24 25 Commissioner Sharp stated that with regard to the question of whether or not the 26 .garage is being used for storage, he would be amazed if after checking all of the 27 garages in town it was determined that 50% of the garages are being used to park 28 cars. He said he doubted whether a third of the garages in town have enough room 29 to park a car. He stated that he does not believe the City has the prerogative of 30 opening garage doors to determine what is inside and whether there is room to park 31 cars in them. - 32 . 33 Chairperson Hood said he agreed with Commissioner Sharp's observations, 34 however, this application has obviously misstated the facts. 35 36 Commissioner Sharp reiterated that the City does not have the right to question 37 whether a garage is parkable or not. He said if the PC did have this prerogative, 38 they could do something to alleviate the parking problem. 39 40 Commissioner Deaton asked about Staff having gone into a garage to determine 41 whether it was carpeted and not being used for parking. Mr. Cummins stated that 42 this was in reference to a complaint received that a garage had been carpeted and 43 converted to a living unit. He explained that the property owner had intended to use 44 , the garage as a game room for his children, but was informed that he must remove 45 the carpet and use the garage for parking. Commissioner Deaton asked if Staff was 46 able to enter the garage. Mr. Cummins stated that in this case the owner had 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 allowed Staff onto the property. He stated that tonight's case is very different and 2 the PC has the ability to enforce conditions in this case if they chose to do so. He 3 said that in the case of a complaint about a private property owner who is not 4 applying for a discretionary permit, a Search Warrant granted by the court would be 5 required in order to enter the property. With regard to the car parked in front of the 6 garage at 1210 Electric Avenue, the Associate Planner noted that there are a 7 number of these situations in Old Town. Commissioner Deaton stated that perhaps 8 when an application comes before the PC this would be the time to address these 9 issues. She said that with the power to address them on a case -by -case basis the 10 PC should evaluate them with an eye toward planning and the future of the City. Mr. 11 Cummins stated that within the Development Code for the City it does state that 12 garage spaces should be open and accessible, but typically this Code has been very 13 difficult to enforce. Commissioner Deaton stated that she is not suggesting policing 14 garages, but when discretionary approval is required the PC has an opportunity to 15 curb the problems with density and overbuilding. 16 17 Chairperson Hood interjected that this would not be prejudicial because the 18 applicant has come before the PC and made a request. He said that the PC would 19 not be going beyond its authority to impose a condition that Staff certify at the time of 20 the vote that the garage is available and accessible. Mr. Cummins stated that if the 21 PC were to decide to add this type of condition, the best time to impose this would 22 be when the City completes the final inspection. At this point the Building Inspector 23 would not sign off on the final project until all garage spaces were open and 24 accessible. Chairperson Hood asked that if Staff were to enter this garage tomorrow 25 and find that it is not available for parking, would the applicant have made a 26 misstatement of fact. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff looks at provision of garage 27 space based upon what the garage can physically provide based upon the 28 dimensions of the garage whether it is used for parking or not. He said that it is 29 virtually unenforceable. Chairperson Hood countered that the statements should 30 reflect what the case actually is. 31 - 32 Commissioner Sharp interjected that the spaces are still there and until an ordinance 33 is approved prohibiting using garages for storage, he does not believe that the PC 34 "has a leg to stand on." He stated that even if the final inspection hinged on parking 35 being made available in the garage, this does not eliminate the possibility of the 36 garage being used for storage at a later date. He said the City has no way of 37 enforcing this. 38 39 Commissioner Deaton asked where in the Code it states that the garage has to be 40 accessible for parking. Mr. Cummins stated that this is stated in the Development 41 Zoning Code. He said that if the PC so desired, it could add a condition to CUP 42 02 -16 making it clear that the garage space must be accessible. Commissioner 43 Deaton stated that for her the issue is not parking but overbuilding the property on 44 the corner. She said that the plan as it is proposed would not enhance the 45 neighborhood in any way. She noted that this is where the PC should use its 46 discretion in determining whether or not to grant this CUP. 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 Chairperson Hood then reviewed the options available to the PC. 2 3 Commissioner Deaton emphasized that the PC must be aware that if this project is 4 approved a precedent will be set opening the door to increased proposals of this 5 type and an increase in density. She reiterated that the project involves an 6 apartment building and not a single - family residence or a single - family residence 7 with a unit over the garage that is rentable. 8 9 Commissioner Sharp called for a 5- minute recess to review the options. Mr. 10 Cummins noted that the PC has reviewed cases for major additions to 4 or more unit 11 two -story buildings and he cited a few of these cases. The PC recessed at 8:38 12 p.m. 13 14 The PC reconvened at 8:44 p.m. 15 16 Mr. Cummins stated that if the PC chose to approve the request and wished to 17 impose a condition related to keeping the existing garage spaces in the building 18 open and accessible, they could do so. He read the language that Mr. Abbe 19 composed for the condition as follows: 20 21 Before final permit is issued by the City's Building Department, the City 22 shall inspect the property to ensure that the existing four parking 23 spaces are available for the shelter and storage of vehicles. The 24 parking spaces shall remain continuously available for the shelter and 25 storage of vehicles for the life of the building. 26 27 Commissioner Deaton asked how this would be enforced. Mr. Cummins stated that 28 if this were not done they would be in violation of the CUP. He said that removing 29 stored items from a garage is one of the easier code violations to address. 30 Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Abbe why the City has a CUP process and how 31 does precedent setting affect this process. She also asked why the City has CUPs 32 and not just build by right. Mr. Abbe explained that the CUP process allows City 33 government to make the kinds of decisions that the Code cannot provide for in 34 making discretionary decisions regarding compatible land uses. He said that he 35 could not tell the PC how they should vote. He stated that the fact that precedent 36 exists should not affect the discretion of the PC to grant or deny permits. 37 Commissioner Deaton confirmed that the PC could make their decisions based upon 38 what they would like the City to look like, and with non - conforming properties the PC 39 could vote on a case -by -case basis based upon how a project would conform to the 40 Tong -range goal for the City. Mr. Abbe confirmed that in this case the PC definitely 41 has discretions, but he noted that in other cases the PC may not change uses for 42 certain non - conforming properties. 43 44 Chairperson Hood commented on the problem with impacted parking in Old Town 45 and he noted that part of living together in a small community is respecting your 46 neighbors and obeying the laws and keeping off our neighbor's property. He stated 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 that the PC's concern with the parked car blocking access to the garage at 1210 is 2 not necessarily a matter of legality, but a matter of civility. 3 4 Commissioner Deaton interjected that this particular part of Old Town has a much 5 higher density than the other side of town and they need help in resolving this issue, 6 which is what the PC is attempting to do. 7 8 Commissioner Sharp stated that in his opinion the new addition would create a 9 decrease in density, as the number of bedrooms would be decreased. He also 10 noted that the design of the new addition was compatible and he does not believe 11 the PC has the prerogative to deny this request. 12 13 Commissioner Deaton stated that she believes legally the PC does have the right to 14 deny this request. She noted that eight parking spaces are required and only 4 are 15 provided, so eliminating one bedroom does not solve the problem. She said that the 16 CUP process and the discretion of the PC provide an avenue to begin to solve the 17 problems of density and parking. 18 " 19 Commissioner Shanks stated that he understands Commissioner Deaton's 20 concerns, but when allowing the CUP process to be used for upgrading of older, • 21 nonconforming lots, they are usually overbuilt. He also noted that if the PC did not 22 allow for this, the properties would remain the same, or the original building could be 23 demolished and a huge new home built on the lot. He stated that he does not see 24 that the PC has the means of stopping this process, nor does he see what would be 25 gained. 26 27 Commissioner Ladner stated that he had no objection to this request. 28 29 ` Chairperson Hood again reviewed the options for determining the outcome of this 30 item. 31 32 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 33 and Height Variation 02 -5, subject to conditions, and approve Resolution Nos. 02 -40 34 and 02 -41 as amended. 35 36 MOTION CARRIED: 4 —1 37 AYES: Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 38 NOES: Deaton 39 ABSENT: None 40 41 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 02 -40 and 02 -41 begins a 10- 42 day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is 43 final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 44 " 45 46 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002 1 STAFF CONCERNS 2 3 Mr. Cummins stated that the PC had directed Staff to cancel the scheduled meeting 4 for November 20, 2002, and the next scheduled meeting will be on December 4, 5 2002. 6 7 He also reported that at the direction of City Council Staff would present at the 8 December 4, 2002 meeting Zone Text Amendment 02 -2 addressing the issue of 9 three -car garages. 10 11 12 COMMISSION CONCERNS 13 14 Commissioner Sharp asked for an update on the Sunrise Assisted Living facility. Mr. 15 Cummins reported that the plan check process is almost complete so vertical 16 construction should commence shortly. 17 18 Chairperson Hood inquired about provision of the Council District Maps for the 19 Planning Commissioners. Mr. Cummins reported that Staff is producing color maps 20 for distribution to the PC. 21 22 23 ADJOURNMENT 24 25 Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 26 27 Respectfully Submitted, 28 29 30 31 _ _,_.. ` _t 32 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta 33 Planning Department 34 35 36 APPROVAL 37 38 The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission 39 Meeting of Wednesday, November 6, 2002. 14 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16 AND HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2002 30 November 6, 2002 STAFF REPORT To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16 and HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE SUMMARY OF REQUEST Applicant: SETA GHAZARIAN Owner: SETA GHAZARIAN Location: 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE Zoning of Property: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD) Request: To PERFORM A MAJOR ADDITION /REMODEL AND CONSTRUCT A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE TO A NONCONFORMING 4 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE, SEAL BEACH. THE PROPERTY IS NONCONFORMING DUE TO DENSITY, PARKING AND SETBACKS. THERE ARE NOW 4 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, AND 2 ARE PERMITED; INADEQUATE PARKING, THERE ARE 4 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED AND 8 PARKING SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR 4 LIVING UNITS ON A LOT; AND SETBACKS, TEIE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 12 FEET AND THE EXISTING STRUCTU RE IS SETBACK 7.5 FEET. THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS 9 FEET AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS SETBACK 7 FEET. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 140' SQUARE FEET AS A NEW FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,752 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE. No CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO UNITS A, B, OR C OR TO THE EXISTING GARAGE PARKING AREAS. To CONSTRUCT A NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 25 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED ROOF ACCESS • STRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT BY 7 FEET; 7 FEET IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIATION PERMITTED. C \Documents and Setttngs\L.Whtttenberg\My Documents\CUP\02-16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report doc\LW\10 -29 -02 Condztzonal Use Permu 02 -16 and Hezghr Vat-tat 02 -5 1210 Elecrnc Avenue Planning Commzsszon Staff Report November 6, 2002 Environmental THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Review: Code Sections: 28- 801(2); 23- 2317(4); 28 -2407; 23 -2503; 28 -2504 Recommendation: STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16 AND HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. FACTS ❑ On October '2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5. ❑ The applicant is proposing to perform a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. The property is nonconforming due to ❑ Density; there are now 4 units on the property and the lot size would currently permit 2 units on the property; ❑ Inadequate parking; there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking spaces would be required for 4 living units on a lot. ❑ Front yard setback: the required front yard setback 12 feet and the existing structure is setback 7.5 fee; and ❑ Rear yard setback; the required rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing structure is setback 7 feet. ❑ The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition at 1210 Electric and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition at 1210 Electric Avenue. No changes are proposed to Units A, B, or C or to the existing garage parking areas. The requested additions require the conditional use permit approval as a major expansion of a non - conforming structure. ❑ The applicant is also proposing to construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access structure to exceed the height limit by 7 feet; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. This request requires approval of a Height Variation. 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 2 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 ❑ The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199- 076 -27, is located in the Residential High Density zone (RHD), on an irregular shaped parcel having 30.20 feet of frontage on Thirteenth Street, being 117.50 feet in depth. The property has approximately 67 feet of depth along the rear alley. The property is approximately 5,821 square feet in area and contains a single -story living unit (1210 Electric Avenue) and three apartments, known as 159 Thirteenth Street, and four off - street parking spaces. ❑ The subject unit at 1210 Electric is a three bedroom residence, comprising approximately 1,435 square feet of living area. The residential units addressed as 159 Thirteenth Street consist of three apartment units constructed in 1969. Units "A" and "C" are 1- bedroom units comprising approximately 600 square feet of living area, and Unit "B" is a 2- bedroom unit , comprising approximately 935 square feet of living area. ❑ Previous Property Approvals: ❑ Plan Review 1 -69 was approved by the Planning Commission on February 5, 1969 for 159 Thirteenth Street, on the same property. This approval permitted the construction of the three apartment units that now exist on this property. Building permits are on file for the demolition of a 1- bedroom house and garage and the construction of the thee -unit apartment structure, with final inspection of the 3 -unit structure occurring on August 12, 1969. ❑ Conditional Use Permit 2 -77 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 1, 1977 - for 1210 Electric Avenue. The approval permitted the enclosing an existing porch to enlarge an existing living room and dining room and add an entry in one unit of a nonconforming 4 -plex. The building permit for this project was finaled on September 27, 1977. ❑ Similar Requests: ❑ Conditional Use Permit 01 -4 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 4, 2001. This approval permitted a major addition/remodel to a nonconforming single family dwelling located at 1110 Electric Avenue. The property was nonconforming due to inadequate rear yard setback of an existing detached garage. The approved project included the addition of 239.75 square feet to the first floor, including the enclosure of the existing porch, and 1048.6 square feet to the second floor, not including a 9'3" by 24'9" balcony. ❑ Conditional Use Permit 99 -11 and Variance 99 -4 was approved by the Planning Commission on November 3, 1999. This approval permitted construction of a new residence at a nonconforming single family building and retention of an existing garage 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 3 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Vartatton 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 with a nonconforming side yard setback at 1001 Electric Avenue. The property was nonconforming due to the side yard setback on the 10 Street side of the garage. 0 Height Variation 02 -1 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2002. The approval permitted the construction of a covered roof access structure with an overall height of 32 feet at 1606 Ocean Avenue. ❑ The City has received no written comments regarding the mailed/published notices of the hearing on CUP 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 as of October 30, 2002. • DISCUSSION The requests before the Commission require two separate decisions, and the Staff Report will discuss each request separately. Major Fxpansinn to a Non - Con Forming Stnictitre• Project Overview: The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition at 1210 Electric Avenue. No changes are proposed to Units A, B, or C or to the existing garage parking areas. The requested additions require the conditional use permit approval as a major expansion of a non - conforming structure. The proposed additions to the first floor include (1) a pop -out from 3' to 5.5' in depth, creating an expansion of approximately 140 square feet at the rear of the residence to expand the kitchen area and create an entertainment center area. The rear wall will move out 3 feet or 5.5 feet, depending on the area being expanded; (2) a remodel of the existing single story interior area to move the existing three bedrooms and bathroom to the proposed second story addition, and the creation of a family room, dining room, kitchen, and bathroom in the remodeled first floor living area; (3) a new interior stairway to the proposed second floor; and (4) a covered roof access structure to the proposed roof deck. The remodeled first floor would contain approximately 1,575 square feet. The proposed second floor addition includes a master bedroom/bathroom suite, one additional bedroom, a bathroom, and a study /library area. The proposed second -story addition will cantilever 4' at the Electric Avenue frontage past the existing front of the single story structure and cantilever 2.5 feet past the new rear kitchen wall. The proposed second -story addition would follow the existing 7 -foot alley setback of the current single -story structure. The total size of the 02 -16 1210 Electnc Avenue.PC Staff Report 4 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 proposed second floor living area is 1,752 square feet, with the proposed roof deck area containing 497 square feet. The number of bedrooms would be decreased from three to two. The height of the proposed residence complies with the 25 -foot height limit in the RHD Zone, including the height of the required guardrail on the proposed roof deck. Please refer to the discussion following regarding the Height Variation request for the height issues regarding the proposed covered roof access structure. The street side yard setback in the RHD Zone is 15% of the lot width. Since this lot is trapezoidal in shape, the side yard setback is determined by 15% of the average lot width, determined by adding the front and rear yard dimensions and dividing by two. In this case the required street side yard setback is 7.25 feet. The existing buildings are setback between 8 and 12 feet, with the proposed second story cantilever of the subject property being setback 7.5 feet from the street side property line, which will comply with the current setback requirement. The interior side yard setback is required to be 4.85 feet, and the existing interior side yard setback for all of the structures is 5 feet. The existing front and rear yard setbacks are nonconforming. The front yard setback is an average of 12 -feet with a 6 -foot minimum setback. The existing front yard setback is 7.5 -feet. The required rear yard setback adjacent to the alley is 9 -feet to allow for a total of a 24 -foot turning area for garage access purposes. In this case, there is no garage along the alley, and the current rear yard setback is 7 feet. The staff report for Conditional Use Permit 2 -77 also indicates the above discussed front and rear yard setbacks as existing at that time. Review of fade Provisions re: Expansion of Nonconforming Structures: Section 28- 2407(3) and (4) of the Cade permits major structural alterations, enlargements or expansions to legal, nonconforming residential structures, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit, provided all requirements of the chapter are met excluding density, required setback for existing legal non - conforming garages, and parking requirements. The proposed addition consists of 2 bedrooms (a net decrease of 1 bedroom) and 3.0 bathrooms (net increase of 2.0 bathrooms). Through the CUP process no increase in the number of bedrooms is permitted and bathrooms may be added with no limits or ratio. Those standards are met with the subject application. The residence at 1210 Electric Avenue has an existing rear yard setback of 7 feet from the alley, while 9 feet is required. The Code allows a second story area to project into the required rear• yard setback up to %z of the required setback, in this case 4.5 feet. The proposed projection into 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 5 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 the rear yard setback is 2 feet, complying with the second story allowable projection. The existing 7 -foot setback adjacent to the alley for the single -story living space will not be changed. Hei ght Variation• Project Overview: The applicant is proposing a covered roof access structure -at the rear of 1210 Electric Avenue, adjacent to the southerly property line. The proposed covered roof access structure is proposed to be 4 feet wide and 15 feet in length, with a height to the top of the roof at 32 feet. The proposed roof style is similar in nature to that of the proposed second story addition. Review of Code Provisions re: Height Variation: In general the rode of the City of Se 21 Beach, (Cnde) states that no building or structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is located. However, Section 28- 2317(4) provides for height variations for non - habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317(4)(A) states: "Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7') if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section." The height limit for structures on the subject property, which is located in the Residential High Density zone, RHD, of Planning District I is 25 feet. The maximum height elevation of the proposed CRAS is approximately 32 feet. The proposed height is within the seven -foot (7') allowance provided for a non - habitable architectural feature under Section 28- 2317(4). In addition to the overall height requirement previously discussed, the Planning Commission, in reviewing an application for a Height Variation, shall consider criteria set forth in Section 28- 2317(4)(C) and make findings pursuant to said review. Said criteria is stated in Section 28- 2317(4)(C)(1) as follows: "(1)... In reviewing an application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following criteria and make findings thereon: (a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the building. 02 -16 1210 Electnc Avenue PC Staff Report 6 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 (1) Whether all roofing materials of a covered stairwell to an open roof deck are in substantial conformity with the roofing materials of the remainder of the structure. (ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is located along peripheral exterior walls of the structure. (iii)Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the minimum area, both horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover the stairwell. (b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. (c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any property located within 300 feet. (d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work" . - ; •frog, T,ocntion and Si7P • In considering an application for a Height Variation, the Planning Commission may take into consideration the architectural style of the non - habitable architectural feature as it applies to the style of the overall structure. The materials used in this construction will be in substantial conformity with the materials used in the construction of the rest of the house. This proposal will be in substantial compliance with the character of the new construction of this particular house, and there are many Minor Height Variation approvals within the "Old Town" and Surfside areas of the City. The Code permits what the applicant is proposing, subject to the finding that the proposal is consistent with the integrity of the neighborhood. If the Planning Commission were to find that this proposal was not significantly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, this application could be denied. The third factor of architectural review is whether or not the proposed projection will in any way impair the primary view of any neighboring resident. The application as proposed is not within the City Council adopted Policy Statement of 1991 (Attached for review). The maximum allowable square footage under that Policy Statement is 38 square feet for a "straight run" staircase, with the proposal being for 60 square feet. The difference in the square footage is due to the increased length of the proposed covered roof access structure, 15 feet, as opposed to the City standard of 9.5 feet. Staff would recommend approval subject to the size of the covered roof access structure being reduced to comply with the adopted City standard of 4 feet wide by 9.5 feet long. Further, the proposed roof line treatment is not the minimum necessary to comply with the provisions of the Building Code, and it is recommended that the overall height of the covered roof access structure not exceed 30 feet, which will reduce the height of the covered roof access structure from the proposed 32 feet to 30 feet. These modifications will bring the 02- 16.1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 7 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 proposed covered roof access structure into full compliance with the language of Section 2317(4)(C)(1)(a)(iii), as discussed above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, approve Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5, subject to conditions. C unditinnnl the Permit 02 -16. Staffs recommendation regarding CUP 02 -16 is based upon the following: ❑ The granting of CUP 02 -16 is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan which indicate the subject property is to be used for high density residential purposes, which includes legally nonconforming residences. ❑ The buildings and property at 1210 Electric Avenue adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property. ❑ There is no change in the number of units proposed on the property, and the number of bedrooms in the residence at 1210 Electric Avenue is not being increased over the existing number of bedrooms. ❑ All feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. ❑ Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. ❑ The proposed addition is in keeping with the requirements of Section 28- 2407(A)(3) and Section 28- 2407(A)(4) of The Uncle of the City of Sen1 Tench, as the subject property is nonconforming due to density, inadequate setbacks for a legal nonconforming garage, and parking. ❑ The property complies with all other development standards of the City as set forth in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 02- 40, with the following conditions in place: 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 8 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 1. Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 is approved for a major addition/remodel to a nonconforming residence located at 1210 Electric Avenue. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition and a 497 square foot roof deck at 1210 Electric. 2. All construction shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. 3. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through CUP 02- 16. 4. This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department, and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 5. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 6. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. Recommendation re: Height Variation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relative testimony presented during the public hearing on Height Variation 02 -5, conditionally approve this request. 02- 16.1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 9 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 Staff's recommendation is based on the following: o Height Variation 02 -5 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits multi- family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. o The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roofing materials and siding matching those of the remainder of the structure. ❑ The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood and permissible by code. ❑ No habitable living space is provided within the structure. ❑ The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Height Variation 02 -5 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the height limit at 1210 Electric Avenue. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 02 -5, with the following modifications: Cl The size of the covered roof access structure shall be reduced to comply with the adopted City standard of 4 feet wide by 9.5 feet long. ❑ The overall height of the covered roof access structure shall not exceed 30 feet. 3. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 02 -16 1210 Electnc Avenue PC Staff Report 10 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. %/% ee Whittenberg Director of Development Servic - : Attachments (5): Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 02 -40, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Conditional Use Permit 02 -16, to Perform a Major Remodel and Addition to an Existing Legal, Non - Conforming 4 -Unit Building at 1210 Electric Avenue Attachment 2: Proposed Resolution No. 02 -41, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Height Variation 02 -5, to Permit a Covered Roof Access Structure at 1210 Electric Avenue Attachment 3: Application Attachment 4: Plans Attachment 5: Code Sections 02 -16 1210 Electnc Avenue PC Staff Report 1 1 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 02 -40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16, TO PERFORM A MAJOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING LEGAL, NON - CONFORMING 4 -UNIT BUILDING AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE 02- 16.1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Repoli 12 Condztional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02 -16, TO PERFORM A MAJOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN , EXISTING LEGAL, NON - CONFORMING 4 -UNIT BUILDING AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH _DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SPrtion 1. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5. The applicant is proposing to perform a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. The property is nonconforming due to: ❑ Density; there are now 4 units on the property and the lot size would currently permit 2 units on the property; ❑ Inadequate parking; there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking spaces would be required for 4 living units on a lot. - ❑ Front yard setback: the required front yard setback is 12 feet and the existing structure is setback 7.5 fee; and ❑ Rear yard setback; the required rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing structure is setback 7 feet. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition . . and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition at 1210 Electric Avenue. No changes are proposed to Units A, B, or C or to the existing garage parking areas. The requested additions require the conditional use permit approval as a major expansion of a non - conforming structure. Sertion 7 Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 13 Conduzonal Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Sertion 1 A duly noticed hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 6, 2002 to consider Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 Section 4 The record of the hearing indicates the following: a. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height • Variation 02 -5. b. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the constniction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition at 1210 Electric Avenue. No changes are proposed to Units A, B, or C or to the existing garage parking areas. The requested additions require the conditional use permit approval as a major expansion of a non - conforming structure. c. The applicant is proposing to perform a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4 -unit residential structure located at 1210 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. The property is nonconforming due to: ❑ Density; there are now 4 units on the property and the lot size would currently permit 2 units on the property; ❑ Inadequate parking; there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking spaces would be required for 4 living units on a lot. ❑ Front yard setback: the required front yard setback is 12 feet and the existing structure is setback 7.5 fee; and ❑ Rear yard setback; the required rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing structure is setback 7 feet. d. The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199 - 076 -27, is located in the Residential High Density zone (RHD). e. The subject property is an irregular 'shaped parcel having 30.20 feet of • frontage on Thirteenth Street, being 117.50 feet in depth. The property has approximately 67 feet of depth along the rear alley. The property is approximately 5,821 square feet in area and contains a single -story living unit (1210 Electric Avenue) and three apartments and four off - street parking spaces. 02- 16.1210 Electnc Avenue PC Staff Report 14 Condznonal Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02-5 • 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 f. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: SOUTH, EAST & WEST Residential Housing located in a Residential High Density zone NORTH Public open space in the Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone. g. In response to the mailed and published notice of this hearing staff has received no responses, written or oral, to this request as of October 30, 2002. - Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2407 & 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Cod, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Conditional Use Permit 02 -15 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent .with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The building and property are adequate in size, shape, and topography to meet the proposed use for the land. (c) There is no change in the number of units proposed on the property, and the number of bedrooms in the residence at 1210 Electric Avenue is not being increased over the existing number of bedrooms. (d) All feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. (e) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use. • (f) The proposed addition is in keeping with the requirements of Section 28- 2407(A)(3) and Section 28- 2407(A)(4) of The Code of the City of Seal Reach, as the subject property is nonconforming due to density, inadequate setbacks for a legal nonconforming garage, and parking. 0246 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff' Report 15 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 (g) The property complies with all other development standards of the City as set -forth in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. ,Section h . Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 02 -16, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 is approved for a major addition/remodel to a nonconforming residence located at 1210 Electric Avenue. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot second floor addition and a 497 square foot roof deck at 1210 Electric. 2. All construction shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. 3. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through CUP 02- 16. 4. This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 5. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 6. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions - arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC StatTReport 16 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners • ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D., Chairman Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission 02- 16.1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 17 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 02 -41, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING _ COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, TO . ' PERMIT A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE 02- 16.1210 Electric Avenue.PC StatTReport 18 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 RESOLUTION NUMBER 02 - 41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION . OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 02 -5, TO PERMIT A • COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE AT 1210 ELECTRIC AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: ,Section 1. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5. The applicant is proposing a covered roof access structure at the rear of 1210 Electric Avenue; adjacent to the southerly property line. The proposed covered roof access structure is proposed to be 4 feet wide and 15 feet in length, with a height to the top of the roof at 32 feet. The proposed roof style is similar in nature to that of the proposed second story addition. Section 7 . Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § ILA of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application Height Variation 02 -5 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section '. The record of the hearing of November 6, 2002 indicates the following: . a. On October 2, 2002, Seta Ghazarian (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height , Variation 02 -5. b. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to construct non - habitable architectural features comprising higher roof elevations in excess of the 25 -foot maximum height limit, but 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 19 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 within the allowable architectural feature height provision of 32 feet, in conjunction with a proposed major addition to a nonconforming residential structure at 1210 Electric Avenue. c. The Code of the City of Seal Beach The C'nde of the City of Seal Ruch, (Cade) states that no building or structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is located. However, Section 28- 2317(4) provides for height variations for non - habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317(4)(A) states: "Scope: Non- habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7 ) if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section." d. The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199 - 076 -27, is located in the Residential High Density zone (RHD). e. The height limit for structures on the subject property, which is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, is 25 feet. The maximum height elevations of the proposed architectural features are 32 feet. The maximum proposed height is within the seven- _ foot (7') allowance provided for a non - habitable architectural feature under Section 28- 2317(4). f. The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel having 30.20 feet of frontage on Thirteenth Street, being 117.50 feet in depth. The property has approximately 67 feet of depth along the rear alley. The property is approximately 5,821 square feet in area and contains a single -story living unit (1210 Electric Avenue) and three apartments and four off - street parking spaces. g. - The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: SOUTH, EAST & WEST Residential Housing located in a Residential High Density zone NORTH Public open space in the Public Land • Use/Recreation (PLU /R) Zone. h. In response to the mailed and published notice of this hearing staff has received no responses, written or oral, to this request as of October 30, 2002. - 02 -16 1 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 20 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 Section 4 . Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §3 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2317 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. Height Variation 02 -5 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits multi - family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. . 2. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roofing materials and siding matching those of the remainder of the structure. 3. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood and permissible by code. 4. No habitable living space is provided within the structure. 5. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned for approval, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation No. 02 -5, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height Variation 02 -5 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the height limit at 1210 Electric Avenue. 2. All- construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 02 -5, with the following modifications: ❑ The size of the covered roof access structure shall be reduced to comply with the adopted City standard of 4 feet wide by 9.5 feet long. ❑ The overall height of the covered roof access structure shall not exceed 30 feet. . 3. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of 02 -16 1210 Electnc Avenue PC Staff Report 21 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 4. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and . costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners _ NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAN: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission , 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 22 • Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT 3 APPLICATION 02- 16.1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 23 Application for: (Check one or , Conditional Use Permit (CUP,) , • 1 21:„:' 1 :': Minor Plan Review (MPR) „ • , ' CITY OF SEAL BEACH ❑ Height Variation (H ❑ • T, ; Vanance(VAR) ', : PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION ❑ • GP'A/Zorie Change Date Filed: • • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY • ; Application No.: ( . 4 ' . U -- ` In • • Resolution No.: • Planning Commission Date: Date Complete: 1. Property Address: , y 2. County Assessor's Parcel No: 3. Applicant's Name: 0 — A +■) Address: 'i 1� Q�4v ,-O�r �tierr(�f._ ALL. I°el5` — Phone: Work ('3z3) +4-4 Mobile: PPZ) I S FAX: ( ) Home: ( ) 4: Property Owner's Name: 12_111 A » Address: /Sei �G Home Phone: ' - — 5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: 12_ 4 6. Present Use of Property: ��-') F xja— lJ N..10 7. Proposed Use of Property: (4-) v__ 0 Nit iS 8. Request For. a 6 , 05 - f Do i + 1 0,J • 1 S. 2-N Fl ,e)c)a- - 1T0 rod _ / Ipp rc . q �v z, (713 9. Describe the Proposed Use: MVbu t_ri F-f3,wl4r(., S 16.13•C'l 10. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: 1 - ; s A p p,rr 1 0) !Jrt., � • i C p apC'7EtZ. � r - H O N - r.11.% t 1c.x ct Page 7 Rev. 2100 11. Describe how and if the approval of this Unclassified Use Permit would be detrimental in any way to other property in the vicinity: pros cc L J 'i LL. Nli c_A-t -n "9 e. 0 YL kA i +vi c i tA- O i 7 12. Proof of Ownership Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by the applicant. or Signed and notarized Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to the application. 13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): C S , rrA _ By: (Signature of cant) (Signature of Applicant) Ct7�,tr',avi (Pint Name) (Pint Name) (Date) , (Date) • :: ; f . For Office Use Only - This is to certify that I have inspected the foregoing application and found it to be thorough and complete: It conforms to the rules of the City of Seal Beach goveming the filing of an application for an Unclassified Use Permit Application (Print Name)' • (Signature) • - (Print Title) (Date) Page 8 Rev. 2/00 Environmental information and Checklist Form • For Office Use Only • Application No.: Date Filed: General Information 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor: - Name: Address: va L P.-.e-.to City: c ►,.o �� ,�. , ,� ' State: - Zip: a( o'1 So Telephone: t$'la'Z_. FAX: 2. Address of Project: 2t 0 Cn1C_. A4 Assessor's Parcel Number.,* 3. Name and address of Project Contact Person: Name: ��� (�i•i -o �_n tJ%� Address: I A -11, ri_ � 071 City: ► :-.�� State: <./a A. Zip: Telephone: G&_,-2_75 FAX: 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies : aevie-Y2 1e /sio 5. Existing zoning: Existing General Plan: /2-1 6. Proposed use of site: M �1T f Nl ti �-�► (4-) l ? +�-1 i - - Ems+- -� 1. ( Page 11 Rev. 2/00 Project Description 7. Site size (square footage): S j .47 8. Square footage of proposed Project: ( I of Sz_ Ekj 9. Number of floors of construction: ( --ice -L • 10. Amount of off - street parking provided: (4- F 11. Plans (attach) ✓ 12. Proposed scheduling: N / 13. Associated projects: pi A 14. Anticipated incremental development: j.T�/�- 15. For residential projects, indicate the: A. Number of units: (4-) �k any _ B. Unit sizes: C. Range of sale prices or rents: kjtp- D. Household size(s) expected: (4.) a 16. For commercial projects, indicate the: A. Type of project: fJ B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally orien ed: ,ti /4 C. Square footage of sales areas: N /�j D. Size of loading facilities: - N/19 17. For industrial projects, indicate the: A. Type of project: 4J�4 B. Estimated employment per shift: /U /,1 C. Size of loading facilities: /(J 4 18. For institutional projects, indicate the: A. Major function: Y4 B. Estimated employment per shift: i4i n- Page 12 Rev. 2/00 C. Estimated occupancy: /1 /� A D. Size of loading facilities: 11/ /Z E. Community benefits derived from th project: ,N/;a- 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit/unconditional use permit, height variation or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: (_,r,,v, ,r7v,,.ra J7. .s/79//2. LIJ #LL- L s' - r �`G r Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours? 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 28. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal service Face 13 Rev. 2ro0 (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 30. Substantially increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting 32. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 33. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Environmental impacts (Please explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers on separate sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 34. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovenng of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? YES MAYBE NO Page 14 Rev. 2100 f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? , g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ^/ ground failure, or similar hazards? cx 35. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? K b. The creation of objectionable odors? - c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 36. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. . Changes in currents, or the course or • direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? K b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alteration to the course or flow of flood waters? _ K d. Change in amount of surface water in any water body? K e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or l/ turbidity? J� f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Page 15 Rev. 2/00 YES MAYBE NO g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? l h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Y-. i. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as f flooding or tidal waves? J j. Significant changes in the' temperature, flow or chemical content of surface thermal springs? . 37. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic •. plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? \L_ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 38. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: \ a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, and animals including reptiles, •fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects and microfauna)? Page 16 Rev. 2)00 YES .MAYBE NO b. Reduction of the numbers of any . unique, rare or endangered species n or animals? VY c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barner to the migration or movement J of animals' 3( d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ____.,- 39. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? 1 b. Exposure of people to server noise levels? 40. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 41. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. 42. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 43. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the even of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Page 17 Rev. 2/00 YES MAYBE NO 44. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 45. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 46. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? 4- b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 47. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? Page 18 Rev. 2/00 YES MAYBE NO 48. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 49. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water damage? f. • Solid waste and disposal? 50. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure or people to potential health hazards? 51. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 52. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? ✓�' Page 19 Rev. 2/00 YES MAYBE NO b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic 4*----- cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? r. 54. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. - Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the . environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal • . community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant and animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? C ' ' \V b. Does the project have the potential . to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) > Page 20 Rev. 2100 YES MAYBE NO c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may affect two are more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the ��/ environment is significant.) JC d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • Page 21 Rev. 2/00 This page left intentionally blank • Page 22 Rev. 2100 NOTE: Before a Lead Agency can accept this application as complete, the applicant must consult the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and submit a signed statement indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and shall specify any list. Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Govemment Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following information: 1. Name of applicant ` �k - ( /1i--....j 2. Street:: 1 1 o p-- 0 0 44 3. City: S 1 L- V-1-1 L.-kJ 4. Zip Code: of 0 c,4 i 5. Phone Number: Co 2- SO Z-- — 1 S (0 6. Address of site (street and zip): 1 Zi.J rc - ' c'*AL- c? . 7. Local Agency (city /county): 8. Assessor's Parcel Number. 9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Govemment Code: Al 4 10. Regulatory identification number: 11. Date of list:: 1 Date: 7 -<-/- 0 Z Signature: �," o � 6x-Att-4-9 Applicant: Se 2 6t4 7 ct r,a vi . Page 23 Rev. 2/00 -- NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the applicant must certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Govemment Code and hereby certify that the development project and any altematives proposed in this application are not contained on these lists. Date: Signature: Applicant: • Page 24 Rev. 2/00 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANS 02- 16.1210 Electnc Avenue.PC Staff Report 24 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 r ATTACHMENT 5 CODE SECTIONS Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 : Section 9R-7407 Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and i Jses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 3. Major Structural Alterations, Fnlarg ments or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density and the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports and exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback, are satisfied: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions of ten percent (10 %) or more of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structures interior walls. 4. Major Stnichiral Alterations, Fnlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this Chapter excluding density and parking are satisfied. The following expansions and enlargements may be approved provided the parcel is nonconforming due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions greater than ten 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue.PC Staff Report 25 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. (c) The number of bedrooms may not be increased. (d) Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. Section 7R - '501 Conditional Ilse Permits May Re Granted. The Planning Commission may grant a conditional use permit in the case of an application for a use which is required to be reviewed and conditioned prior to approval so as to insure compatibility with surrounding uses and the community in general and the General Plan. ,Section 7R - 7504 Purpose of Conditional' T lse Permit. The purpose of a conditional use permit shall be to insure proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. Height Variation 02 -5: Sec 2R Building Height T.imitS. ... (4) Height Variation For Non - Habitable Architectural Features. A. Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets•(not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of 7 feet if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section. B. Procedure: (1) Any person desiring to apply for a Minor Height Variation Permit shall complete and fill out and submit an application, required plans and property owners list to the Director of Planning together with payment of the minor plan review fee 14 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. (2) Notice of the application for a minor height variation shall be given to all property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property. C. Review: 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Staff Report 26 Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue Planning Commission Staff Report November 6, 2002 1) The Planning Commission may at a scheduled public hearing approve or disapprove such application, subject to any conditions deemed appropriate. In reviewing an application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following criteria and make findings thereon: (a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the building. (i) Whether all roofing materials of a covered stairwell to an open roof deck are in substantial conformity with the roofing materials of the remainder of the structure. (ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is located along peripheral exterior walls of the structure. (iii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the minimum area, both horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover the stairwell. (b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. • (c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any property located within 300 feet. (d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work. (2) The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, which in order to grant a permit, must determine that the findings set forth in this section have been met by the applicant. (3) Any one appealing a decision of the Planning Commission must file a written request, together with the appeal fee within 10 calendar days after the decision is made * * * * 02 -16 1210 Electric Avenue PC Stair Report 27 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 5 WRITTEN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 6 IN OPPOSITION TO CUP 02 -16 AND HV 02 -5 31 October 28, 2002 City of Seal Beach 211 8 Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Planning Commission: We are in receipt of a notice for a public hearing to be held on November 6, 2002 regarding the request by the owner (Seta Ghazarian) of 1210 Electric Ave. to add additional square footage to the existing apartment building and to construct a covered roof access, which will exceed the city's height limit by 7 feet. Please be advised that we DO NOT approve of the owner's request for either the additional square footage or the construction of a covered roof access. The City's building requirements and restrictions are to protect its residents from construction that would not be beneficial to the community. Parking is already a serious problem in our City and the requested construction would not help solve this problem. Also, since our home is across the street from these apartments, we would be faced with a view of a tower 32 feet high if the owner is permitted the variance for the covered roof access. We sincerely hope that the Planning Commission will reject this request. Yours truly, j,f'Se �-..- John Bonacci, Jr. Linda R. Bonacci Owners 1215 Electric Ave. MY OF SEAL BEACH ()Cr 2SG2 DERAT ;,;ENT OF DEVELOP ;,.ENT SERVICES Statement to the Planning Commission 6 November 2002 Conditional Use Permit 2 -16 '4- e2 - /S We, Roger and Geraldine West, oppose the granting of this permit. The intent of the ordinances enacted in 1969 by the elected and appointed representatives increasing the garage requirement to two per unit was done to first, retain the residential character of OId Town, second, mitigate the parking problem we had at the time - the parking problem we still struggle with. At that time there were many hours of public hearings and many hours of testimony by the residents and property owners in OId Town. We were there. We testified. Gordon, you were there, too. We, in effect, asked that our own property be effectively downzoned to our econimic disadvantage for what we felt was the betterment of the community. The intent of the legislation was to discourage the upgrading of existing non - conforming structures so that as their economic life expired, new conforming structures would then replace them. Instead you are allowing these non confoirming structures to be upgraded. You are extending their economic life. You are compounding the density and parking problem. This particular piece of property was one of the many which was allowed to be built under the old garage requirements during the moritorium period. Since there is a problem balancing the budget. We would like to make a suggestion. Why not just eliminate the Department of Development Services. This should allow just about enough money to balance the budget. Why bother to make any rules and regulations if anyone who wants anything can just go to the Department of Development Services and have them find a way to give them what they want no matter what policy decisions were made in the past. We'd balance the budget, lower taxes, all of you up there wouldn't have to be here going through this charade and Roger and I could go home and go to bed. If you do grant it CUP 2 -16 we may appeal to the City Council. We believe that in the event we were not successful there we probably would have standing in court fo ,peal based on our testimony in 1969 and the downzoning our property in Old Town at that time. City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal California Ca 90740 October 25 2002 Re: Coaiditi al Use 02 -16 And Height yariation 02 -05 12I0 Electriq Avenue Dear Planning Commissioners Corner of EIctric & 13 St We the pr owners surretending &I s project op�se this propos ma 'or addition to this 4 unit existing buildinn because _thev are over expanding by almost 58% of the exitint square footage. We also should not allow roof access (roof doghouses) to any legal non- c- nforming . irrcorne property. This has not been allowed on.any legal non- conformin4 income structure in our area. The conditional use permits that were issued and stated in this report are 4nale 1'ar�i occupancy The city has been very generous in allowing owners to add additional square footage to buildings without the required parking on Legal Non Conforming properties Parking at this location of course does not conform. The double garage in front is usually not available due to cars parking in front ofthisgarage and partly r n the sidewalk easements. See pictures attached. I The rear of this property also has a block wall between the building and the alley running the full length of the rear property. This is not.cnmpatible with the other buildings that are set back 9 feet. Also the Garbage & Trash containers protrude into th ' alley area. This should be corrected to prevent obstructing alleytra#I'ic See Pictures ttached Since alt the set backs in this proposed structure are peon - ,conforming th s Conditional Use permits should not be approved We wish that you would disapprove this proposed conditional use and h iglu variation permit Res? fully ours 6 4 / 71. U " --- a ..46-.-- ‘ - '' IP . ( / . � ' „.., xec�n., _ ` v 1.. 4. h. , c ! , 0 er,„, rxtu i �`'. / 3 th S - t S.ea,fi I Eccc 1 /-2.,z-s--f t ---,,,..--„,,........A...." /27-,_5„--. ..,_,. 0.,,....,- • . - 4 ' ' .% n•-• 4 r‘: 1 1% . IC 1 • --• ! ' ‘•*.‘‘ 1 .3 ..: . • . it .d ..1 ■.!, C: . .1.-- ...: - . , -, 1 .• ..e. • .. . ,.. • ,... .. ‘, .... • .... ,.. : , ' • .• i • -- L .....- 1 • % - ''' 1 - ...• • , - •Ild *MI , ,_74..i'Llit • - • +V_ 4 4 • ' I - . 4 _ • , ■ - 7. • ., .44. It; „ , i-11 . --•- •T .r,------ — ' - - -- - - . - . ,„'1 :' ' .-' •-„-:' • -,-, ''' WIZ* - ' - r-14 ' i MIR ' • , - I -' - i " - "Ai.••• , ' 1 " ,- r •• %' - ^' ,f, ,- N., ail 1 ' ' '':". : 1/4,. - " I A s . 1 - '41 la III ' • INE ielt - tilk 4 . ,. . -' : , ,, • lim- , ! r-r - "1/4' - • . _; " t . -...• , • . ? ti 7- 4 ' i-:' ,,_ . -,_, : A, i; - •••; : - - ii . - k ','. f :4-' , T,-, •■ ii .. q' , , , t ... --'., ,' : 4'.:4, t ''''-' 't • - - • • City of Seal Beach 211 8 Street Seal California Ca 90740 October 25 2002 Re: Conditional Use 02 -45 And Height l`ariation 02 -05 1210 Electric! venue Dear Planning Commissioners Corner of E11ctric & l3 St I I We the ., ro ■ owners surronndin this , tied : , se this ire ., ;s `.t en addition to this 4 emit ex isting buil siing ,ecause aey nre Aver exuand- g by almost 50% of the exiting sonare Foot e. We also should not allow roof access f..roofdoguusessxe legal non- ctnt'orming incomproverty. This has not been allowed on any legal not onforrninl. incorue structure in our area. , The conditional use permits that were issued and stated in this report are . ogle family 1 occupancy. _ The city has been very generous- in allowing owners to add additional sqtzare footage to buildings without the required parking on Legal.Nnn Confirming properties. Parking at-this locution of cot rse does not eonferat. The double gzeagf.I in front is usually not available due to cars parking in frontstfhis g rAge and partly I on the sidewalk easements. See pictures attached. The rear of this property also has a block wall between the building and t e alley running the .fall length of the rear property. This is not ale with the other ridings that are set back 9 feet. Also the Garbage & Trash containers protrude into alley area. This should be corrected to prevent ntoructingalley trn +tic. See Pictures !attached. Since di the setbacks in this proposed structure are non-conforming this Conditional Use permits should not be approved We wish Mat you would disapprove this premed conditional use and le bht variation :: 1IYYos (41 �2& t .� vim - - 1.1 *� Q `--A ---"7 ..__.____ _ - -- -- • (-1 1,_ I , . �11��`l� C I L.J�_ , �rs. (' cc. INN al". ' \ \� c: '1 el4TArbtAd-&17 1 ...0.fr- /77,4 ,_ -.r"1 r 'k ---- , ,..,_... „, .... .. .. s. ...... . ......•■„, .;. laleg - a , I , , , , • • ,P. , ; * ',:is ■ .■114 4 a, ', • 4 ..;•? • • 4 ... 1. t • 1.1 111111 - -- TINT7Inflif _ - ' ■ ' , , , k • .wil i ... ., • ilit•-- , , f V•P 4, : 1 C "1 ` ' 1 • 1 ' ; 1 ' \ i•• 1 • . s P A 1. 4'14 f 7q 1 e 4 1 . ; ' ,4t1-, 4 ' ; I .: • , ' ) ' 2 ' 1 _-_,Iiii . Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 6 SUMMARY OF MINOR PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR EXPANSIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES —1985 to 2002 • 32 C N " N - . n O j C O • N y c•1 0 > > _ O O CI Q ` , Q Q Q v '^ m m u) m III C) � C = N 0 CV a� 0 ci G M o F— -(a 5 lb t.) p ° _ °.- = Q o C N o • ..- re *k o�g J� UO M N- � j Q-I ac, o 0 Ce . -- E- > 1. W >aw Lac co �� wo_ a cts "'c0.- c �/� a - as L. a Z c� 0 m L ' 0 0 ix a L. -1 n o Ocy c -co CL Co iii c13 Q a cn , m iri Z . � G. � N o ai o o zy o a W 0 c c ° a o °' c �' o M Z cn �' = o ca. > m�0 0 > ❑ m U Q. $) o q3 v ._ 0� V c o o J Z Co C 2 E -e O 0 c a LL E . < x ° E o) < 0a `o °o,� °c�o0) o c 5 °'° Z V C 4) Q o al 4 C . r c . 0 Z ° c 03 E ,� m o 0 a v Q. ,„t- 4.. c o C- o .c o a m o c ° 0 Q 0 Z z , ; Y m e � ai Z .- 6- a) o a 0 �U� W � � Q��Z� W Q CL 0 Z O o _ �. Z o2S N fn Q N = != N t = N N= t C a N O �. N O r' - 0 N N p. 0) N O. W Q N CO re 0 LL cn co # 1- 1 41 O O N RS a a U D D 0 0 o - S Es2 -0 -0 - -c 7 o$\ o g g o 0 / % 2 2 2 2 k \/ % k k 0- 0- �.uks « « « « \ \ 4) \ f\ /� §��a o 3 3 0 L.)7 G q ƒ o : \ / -- 0 0 a % & o \\ A- m '9 Q. 9 A- 1 • _ �/ 0 0 Z 0 \ \ % ® . � \ � oz 2 cu \ k / d 0 Q o o E Cr) o .Q • � 0 § o 2 2k c 0 C c o ®.§ k § ¢ g% : k % g g 6 2 2 o . az c d �2� — % g la �0 E , 2 0 2 E c 2 2 2 E a k c% 2 E en 3 § • \ \ § 0 % \ k 3 / \ 7 § @ @ � 6 @ \ : la c 2% • o c 3 ` ƒ >,. k % c« q c @cm « m 2 � \1< 77 H < k Q. 2 R N.: 2 @% k 2 3 ƒ§ 2 2 2 A k o 0 ��\ 0@§ o � k 0- O E o �� c A co a- t E 7 0 E 2 / o� 2_ 2 ƒ 0 c c° o a 0 0 0 0 @ « � &5 o m- L. o@ g n X 2 2 § 2 2 g 2 § J k Z a a 2 k k k 3 2 . 2 - k k . 0 k . a k \ k k q %@' �:6 = k © c -0 k % Q � t @ k@ • 2 2 m 2 2 2 ¢ 2 Q a Qƒ q a @ > n a > c k c a / 0 • u) 't a) w 0 k o - \ o o ° 0 � ° -� q 2 7 7 9 0 3 0 0 O 0 2 2 o h r N -p - c O j CD a) O N m ,, ] >O co 2 p c\ 0 2 0. a e ' c p ��.0 Q 0. Q Z , C) U O O O O i ' 9 O U U N p O C4 C ' N CO .0 C b o 1- O "+ O - N O M 1 N R O O O ao c • I... o t • , p ° c „ U a -0 c D a) - a) z tC) `° Q a a >, a a) as N, a) m u) co C -Q C i L c c ` •1 co ° °' 3 E Ii ?, -C m i,i a I z U . as C co C c X -t t ' o E o o _ CIS p � C13 '� :_ , a � - a3 a t om ° i5 E E c c c'' ° iri .5 3 c m 0 o a ° o - a 0 c N a ' = c ' o �. > m U o t U a a x i � � U t)c ' ° O c C CU ,Q k C .n„ Q C ca 0 0" 0 a3 E Q 1. 0 la) E .a Q a° E 0 -. a v • a ;°�� o " ES o Las 0 to 0 3 0 0 o Q m c z • • m u) C c a) o'° 0 L :L CD E -•-� ° c .. a ° ° C a c c a' ° o � ° O c 0 o co O 0 . a) a N 4 Z a m N a) c a3 cs3 c a) as a; L 0 c as a) a3 S —° -E c a a) z a a c C a Q. ° j v� a z X. •w •.-' a3 . .X O a) W co ° ° 'x Q )i a) W L ) 0 . 7"‹ _ 'v' i w Q a) 03 w CC w CC c as c c o ca c .� a) c) U o N N 0 O C Q- O C Q- O to = o ti 7 0 ` r v Cl. to c. O 0 • co 7 ' O O O O O a II D D 2 U 0 0 »/ \2 \ 1:3 \ ) \ o 2 2 2 %)\ / a 0. a a := 2- a a a a. �ct�s « « « « - 2 a z. £ & - W % 2 _ .4 2 2Q \ : 9 0 9 0) L G 4 G N r- •, 0 0 0 ƒ2 -• \ \\ q q e - J \ R R 0 . k /z \ A - /\ 2 2 °E L. 2 2 a/ a) 0 2 > @ ca Q o / % ] k 2 @ a) 7 2 2 A 2 = ...- E 0) @2 - q Q k§ a E o O. k 3 § 0 k k § Q. R/ E 0 2 2 k 3 / 2 ? 'm ® % / / = o % k / E A o @ 2 CO u- 0 @ 2@ o U% L ® U n \ O § 2© ° Q. 0 R c a ® q c§ co/ c 2 E-E c.- a %« A k 01 « § . 7 < o A < 3 _ 0 m c 2- E /® 2 c a./ 0 L • c -a / § k = @ q "C w = 3 a) - c k ® 2 c 13 0 0 Q -Q c-- 0- co k § 2 2 7 3 ) a o Z k - 0 c 7 0) § o g E 2 / 7 0) � E/ '.....C- k \ 0t % 2 2 R k 2 6 % E x 0 / ®% k 6 5 2 w W e , sK « a Q omƒ W- n � q � Ili Ix @ $ c � § c o o � o m G 2 t 3 2= � t O 0 7 2 7 2 7 c 0) � \ c0 �a 04 0. 2 �a � � # n n ° R S R as ƒ D ƒ ƒ 2 0 2 2 o » 2 - 2 o 2 \ 2 % 2& \ § / { 9 ! 2 k y @ Z. 4�� a a a. U " J Z m ` C. C. « 2� / �/ « & � .k 2 � ' � % 0) 0) 0) 9 / - 0 ƒ ƒ c) cp / \ 1-- 0 4 0 \ _ o R \ -- � 7 �\ ƒ ¢ k 2 k7 \ \ @ a 6 2o wz . 3 �k\ / ti- �� \ G a 0 % : 2 % k 2 = 2 @ 1:3 _ E E c § § c CD Ca § E k. 0 in § 2 o k . 0 d k c U o k k % w k ± 2 ® \ % O k \ k k 3 k k 7 0 _ k § 2$ 2 § ® @ t @ 2@ z Z� E co • c 2 = 7 a c A c A %: 2 2 2 E T, « 7 « 6 «_ co 0 E k « 0 k 2 t 0 ® 0 2 0 c- -0 k / 0 ' §/. ® 0 ?� §3' ° / cri �a o -0 k a 0 k - » 0 k -° 0 0 k -0 \ k Z • co 0 w§ z 2 3 e k 2 > 3 = 13 Z 2 2 3 L. § / \ a$_ 0 p co E k% g 7 2 2 § 2 a m= - c = a. • _ 2 »2 m @ -0 2 «@ -0 m 7 @ ,k 5.E o � k @ Q w -0 7 Q 0¢� O w q 3 LLI CL @ >. > c § >, k § >. k § - . \ O/\ 0.-0 /\ © 0 k o m\ o c./3 . c - 2 w o �� n � CO � o — 0 1 Q f CO c h a) 0) a) co D CL 2 2 2 0 p ? m ":- N 'p '0 O O O C O N y r1 > > > O o o�o■ 2 2 2 y= • i • Q Q a c��� Q Q Q 0 V U v w 10 O ° 0 rn E ZS N U a) °D E •• a) a) a) V z a N I- bo C � i ' CO z ° 0 0 0 c., ry0 o � co N N 0. 0) 0) 00 8 0) a). co a O z 't O a) 4 6- O Q) c O o) O 6 0 o V c " ) O aka ° � - N g o b ° u' 6' m z as ° '� m .c a te+ m Q CO CO OL 0 c U Lo c O 0 e Y) as U U a . o L. C c -0 Y o0 a) in O O C 0 0" L _' in Q e • to a) •O a) •• O .� v �, p L O c a3 a c 00 c 0 c c O a) Y O O — a) -O x "O iii 00 O IT) L N 4 . c a c a -a c L in E c Q c t0 o v a m • C X a)o c m a �co c'' mac) m a) ok ° Q e n3� E < ., 0 O � ��� a) 0 N c C) O 0 0 co) ' X c _ 'c E c , _ O' O O • a) i c • �.. O 0 . ' ° z h O L 0 Lo O c a ° �.c • 0 O co c) -a d c a) a N 0 0 0 c -0 v) 0 0 o o o m -0 ca 0) q 0 as a -o M m • z u 0) N O O a a Z ,. , N ,C U Z N Q N - 0 0 0 I c a) a ;n `' L U c a) o c ° o (1) a) a x,� o a) as co . v) a) a s c cn O 0 a c a) a) W Q Q a) oaCt E c'. W Q Q �.�al W c a Q a) v .p Ce a) .. Q c as c — ° a) c o to fn U c a a) ti = c0 �o w N v O. M v O _ 0 T'. (NJ 1 T ... N r a) CI) 0) a)) CL a D 2 2 0 0»��2 - 0 % 2 \ \ \ > 7 7 7 / \- \ 0_ a a_ '') \/k < - < « « 2 \§ FAS0 \ � 0) 0) 0) c co 0) Q% g A G 6 0 0 — /\ G G A A : � 0 0 0 0 24 a. n \ \� c L ° @ �/ a ƒ ƒ co \ _ ` _ u) \/ 2 - ' �k ' U ) « k 6- \ o 2 a ,c ' m ' 7 . - 0 2 2 0 (1) 13 cp L. % 3 ' 3 k \ ( m g 2�2 iii 2 ?§ k c §t 2 §@ m c 0 k � 2 2 k R a CD 2§ 2 k ®' 2% 2 2 § -. R � o o A . @ o _ = c k— Q o § m @ b L. 0 ) R o ® ° e § ® 7 U E § § U $ 2 % / 7 § �_ ° \ 2 ._ k c- ° .5 "a k C o 6 a « m c « • « 3 o < ® c2 ƒ 2 2 2 3 / 7 7 3 2 § k 0 2 % 2@ 02 ° a (ix . c c § 2 % 0- c 0 / q�q 0 a, 0 2]2 7 � � k §\ 2 _ q � §2 %2 2 « q 2 a73u 2 Iv C c 2 c a o c 2 g 2 a§ m °• = E 3 • k \ ƒ k k % k 2 w ƒ k f a 2 E / § 21 @ § / a 0 k 0. , (0 0 - - q \ c 1- - . C , . hi m N 6 k a) co a) CD o_ E 0 0 0 U o d ° > > > 2 . O' a 2 o 2 °,•C • C N a - a • � -9. < < < o of m W . o . • oa ° a q m NU ti ti r- o CO ' CO U Op C e- O O fi b N N N - 1 r r r . ..... em (y o Q z 0) q , c L 9 o In I I � rn rn rn to c .� o a)o �, a) a) a.as as o o "- O O O C a 0 ca U - • i = y N O � > j v a, a Qa' °) a) Q. a � nz o,� m .�..ao -c mMy �wm ac) a) a) 4- „_ O ° C E c a c c x • a)o �� c� te a ) E i o` `) L o° � ° a �° TN . ° O r) 0 ) iii � ' o ) v) c u) o -0 c coo o a) a) o L a) o a- `' ° - m..om a=c = as 0 C cu P is a -Q 0 a as c , u' 0...0 4 a c �, `� z as u c a) `� " °v o as ca ��� o ca o E o cn ''> • co 0 a_ > a - U O O 0) O U a 0 O N m e o o) a a c 4 ( ; ) o � � a? s- CO C C c Y� as c S 1:3 o aa c '''a) Q ,' 0 L. E c Q CO .ro o o a_ E as < a o 2 E y a) C �- ` m ° o O Y as U • o ° ai O o o c a v O O. N g O Q) O 0 Q) • C O O ca C • ,...� comZM c a) NcaZ c .a� a o ° Z .� E a = N 0 z 0 N.: c O Z Z CO �` a) Q o co v o n N o o m y N as m mY • a) vas a-o a o N a) a a o z n "co m ca a � ci) O C c r. O - N O >, N = c II co a) a) ` ,_ c 0- 0 cn w 2 0 N (NI a c( Q co N 1- e- 1- - a) O O) Q. � a.. U 0 0 IT, -a - 2 .. § \ - a \ > \ / P 3 'C % K @ kj ) % 0- C. k �=t�s « « « ii \ \ / \ CS / � 9 9) Q g q Z a a a \ 2 o { 2 £ c Q. & 1 / a) a) o) /ƒ \ 0 0 0 Z% . E§ C ? \ a / 7 c:r m ) § « § o _ al / 22 �� >, 2 0 as . k o o k % 7 . as �k 22 c co / ,_ oo iii § § � c k § o c a » & c o E -Q 0 c \ k $ c / k 6 7' # Ta @ 3 - ° / \ } \ q 2 ? o) § \ § E % @ a) -_ § c a 2 >•. \ < - -a E < § � Q. < \ k % £ \ § k Q T.5 % / E § . u CO o ¢ ° CU 6- E \k o a E § o : -0 c Z k %) k 2 e Z k o Z , J @ 5 2 Q k a j 2 k a . k a q C a a: > « 03 a = co : o "0 o Q .R 2 2 'C 2 Q 7 ¢ as -a *R n 2 u-a cc o - c_ o5 0 0 n 0 2 0 C R \ n 9 9 ® m 0) cm 0 0 0 o» ° -@ -0 - 0 - o 3 2 (\ o m Q @ a) j §' K > 2 2 2 k\ : L. C. K 0. U ��t� < < < (�2 ƒ§ \ to22 4 . co \ - � 9) 9) 9' 9) �� G 9 c' 3 co ƒ\ G n Q, o o o 0 \ 2 �( o q \R ,- q — k. �/ 0) 7 7 9 /\ ( / 2% § E2 - ? E \ § G 2 2 q 3 / 2 G k ca -ca a) % 0 : £ � ® a \ o co c = *2 c 0 6 , 7 ® 7 § o '6 � k & �o / F. 0 c 6 co k = .4,- @ 2 / ƒ % 6 % / ® Q Q a % o o@ ° k u) 6) § % 2 § \ % § 2 @ CD 7 9 c 6 E c k« N- Ea k « k E L. « ƒ @ k ' gym k ti - 0 ƒ �� 2 0 2 u/ u 2= 2 ® o o » o c / : £ 7 = (La. o ® _ ® ° • o ? § ° 2 @ @ ° @ 0 o Z k - k -0 0 k -0 °) 2 A k 7 S Z§ w 2 E Z 2@ 6 Z 0 Z@ c -c a) : 7 _ = a) ?? c a k c a 0 z _ _ m a = _ @ • Z = S a ® o o @ _ 7 @ a 0 % ® » : @ - ' c o Q Q. q 5 2@ a: *R 2 o Q - x Q o o I EX W CC 2 W 2 W Ce l. o 5, 2 c a I / k \ @ CO In CV �CL 0) � C0- - CO q LO ("1 A K 7 7 2 a. a_ a_ - a 0 0 0 0 0» -- ".2 - a -a 2 7\ (t Ni o 2 o o \) a. / 2 < < < « a. _ .1.. / 70 § \ # / k q) Q - ' "' a) ,-- 2 co u% O 6 $ N // K 0 0 0 / & a. o o$ \\ o 7 % ? (0 k h. _ k7 \ \ �o ' • S � - -c o • @ / / 2 2 k % \ 03 \ \ k 3 R 7 § « u 0 § 0 c E 2 U -2 2 ? 2 0 2 2 2 @ ia .6 O 6 k k o 6 7 k 0 • q ® 2 7 E ƒ ƒ A / 2 E m 2 @ w.. E a® 6- zn o E Q m R - O k 0 0 k 2 \ k a 2 CI • o =\ - E C C k C \ < 2 R < . « - 2 o 0 2 0 o a \ / 2 2 - % O • c E 0 k o . • k 8 - u ' 2 k ° " 0 a_ o z® c 3/ 0 Q o § -0 2 0§ 13 • \ 0.. k 2§ k m t 4 OS k - k ? / K in' k _ E a @ @ : m ° c 0 © �2 _ : @ § c * _ = • _ « m T. c q . 5"<* 3 o k 2 ¢ 3@ k 2 • 3 o k E k - a o) Q 2 CL w CC w CC w CC 0 a @ / o > 3 o> 2 o> • 2 ▪ 2 = a a) $ _ « � . @ 0 . @ n • \ 2 0 k 2 \ o a L- C 0 _ 7 0 - k N c c \ 13:1 G . co D 0 0 0 0 ��7t R. \ § \ 6 2 2 > \ § k a > > 2 L. m k 0- k '''C .Z.. < « 4 2 \ \ k /t42§Q ▪ § Q o (0 c § - te a o 9 Q� G o A 0 /\ ,- 0 0 \� o �/ q co Q. k k ,- a @§ / \ 2 E �. a § % . Q @ o @ 2 - • _ ..:0 2 m 7 A% �. / \ a = on % - A22 / §ƒ� « ova 9 , ; 6 \ 4-o.. § ® k § '65 § ( ° k 2 E2 § S® k 3 2 R 2 -- $ R 3 © Ns 0 R - k 7 k ,t k m � t a 2 ® 1:3 (--) 2 2 k 6 « % § $ k « � / 2 7 2 7 ƒ v @ @ m k k k 2 c) \ 7 k 2 • )� ¢ c 2 2 0- as L §— 7 ® C Cr) 2 q& k Lb 3 z 2 • k � _ ® z 6 k 6 2 e cn cts .. 2 k k a ' k k k k K\ k k\ k - @ q 0 = : @ -0 @ a : @ @ ®A = 74 3 3= rx @ 2 a m Q 2 X Q @ q _ w tY w (X w IX 'al o ' :.% p 0 m h k o CO q 7 � a n 2 (0 (0 CL CL CI_ 0 D 0 O ; C O ). Q. N > a) Q) 2 i w m 0• ¢ ¢ a c s O �o co to , co to co - O O O .).. _ a) ti S. b 00 O O O N 4,0 O C g M C CO d c Lo 1 8 e•- to C O • CZ Z51 U a) c c � to a Y 0 0 c U E a) L U) Q) CO C 4 Z U a a) 4 CO - ,O CO 0 Y L 0 ) a U ca o +. a) •_ a) a 0 4 Z k O a .a O O U O a) O O O O vj a' a. 2 as O o. N a3 cn N ' U 0 a N c O` c Q O Tel 1:3 O O `° o U °' 0 3 o 0 0 a) �' 0 a) a x o �+ a) 15 c �a c a) vi E v, CO 'CA c o c c CO > 0 O O > 0 C 0 = 0 > 4 0 et U v) o U = O W a U O a3 "D 0 2 c c �.. a) cc: a �. ca c m 0, c v) y Q c vi �c . c N o m ¢ `L° E v¢ E¢ 3 as E Ern Q x co m • a ) t w a) cli a) 0 3 o c 4 a) c 0 . E c o . .a o- c o m ° c 3 c ° ° O O 0 y 0 a7 c) c 0. a o a c .c CL , .c c a) a e o c 03 0- CO c I a) 0 -p tc) 0 N • -0 O cts '0 U c Z o .� Z a) . Z S a) as Z a) E c .r _ CO v, a) �- a) a •� a) Cr Q) 15.) C/3 . o c c a) a ».: C a) a) :a_ 6 cj c O 1:-/j 0 c c ca - a) tr. 0 c Y a s o•-- a s a.� cB . c 0 L N a a) ) = a s cn c a cn o as co Qfl. Q 0 Q)) W-E Qa W 0 Una) w -J c L Q•c m a) CL ° C : N C A 0 O T v) v) ' w O t`a -t `C `t \ a) a) !-' a) n eL cn cn O O 0 0 7 L r t` O N O 0 CO in i N O c� a a Q. a - 0 U U 0 0 p O O Q p Q a • ='- • " t: Lv V U _ v 0 �n b O O (� m ev C.1 et) co b O ' N 0 O ti 4. 0.) t0 z V ti 1F 1O Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 7 ORDINANCE SUMMARY RE: DOWNZONING AND • ADDITION /EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USES .. 0 • 47 O h N L N C O pI O N E > A p.C�c., O O 0 - Z, CI ~ o � OL -0 O_ `C c y� 's (n ° co y u w= Q W c °' a a o C/ '� 00 E m N U .- e Z O as a°i Z • C\1 — N •-0'0 O E 7 a) \ O cn . ++.-.+ o c / un v,E m O O cc so p O a) yw L1.. d -t o r o Q� Z W ai ° 6coc I a O V V N L _0 do o 0 Z a `� m O vi E o O Z 0 a) 'c c Q v W O o �> co C U a) • a ce Z �' N • c ca � c .o ° c a, �' O 0 N = o o° rx Ce vi a Z 0 v 0 E • c c L 2 0 a. O 0 C (NI «. N ^ C 0) CO Z w. O U �- M O ti a 0 c N c ` . - N O c `n (n < • N 0 n c"n N LA N '= c c �. N o v. W a' 2 .� 2 2 L ° N a N 0 o U x y .� _ -.- o w y�� • Z W > as m 0 u) • (n 4- c - �' .4- N w. O C � � ca N M O O C Z O L W e- r CV .- r r- r- 4E M O O o 0 a H a- C E 0 0 E E C 0 o ` 'D c i 'O I x — E C 0 O O CO O O 7 C ( - C " rzl o a) N ,- s— N r e- 3- O N Q a) < O 0 0 0 co, WI z col a Ci Z z . a 0w O Z 0 Z a O . N Z w 0 Zw O am co CI z2 •a- a) 0 CC 0 j y nN v 0 N N N_ C f0 0 ° oQ' E > 'cn C = C y p0 O c a ` Q co C) C:1 C CO C y � 1 x ,o, Cz1 U y a) a) E 5n° o a c0 D p o �`U 0 o a) U � p C U ° 6 O to c U N C C O a) • k, c . " ` O o U -0 L • CO C).. o a) C `'1 N C a) c Cl) 0 i-. d C a) a) ` 4 , p O a) c cn a c cm (1 ) N N a C1 a) p U C N 0 Q y L. . .,•. N Y y; O C LC) 0 C 0 c ca N r N ' Q o CO N N m co 0 C E ` N C O O - a O O O 4 a) O) 0 N ... �. 11 O C N C V > C a) O C) >, O fl > • a N N > N o L p 1 O C N m " E 0 • 0 5 . c a) ` O L _ m 2 a) 0 � 00 O C O) O ,-- N c O N N > C O C p Q. C p to . -p N L '0 to p O m I a) 'v 1 1 1 1 s >O a) L 2. O c0 0 v) N C) U C ..-.. 1 L m U p 0 -D Ca a) a) U C O O N Y N 0. N O Q O in a) = cII 0 c +•. .. -• co O p) CO > L U C C C m O . . V V L U O Z O C cn �! N c v) j w. L c 73 in I 1 c� a) �. N . a. o, p 0 0 0 N 6 0 i co c c .%). 0 -0 a) m 0 a ° 0 0 a 0 0 ° C rn .. ,. N N N a p ac i > ' 0 • O 1 2 1 N cn N v s. , 0 0 0 E o f p cu °° ao ° vi 2 — C o ao = N O c 1 c� ° 1 a) 1 cn C p �- CO N M o 1 1 C co' C O c T C c N j •— o co .1• cp 0 — N a)) C •— •- -- 0 = O a0 > > > O8 o °O o oO -c C - o 00 x hi ' > ' > C N r- ,- N N- • , 0 N N N < O< N (Ira o N 0 N COI c0) Z CC W 0 CO) CO) Z CO) co') 1 — t — Ni ti co r• (NI In N 0 r 0) T 1.0 0 0 � r O Ns - C O C L L C o N N e O t y (NI c (3 C O c6 .�. O C f0 'C y ° !C C c, E> .N y N �' N m c0 e 0 0 C f9 N C c a) E 70 -° 0 -. i -0 O a c ° g O N N ° • e ti s' 0. X- • C 0 > o a v vi E ca o W v ca O D a) 2 a) N N CO C 5 O 2 O 6. m O o° o Q O CL N '° 0 0 . ° U C cn C '0 N O m , 1 2 Op C V N U 0 ca a) > 7 d CD C O N C U N cn a) L 7 7 ( b N p� p c •. - O O �- N C j C to 4 u) 0 c .0 E o > CD c m N E o _ o` cn Y E 0 0 O . E a) E c a 4.... C -6* o C ci cn 2 C .0 f� C 'a N 7 0 ca i E O = O > 0 n. Oda � O 0 0 0 - -a 70 � ° Qy oar c ccD >, cn c 0 ` - ' = a �� _ of v ° ``� o rn v ° c v c cn cn co C U) .O m �. N - c' . N u) O x ° -O a) - a) -0 O •> o c fl .� m a c C) c N C' U a na O Z ca O C O O _0 m >, -o 0 a�? co c 'o m Z 3 0 22 m a0 a 0 3 2 •n 4 6 U O cn u O + L C E -0 C O -= m z O m C jo O C O N cn O O O CD N O ' C E a ) c a N O a) O z ,- N 8 — C d• . 0 c "O O N c.) , 0) c cp - 1 O C C c9 U O N - a c0 "' m C C m C -c E c p c E co co C cn E v '� 2o N O ta v 12 c C O col 0 N C .O O O E 0) 0 ca o 2 a ca = I' • u ) '-. c C v a) cn C O + 4 0 . , c 0 O M C N O O Q O 8 0 ti o ti � o O C E d C c E p O O O O ` x . "= c ° ° .n N O "0 N t_ U < n C C L,_ 0 c Q) d U N w CD N - x 0 N 0 w a, , L C c u) N N N • O 'O O d ca O p m m 0 0 c 0 c O •2 N F 3 - 0 a) 0 0 : ca c .c 22 1.5 C"1 w y G E x) a) o 1 cn o o m a o U (1) 3° o "_' . ° - N C E C ~ ca 0 a C -0 acn s t y) O E.O ac U) c ) a C C O E O .a- 0 O E O tC N a on N> N u i . N • N E ° t . = 0 N •0 ' U C L N O a> 00 c o O O C ai 6 > > a = a, 5 Q 0) < N W O o hi 0 B a) a) -0 0 N (NI N a ca o N D O o N coy z. w ce < ca 0 co, co, co') .� Ti z m IX W a z m rX cD 00 0 a °? °° co 0:3 °' co N N N N N N i N i e-- O N- CZ (h � O O O 1- O O T- • U) LO 0 N ~O ti N- O CY) 0 0) N N CO O T - e • r' 1 r 1 ' � r 0 V'1 y C., -. N= y 2 C C C C C "" O C 'd 'O >_ N � , 0 cc O; (a m O c m O O O y y - ,"�� , N m O m ,n N . N U' c L_ a' ' V C N a 7 C7) m (0 Q m a7 C m O Q r y N Ca N Q N a a3 Q N U3 r C y - fB p �. t .. C O 'O +� Cz) U u 5 V > N > > Q +r o > 5 ', ' N O O a) ( O O O 2 a) cc o a C a f D a a O O o o- > Cl) _ 2 in O z y� V m N Q c O L m m O ca ca C O W a) f0 U a O L - p ca L— O w O 0 en an c N 0 a) Q a) a) g C C a) '�• a) 0 0 +, C_ C 4a = 0 E 1 (1 E E o 3 c E m C o u o a) Q 5 > c - .Q 7 C - c c ->< 0 1 0 y y U co a S C (6 a) 0 U C L. 0 z a) 'c 0 N >, a) N i C T E O O C4 c N U 0 U N U U N • � U a o a) N a) N a) "O a) N N N N �c o • �v m `o m ca m � c E CU x V a ti- O. C ' n c n N n E O a m L- n 5 L� .. ..p m a) a) C° ' E t m 2 m . c a co a' O _ N L > • V 0 :° a o a o- � o CC C (_ LSS L- .o a) r C 0 m m •C G m Y a) a) a) 5 as a) O N Q m a) a) f O a) N ca • c O a N N a _0 = 0 L- w p 3 a) m v) ca a l, C O c CO c O O N c O 0 La c O in v) O ` O) c a) O T0 O c 2 °- O _° :° �a O Q _ L_ .O c W 0 ; , Q E • a o (I) -- Q L E L- L. a) c X M O a) c C E O es g a) a c ti N a c i p - 2 m a ti D „' C.) 0 m . E . 2) a m o 2 v c ` a �a � c 0 cp p 2 a) N C u j ` a) m N - L. c •E Q m O , c C a) F" .0 a) co a) _ E d F- a 0 c a) I— O 0 U a) F- w a0 t ,� _c u) E a) -o cn > L. w N C wcn N U Q ` yy N N N O w 'a r y .N O w c0� N w w O ' �, i O `O) O O ,-- p 0 c "Q p 0 O O O Q . O U p 0 r ,' o O N O a) a) .'r N ... ..' C cn r' z, o c O >, oo w 0 • n 7 N 0 00 O O o a) O a) O C ° m O C O O c p L . Q . n p E n. O N p E •v) 'cn s i u) u) 0 . cn O cn . in • x CU • o m N a) -92 = O N N O o w N N p= N N= a) p= a) a) z m cc -0 z m U W Q z m c z m cc w— L Z m N 1 N v.) 1.0 to p- c) 0) O) Q) , , 0 ti 1 1 N N 1 O N N O 0 0 .r - 0 0 O e- r- ti V) CO Cr) CO CO N- Cr) c') c) M d' 1 1- r s- 0 L O ? 2 ( \ \ \ • f A § \ \ \'\ / \ \�A k 5 s � 2 0 7 / " - c "E' $ / / 2 a 2 k • @ 0 , 0 0 / § 0 2 q 0 U Ordinance Number 9 4( 9 Article 7. Medium Densit Residential Zone (R-2 Zone. 28- -700. Permitted uses. (1) All uses permitted in the R -1 zone (2) Medium density residential uses (3) The following uses subject to issuance of a conditional use permit: (a) Parking lots established in conjunction with the use of nearby lots zoned commercial. 28-701. [;eneral provisions, lot sine, open space, bulk and ;yards. (1) Provisions applying in all districts: (a) Minimum lot size: Width, interior lot 50 ft. Width, corner lot 55 ft. Depth 100 ft. Area interior lot 5,00G sq. ft. Area, corner lot 5,500 sq. ft. (b) Maximum height, main building: Lot width, less than 371 ft. 2 stories, maximum 25 ft. Lot width, 371 ft. or more Front 1/2 of lot, 2 stories, maximum 25 fl Rear 1/2 of lot, 3 stories, maximum 35 ft. (c) Maximum height, accessory buildings 15 ft. (d) Minimum floor area for dwelling unit 750 sq. ft. (2) Provisions varying in district: District I District II (a) Density, lot area per dwelling unit 1875 sq. ft, 2500 sq. ft. (i,) Lot coverage G0i 509 (c) Yard dimensions: (minimums) r Yard abutting street: Front 12 ft. 18 ft. Side 15%% lot width; 15% lot width; 10 ft. maximum 18 ft. maximum required required Rear 12 ft. 18 ft, Yard abutting alley: Side 4 ft. -- Rear 9 ft. on 15 ft. wide alley -- 12 ft. u:. 12 ft. aide alley -- 13 ft. on 11 ft. wide alley -- (Second and third stories may encroach 1/2 the required setbacL.) Yard not abutting street or alley: Side 10"% lot width; 10% lot width; 3 ft. minimum, 5 ft. minimum, 10 ft. maximum 15, t. maxir.0 . required required Riga,- 5 ft. - -- 20 Ordinance Number District I District I (d) Parking requirements: Parking dimensions per space (interior dimensions) 9 ft. x 20 ft. 10 ft. x 20 ft. Humber per dwelling unit 2 2 Form - Open & accessible Open & accessible Type Garage or carport Garage or carport * On lots of 50 foot of frontage or less, tandem parking may be permitted. On lots of more than 50 foot of width, tandem parking shall be discouraged because alternative parking designs are feasible. However, the Planning Commission may approve tandem parking for a project by the issuance of a conditional use permit when tandem parking appears to be the best alternative in fulfilling the on -site parking requirements. 28- -702. Use of garages and carports, All required garages and carports shall be used for short term parking of licensed passenger motor vehicles for persons residing on the premises. Required garages and carports shall not be used for storage of inoperable motor vehicles, boats, trailers, furniture, building materials or other materials which would interfere with the parking of licensed passenger motor vehicles. 28. 703. tonconforming buildings. Structural alterations to nonconforming buildings such as porches, balconies, bathrooms, small storage rooms, enlargement of existing rooms or other similar additions may be approved by the Planning Commission by the issuance of a conditional use permit. Additions of bedrooms and additional living quarters may not be approved under this provision. lF5 --70�. Noof nounted mechanical e�ui�ment. Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened. 21 Ordinance Number Article 8. Hi h Uensit Residential one - one 28 - -800. Permitted uses. (1) All uses permitted in the R -1 and R -2 zones (2) Apartment houses (3) The following uses subject to issuance of a conditional use permit: (a) Hotels (b) Fraternity and sorority houses (c) Private clubs (d) Residential board and care facilities for not more than 15 persons (4) Other similar uses which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in which such uses would be located. 28 - -801. General •rovisions, lot size o'en s.ace bulk and ards. District I District II District VI (1) Minimum lot size: Width, interior lot 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Width, corner lot 55 ft. 55 ft. 55 ft. Depth 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. Area, interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 5000 sq. ft. Area, corner lot 5,500 sq. ft. 5,500 sq. ft. 5500 sq. ft. (2) Yard dimensions: (minimums) Front yard abutting street 12 ft. average, 18 ft. 18 ft. 6 ft. minimum Side yard abutting street 15% lot width, 15% lot width, 15% lot .width, 10 ft. maximum 10 ft. maximum 10 ft. maximum required required required Rear yard - abutting street -- 18 ft. 18 ft. Side yard abutting alley 4 ft. 4 ft. -- Rear yard abutting alley 9 ft. on 15 ft. 4 ft. on 20 ft. 18 ft. alley alley 12 ft. on 12 ft. 9 ft. on 15 ft. alley alley . 13 ft. on 11 ft. alley (2nd and 3rd stories may encroach 1/2 of the required setback) • Yard abutting Seal Way None required -- -- Side yard not abutting street or alley 10% lot width, 10% lot width, 10% lot width, 3 ft. minimum, 5 ft. minimum, 5 ft. minimum, 10 ft. maximum 10 ft. maximum, 10 ft. maximum, required required required Rear yard not abutting street or alley 3 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. (3) Density: lot area per dwelling unit 1250 sq. ft. 1350 sq. ft. 960 sq. ft. (4) Minimum floor area: 700 sq. ft. 700 sq. ft.' 700 sq. ft. (5) Maximum lot coverage: 75% 60% 80% 22 Ordinance Number District I District II "Dist. -ict VI (6) Maximum building height, main buildings Lot widths, less than 371 ft. 2 stories, 35 ft. 35 ft. 25 ft. maximum Lot widths, 371 ft. or more Front 1/2 of lot 35 ft. 35 ft. 2 stories, 25 ft. maximum rear 1/2 of lot 3 stories. 35 ft. maximum (7) Maximum building height, accessory building 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. The Planning Commission may, by the issuance of a conditional use permit, approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided a minimum setback of six feet is maintained. Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios or other functional open space located on the lot. Drive aprons, drive aisles, walkways, stairs, etc. shall not be considered as functional open space. The intent of this provision is to encourage individual design while providing functional open space to improve the quality of life. 28--802. Parking requiremen District I District II District VI (1) Minimum dimensions per space (interior dimensions) 9 ft. x 20 ft. 10 ft. x 20 ft. 10 ft. x 20 ft. (2) Minimum number per dwelling unit 2 minimum, plus 2 minimum, plus 11 1 guest space 1 guest space for each 7 for each 7 dwelling units dwelling units (no guest parking required for.less than 7 DU.) (3) Form Open and Open and Open and accessible e accessible accessible (4) Type Garage or Garage or .Garage or carport (guest carport (guest carport spaces may be spaces may be uncovered) uncovered) * On lots of fifty foot of frontage or less, tandem parking may be permittea.' * On lots of more than 50 foot of width, tandem parking shall be discouraged because alternative parking designs are feasible. However, the Planning Commission may approve tandem parking for a project by the issuance of a conditional use permit when tandem parking appears to be the best alternative in fulfilling the on -site parking requirements. 28 - -803. Use of garages and carports. All required garages and carports shall be used for short term parking of licensed passenger motor vehicles for persons residing on the premises. Required garages and carports shall not be used for storage of inoperable motor vehicles, boats, trailers, furniture, building materials, or other materials a:.hic41 would interfere with the parking of licensed passenger vehicles. 23 Ordinance Number 28 - -804. Nonconforming buildings. Structural alterations to nonconforming buildings such as porches, balconies, bathrooms, small storage rooms, enlargement of existing rooms or other similar additions may be approved by the Planning Commission by the issuance of a conditional use permit. Additions of bedrooms and additional living quarters may not be approved under this provision. 28- -805. Roof mounted mechanical equipment. Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened. 23.1 R�� Fil Ordinance Number r �'• Article 24. General Provisions, Conditions and Nceptions, oncnn orn•rnc� 'uz �ri�s a n�Clses. 28- -2400. llonconfornrin use limits; other uses. While a nonconforming use exists on any lot, no additional u;e may be established thereon unless such additional use is confon,iinsl and, in addition, such additional use does not increase the nonconformity. 2G- -2401. Time limit on abandoned nonconforminc use. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of three consecutive months, such use shall be considered abandoned and shall thereafter be used only in accordance with regulations for the district and zone in which the property is located. 28-- 2402._ Removal of nonconfo rni ing budings or ctiange statu of nonconformina use. il If any nonconforming building is removed, every future use of the land on which the building was located shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance. 28- -2403. Provisions of this article to a l v to nonconformina use and noncoor m rn t d ings resu tine rom reciassi l`cation..�`� The provisions of this article shall apply to buildings, lands and uses which hereafter become nonconforming due to any reclassification of zones under this ordinance or any other ordinances. 28-- `2404. fonconforming use of land when no structure involved. In any zone, the nonconforming use of land wherein no structure is involved shall be abated within one year from the date this ordinance becomes effective and any further use of such land shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance. If the nonconforming use of land existing at the time this ordinance takes effect is thereafter discontinued for three consecutive months or more any further use of such land shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance. 28- -2405. Commission may deterriine conditions for abatement. When any nonconforming condition exists in any zone, other tihan the nonconforming use of land there no structure is involved, the Planning Commission may after a public hearing, fix a date upon which the nonconforming building was established. 28- -2406. Reconstruction of nonconforming b uilding partia11y destroyed. A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of not more than fifty per cent of its value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God or the public enemy may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. 28- -2407. ionconforming buildings a nd uses may not be Lat:eeed or structurally aTtered. Except as provided in sections 28- -405, 28 - -703 and 28 - -804, no nonconforming building may be enlarged or structurally altered nor nonconforming use expanded unless such enlargement or structural alteration or expansion makes the building or use conforming. However, where a building or buildings are nonconforming only by reason of substandard yards or open spaces, the provisions of this ordinance prohibiting structural alterations or enlargements shall not apply; provided, that any structural alterations and enlargements shall not further reduce the size of required yards and open space. • 56 ORDINANCE NO. /059 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 28- 1202(6) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: DISTRICT ONE "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." DISTRICT TWO "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." Section 2. Section 28- 1302(6) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: DISTRICT ONE "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." DISTRICT TWO "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." Section 3. Section 28- 1402(6) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: DISTRICT ONE "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." DISTRICT TWO "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." DISTRICT SIX "10% of the site plus one (1) tree for each five (5) parking stalls distributed throughout the parking lot area." Ordinance Number Section 4. The Code of the City of Seal Beach, California is amended by adding Section 28 -1811 to read: "Sec. 28 -1811. Sign Amortization Period. Signs which do not conform to this - ordinance but which lawfully existed and were maintained on the effective date of this ordinance shall, within five (5) years, be removed or made to conform. During the interim period, said nonconforming signs shall be maintained in good repair and visual appearance and no structural alteration be made thereto, unless to preserve the safety of said sign." Section 5. Section 28- 2317(3) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph: "A 40 foot amateur radio "ham" antenna is permitted provided that it is located in the rear yard adjacent to a structure." Section 6. Section 28- 701(1)(d) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by changing the minimum floor area for dwelling unit to 950 sq. ft. Section 7. Section 28- 701(2)(a) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by changing the density, lot area per dwelling unit, to 2,500 sq. ft. for District I. Section 8. Section 28 -703 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby deleted. Section 9. Section 28- 701(2)(d) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by the deletion of the asterisked subparagraph relating to "form." Section 10. Section 28- 801(3) is hereby amended by changing the density, lot area per dwelling unit, to 2,178 sq. ft. for District I. Section 11. Section 28- 801(4) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by changing the minimum floor area in District I, II and III to 950 sq. ft. Section 12. Section 28- 802(3) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by the deletion of the asterisked subparagraph relating to form in District I. Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of /he City of eal Beach „ California, at a meeting thereof held on the / /`f day of AW , 1978. C=" Mayor Ordinance Number ATTEST: / I City/Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Jerdys Weir, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduce' at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held o ��� .?7 , 1978 and adopted at a meeting held on : i/ , 1978, by the following vote: /� AYES: Councilmen � 4ez." NOES: Councilmen C/ ABSENT: Councilmen Afie, /, -'1 Ci €y Clerk 11 -27 -78 PROGRAM WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 2835 was waived. Gray moved, second by Weir, to adopt Resolution Number 2835 and amending Exhibit "B" of the Resolution to reflect the Priority Projects as previously agreed upon. AYES: Gray, Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None Motion carried • PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing open to consider proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The City Clerk certified that notices had been published as required by law and that no communications had been received either for or against this matter. Mr. Romaniello, Planning Director, presented members of the Council with a revised copy of the ordinances and presented the staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission. There were no communications for or against this matter from the audience; Mayor Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Seitz inquired as to the effective date of the zoning amendments. The City Attorney responded , that for those plans already submitted to the city, the effective date of the amendments would not apply to those plans for which building permits had been obtained. Councilman Seitz requested that the effective date for the amendments be set as of this date. The City Council discussed Section 5 of the proposed ordinances relating to the height of radio antenna, with the City Attorney explaining that amateur radio "ham" antenna are regulated by the F.C.C., however cities may now regulate antenna height. Discussion followed. Gray moved, second by Weir, to approve the Negative Declaration for the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. AYES: Gray, Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1059 - AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - SIGN AMORTIZATION PERIOD - COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING - AMATEUR RADIO HAM ANTENNA - LOWER DENSITIES Ordinance Number 1059 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." 11 - C / - /8 e7 r•r ' By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1059 was waived. Gray moved, second by Weir, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1059 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Gray, Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1060 - AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - URGENCY - SIGN AMORTIZATION PERIOD - COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING - LOWER DENSITIES Ordinance Number 1060, was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1060 was waived. Kredell moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Ordinance Number 1060, deleting Section 5 relating to amateur radio 'ham' antenna and renumbering the subsequent sections. AYES: Gray, Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Project Area Committee It was the consensus of the Council to.hold over the appointment to fill one vacancy on the Project Area Committee for term ending September 18, 1980. • Environmental Quality Control Board Councilman Weir moved to appoint Mr. Frank E. Wilson, 13321 El Dorado Drive, to the Environmental Quality Control Board from District Five for term expiring July 1982. Councilman Gray seconded the motion. AYES: Gray, Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Council that a letter of appointment be sent to Mr. Wilson and a letter be forwarded to Dr. Telford in appreciation of his services on this Board. Orange County Vector Control District Laszlo moved, second by Kredell, to reappoint Mr. Weir as this city's representative to the Board of Trustees, Orange County Vector Control District, for term ending December 31, 1980. AYES: Gray, Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None Motion carried ,. -,, 12 -11 -78 of a loan to the Water Fund from the Plant and Equipment Fund, a ten percent increase in water rates, and consideration of an interest repayment charge. Discussion followed. Weir moved, second by Seitz, that the City Manager be authorized to prepare the necessary documents to provide for a loan from the Plant and Equipment Fund to the Water -- Fund to finance improvements to the Beverly Manor Reservoir to be repayable within five to seven years and implementing an increase in water rates to accomplish repayment of same. r AYES: Gray, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None ABSENT: Kredell Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1059 - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - SIGN AMORTIZATION PERIOD - COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING - AMATEUR RADIO HAM ANTENNA - LOWER DENSITIES Ordinance Number 1059 was presented for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1059 was waived. The City Manager reviewed the four zoning amendments presented for second reading. Mr. Romaniello, Planning Director, explained the location of the Planning Districts and the effect of the increased commercial landscaping requirements. Councilman Seitz suggested that the Planning Commission study landscaping requirements for light manufacturing/ industrial zones. Mr. Seitz also questioned the provision limiting ham radio antennas to forty feet. The Planning Director explained the code now provided for twenty foot height limit for antennas above the roof level, that the amendment allowed an option for ham radio antenna to be forty feet above ground level, providing the antenna is located in the rear yard adjacent to the house. The City Attorney clarified ' that the F.C.C. regulates the output and the type of amateur radio antenna used, but does not regulate the allowable height. Lengthy discussion followed with members of the audience speaking against the •' amendment and suggesting no limit be imposed for antenna height. Council considered deleting the section relating to antennas and requesting the Planning Commission conduct further study of the matter. Discussion continued. Gray moved, second by Weir, to adopt Ordinance Number 1059 as presented. AYES: Gray, Laszlo, Weir NOES: Seitz ABSENT: Kredell Motion carried Councilman Gray suggested that those persons concerned with the amendment relating to ham radio antennas present their views to the Planning Commission for further study. RESOLUTION NUMBER 2840 - RECITING FACTS OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 7, 1978 Resolution Number 2840 was presented to Council by title "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACTS OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1978, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF, AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 2840 was waived. Weir moved, second by Gray, to adopt Resolution Number 2840 as presented. AYES: Gray, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None ABSENT: Kredell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 2841 - APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 10295 - ROSSMOOR PARK APARTMENTS CONVERSION Resolution Number 2841 was presented to Council by title "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 10295 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ENGINEER TO CERTIFY THE MAP ON BEHALF OF THE CITY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 2841 was waived. The City Manager stated that the third "Whereas" should be amended to read 'convert an existing 260 unit apartment complex into a 256 unit condominium'. Weir moved, second by Gray, to adopt Resolution Number 2841 as amended. AYES: Gray, Laszlo, Seitz, Weir NOES: None ABSENT: Kredell Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 2842 - COMPLETION - ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - PROJECT NUMBER 479 Resolution Number 2842 was presented to Council by title "A ORDINANCE NUMBER / /g2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: • Section 1. Section 28 -405 of Chapter 28, Article 4 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, California is hereby deleted. Section 2. Section 28 -703 of Chapter 28, Article 7 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, California is hereby deleted. Section 3. Section 28 -804 of Chapter 28, Article 8 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, California is hereby ' deleted. Section 4. Section 28 -2407 of Chapter 28, Article 24 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, California is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or struc- turally altered as provided in this section. A. Permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improve- - ments to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing. 2. Minor Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings, and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review: Ordinance Number //5012. (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed). (c) Enclosures of balconies and porches which do not increase the square foot floor area greater than 10% of the allowable floor area. , (d) Roof additions over balconies and porches (not enclosed). (e) Additional exterior doors. (f) Additional garages and carports. (g) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structure's interior bearing walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not exceed the following bedroom /bathroom per unit ratios: one bedroom /one bath; two bedrooms /two baths; three bedrooms /two baths; and four bedrooms /three baths. The number of bedrooms shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density. (h) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. (i) Minor enlargements or expansions which increase the floor area less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area, subject to the following: (1) Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom /bathroom ratios: one bedroom /one bath; two bedrooms /two baths; three bedrooms /two baths; and four bedrooms /three baths. (2) The number of bedrooms may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density. (3) Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission deter- mines that all feasible parking (given the avail- ability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure) is provided. If a parcel has alley access, such expansions or enlargements shall be permitted only when one standard covered parking space per unit is provided if the property has a density of _. thirty (30) dwelling units per acre or greater. (j) One -time or cumulative enlargements or expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area to properties that are nonconforming only due to 850905 sas 005106 1 Ordinance Nu -ber 1/92 the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width. (k) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing. _ 3. Major Structural Alterations, Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density are satisfied: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and /or . expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modi- fications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. B. Procedure 1. Consent Calendar Plan Review - Any person desiring to apply for consent calendar plan review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this section shall submit an application, required plans and property owner list to the Department of Development Services together with payment of the minor plan review fee 14 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Notice of the application for consent calendar plan review shall be given to all property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property. 2. Inspection - Any person requesting approval pursuant to Section 28- 2407(A)(2)(i) or (j) or Section 28- 2407(A)(3)(a) or (b) for any building which was constructed prior to 1965, shall request a special investigation of the subject property prior to filing such an application. The Building and Safety Division, after the investigation request is made and fees paid pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, shall inspect the subject site and building, both internally and externally, to determine the condition of the site and building, including but not limited to the wiring, plumbing, structural integrity, roofing and condition of the walls, ceiling, floors and garage. Section 5. Section 28 -2408 is hereby added to Article 24 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, California to read as follows: Section 28 -2408, Nonconforming Non - res Buildings and Uses may not be Enlarged or Structurally Altered. No nonconforming non - residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered nor nonconforming use expanded unless such enlargements or structural alterations or expan- sions make the building or use conforming. However, where a building or buildings are nonconforming only by reason of sub- standard yards or open spaces, the provisions of this chapter 850905 sas 0051GWS 1 Ordinance Number //7.2 prohibiting structural alterations or enlargements shall not apply; provided that any structural alterations and enlarge- ments shall not further reduce the size of required yards and open space. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereon irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, , subsections, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause the same to be published as required by law and the same shall take effect as provided by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, Califorry , art a regular meeting thereof held on the j g day of 2;744 1985. ---- "z,/ -/- 44ayor T- - der ATTEST: -----.., ... -� f9c R°v0 _ . 1,. / Z v '' %-"F' c i. 1 - + City Clerk -i,, , ...1,:‘ 9.. .,..A . w' � ATE OF CALIFORNIA ) '40' • .„-t ' * � —' OF ) SS tli 1 , I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance is the original copy of Ordinance Number / /9Z on file in the office of,ttlp City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the /. day o / ®.1J , 19 5, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the f Se 1 Beach at a ml-ting thereof held on the '( day of , 1985 by th= followin. ote: AYES: Councilmember- , / , / , , ,,, -% P / NOES: Councilmembers Lam,.•& ABSENT: _ Councilmembers A__,,,_,,, : and do hereby further ce tify that Ordinance Number //9:02) has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. C y Clerk /2 ;4? 7 -22 -85 approximately three hundred fifty -four, and stated it would be a determination of the Council whether or not her work experience would be taken into consideration. She added that her current employment is her only source of income, also that one thousand hours of education would qualify her as a massage therapist, rather than her present qualification as a technician. The City Manager explained that at the time the ordinance was adopted it was unknown what effect the regulations would have on persons presently working in this field in the City, and suggested alternatives for Council consideration: 1) exempt the appellant pursuant to the "athletic" provision of the ordinance as requested; 2) consider reducing the educational requirement; or 3) grandfather the appellant for a period of three years during which she could attain the one thousand hour education requirement of the ordinance. Bobbi Haas, 201 - 7th Street, spoke favorably of her experiences at the California Gym, the benefit to her of their massage service, and offered her support of Ms. Cocks appeal. Discussion continued, with the City Attorney suggesting the Council may wish to consider grandfathering the applicant for a period of three years, and subsequently review the educational requirements of the massage ordinance. Staff verified. that Ms. Cocks would be required to obtain a massage technician license from the Police Department. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to allow the appellant to continue her occupation at the California Girls Gym under a grandfather provision for a period of three years, and that the educational requirements be further reviewed, taking into consideration the difference between a massage therapist and a massage technician. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2 -84 - ADDITIONS/ MODIFICATIONS TO NON - CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider ZTA -2 -84. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to continue the public hearing until Monday, August 12, 1985. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 4 -85 - SPECIFIC PLANS - REGULATION ZONE /PROCEDURES pursuant to the recommendation of the City Manager, Wilson moved, second by Clift, to postpone the public hearing on ZTA -4 -85, to be renoticed for a future meeting. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 3 -85 - FENCES /WALLS/ HEDGES /SCREEN PLANTINGS Mayor Risner declared the public hearing open to consider _ Zoning Text Amendment 3 -85, specific standards, criteria ' and regulations on the placement and installation of fences and walls. The City Clerk certified that notice of public hearing was advertised as required by law and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, reviewed the background of existing fence and wall regulations, and the action of the Planning Commission. Mr. Baucke explained that Exhibit "B" to the 8 -12 -85 Cleghorn, President, and members of the Seal Beach Junior Woman's Club, conveyed appreciation for the proclamation and recognition. President Cleghorn extended an invitation to participate in the Junior Woman's Club sponsored "Men's Leg Contest" to be held September 14th to benefit the Tot Lot adjacent to the Pier. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2 -84 The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and reviewed actions of the Planning Commission to City Council proposed changes to Zoning Text Amendment 2 -84. The Director reported that: 1) the Commission unanimously concurred with Council's proposal to remove the parking requirement for exterior stairways, that Council consider removal of the exterior stairway provision of this Ordinance and request the staff to review further the exterior stairway issue and prepare a Code amendment regarding same that would apply citywide; 2) the Commission, by unanimous opinion, recommended that the parking to Code provision for major interior remodeling be retained, determined that the Council recommendation to draft guidelines would be problematic since major interior remodeling cases are few and would present a wide range of possible situations, recommending that the variance process should be used for these unique situations; and 3) the Commission unanimously agreed to remove the 300 square foot limitation for major one -time or cumulative enlargement or expansion, and expressed their strong opinion that parking up to Code should be retained for major additions and improvements and additional numbers of bedrooms, based on the premise that the potential increase in density and intensity could result in impacts on other properties. The City Attorney advised that should -- the Council determine to approve ZTA -2 -84 as presented, he would recommend a change of the language of Section 4 -A -2 and the ordinance be presented for first reading at a future meeting. He stated this would not constitute a change to the ordinance that would require additional referral to the Planning Commission. Mayor Risner invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Dr. Dan Patrick, 1660 Crestview Avenue, , referred to an improvement that he is attempting to make to his property, and spoke in support of ZTA -2 -84 and a less cumbersome procedure than presently exists for attaining City approvals for improvements. Mr. Richard Eldridge, 1009 Seal Way, read in full the communication submitted by Mr. Ribal, and in response to Council confirmed that the Rental Housing Improvement Association does support ZTA -2 -84. With regard to a statement in the Ribal communication relating to Code enforcement, Councilman Grgas replied that Code enforcement has been done in the past and is continuing, that the issue is presently with the procedural aspect of enforcement of Code violations. Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, acknowledged that the Council and staff are working in good faith to resolve the nonconforming issue, noting however that the ZTA would provide bootlegged properties the same rights as legal nonconforming properties. Mr. Cook recalled that several years ago a group of property owners joined together to express their dissatisfaction with local problems, specificially high density, illegal units, and failure to provide obligatory parking, those issues eventually addressed in the General Plan and several zone changes, noting that the most stringent limits were placed on heights and on alterations and modifications to nonconforming properties. He stated another significant change was the 8 -12 -85 requirement for an increased amount of land for each living unit in R -2 and R -3 zones, the effect being down zoning of multi - dwelling lots to R -1 single family status. Mr. Cook stated that as a consequence of that action, construction of multi -units has decreased, while construction of single family dwellings have substantially increased, a benefit to the environment and an increase in assessed valuation. Mr. Cook noted that owners of nonconforming properties are now seeking to obtain the right to expand or alter their living units while remaining exempt from Code requirements to which other properties must comply even though those properties are in the same zone, and further, that the nonconforming properties will then reap the economic benefits of such modifications or alterations. Mr. Cook cited this as establishing dual property rights, and requested that the City Attorney report whether other municipalities practice such discriminatory zoning policies. Mr. Cook expressed his support for the existing variance procedure that allows the opportunity for tradeoffs to the benefit of the City, while complying with the intent of the General Plan to move towards lower density and increased conformity. Mr. Cook stated he had previously raised the issue and expressed his concern as to whether the ZTA was in compliance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and whether properties in the same zone were being afforded equal protection, a concern that was also expressed by City staff, and to which the City Attorney had stated he would look into. The City Attorney acknowledged that the concern with the possibility of dual zoning and conflict with the General Plan did warrant further study, and stated they had concluded that there was arguable conflict with the Land Use Element because the ZTA would perpetuate nonconforming uses which the existing zoning provisions propose to eliminate, however policies in the Housing Element promote revitalization of existing housing stock and preservation of existing identities in residential areas. Mr. Stepanicich stated it is difficult to determine if there is a conflict with the General Plan since several different goals are contained therein, however recommended that if ZTA 2 -84 is approved, consideration should be given to amending the General Plan to resolve those conflicting goals. With regard to equal treatment of properties, the City Attorney pointed out that the courts have given cities a wide latitude to justify zoning that does not necessarily treat all properties the same, and that in the event of a legal challenge in this case, it is their feeling the rationale in support of the ZTA would be the attempt to improve existing properties in the residential zone. The City Manager referred to the revised zoning comparison chart provided in the staff report, noting that Mr. Cook's objections are only directed to Item 7, major interior remodeling, and Item 19, major one -time or cumulative enlargements or expansions of ten percent of the allowable floor area, those being the items in conflict with the General Plan. Discussion continued. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney stated that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment does not make nonconforming properties conforming, nor does it place a legal conforming property into a nonconforming status that could be eligible for expansion, however it does allow alterations to be made to an existing nonconforming structure that would not otherwise be allowed, and which, in turn, does create some economic benefit. Mr. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, expressed his objection to the inspection provision for nonconforming properties twenty years or older, suggesting that any inspection requirement should apply to all properties of twenty years or older, and be a requirement of the Code 8 -12 -85 to obtain any building permit. With regard to code enforcement, Mr. Antos stated he felt illegal units are a major contributor to problems in the downtown area, specifically parking and circulation, also recalled that the Council had indicated they would consider amendments to the ZTA at a later time if found to be necessary. There were no other communications; Mayor Risner declared the public hearing closed. The City Manager recommended that the proposed ordinance be adopted as presented, pointing out that it is much more flexible than what presently exists in the Code, and suggested the Planning Commission could be directed to study remaining concerns. He stated that with regard to major interior and major one -time remodels, it has been pointed out those provisions could be in conflict with the Land Use Element however may be in conformance with the Housing Element, which is a more recent document. Mr. Parker suggested that there is a responsibility of the City in relation to the Housing Element to provide affordable housing, where the Land Use Element would allow few sources of affordable housing, pointing out that if the intent is to not allow legal nonconforming units, other kinds of affordable housing would have to be sought, and noted a legal challenge to the City of Newport Beach claiming its zoning and housing policies are eliminating affordable housing, therefore there is a precedent in this area. Mr. Parker suggested that consideration should possibly be given to amending the Land Use Element to conform with the Housing Element. With regard to inspections, Mr. Baucke explained that minor enlargements or expansions will be the area of greatest activity, that inspections are proposed due to concerns as to the safety of structures of twenty years or more, noting significant changes to the UBC in 1965, particularly the Electrical Code requirements for specific types of wiring, conduits, circuit boxes, etc. He explained that inspections for minor alterations would be of the particular area of construction and of connections to the existing structure for apparent problems, noting that the fee for a minor improvement inspection is ten dollars per hour under the UBC, those inspections taking approximately twenty minutes. Mr. Baucke explained that the age of a property would be determined during the review process. The Director stated that in instances of major alterations an inspection would include areas of the structure other than the actual improvement area. The City Manager added that the staff is not proposing a mandatory inspection program, however reported some cities make a full inspection mandatory in order to insure against potentially unsafe dwellings. At the request of Council, the Director of Development Services reviewed in detail the provisions of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Baucke reported a survey is being conducted of policies of other cities relating to rebuilding of nonconforming properties in the event of catastrophic destruction, and confirmed that the Planning Commission will be studying further the installation of exterior stairways for emergency purposes. Councilman Clift stated he wished to respond to a statement in the communication from Mr. Ribal and clarify that the Council did not delete, but froze the position of Code Enforcement Officer, that the funds remain in the budget, the position to be acted upon in the future, also that code enforcement has not ceased. At the request of Council, staff explained the basis for calculating building permit fees. Discussion continued. Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to approve the Zoning Text Amendment 2 -84 as presented, subject to 8 -12 -85 revision of the Ordinance language as recommended by the City Attorney, the Ordinance to be presented for first reading at a future meeting. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of Council, to recess at 8:40 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with Mayor Risner calling the meeting to order. . RESOLUTION NUMBER 3501 - HONORING GEORGE "BABE" SIBON Resolution Number 3501 was presented to Council and read in full by the Mayor entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING GEORGE "BABE" SIBON." Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Resolution Number 3501 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None - Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1195 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5 -85 - ZONING APPEAL PROCEDURES Ordinance Number 1195 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO CERTAIN ZONING APPEAL PROCEDURES AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1195 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1195 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried . RESOLUTION NUMBER 3502 - COMPLETION - PROJECT NUMBER 547 - ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION Resolution Number 3502 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT_ #547, ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION IN 10th, llth, & 12th STREET ALLEYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DYNO CONSTRUCTION AND THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3502 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Brownell, to approve the recommendations of the staff and adopt Resolution Number 3502 as presented. Councilman Grgas commended the staff for the alley improvements that have been made in recent years, and stated he would encourage an expedited alley improvement program in light of the future cutback of Revenue Sharing and Block Grant funding, also suggested the staff seek alternative funding sources for this program. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3503 - DESTRUCTION - POLICE RECORDS Resolution Number 3503 was presented to Council entitled _. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN POLICE RECORDS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3503 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3503 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried 9 -9 -85 that Rockwell has talked of developing an industrial park adjacent to their facility, also of selling portions of their land deemed not to be needed. With regard to limitation of height based upon planning districts, the Director of Development Services stated that would not be practical or feasible, explaining the locale of areas within certain districts. The City Attorney suggested revised wording of the amendment proposed to read "no building within the SPR Zone shall exceed the height of thirty -nine feet in the coastal zone or along Lampson Avenue scenic highway except for non - habitable architectural features of any proposed buildings." Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. After further discussion, the motion was again revised, amending Section 28 -1702, as the second to the last sentence to read "No building within the SPR Zone shall exceed a height of thirty -nine feet in that portion of the City known as the coastal zone as defined by the California Coastal Act or north of the San Diego Freeway except for non - habitable architectural features of any proposed buildings." AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried Vote on the motion to approve first reading of Ordinance Number 1193 as amended. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 3 -85 - REGULATING FENCES and WALLS Ordinance Number 1194 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO WALLS AND FENCES AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1194 was waived. The Director of Development Services presented the report back from the Planning Commission, the Commission having concurred with changes to said Ordinance proposed by the City Council. Council pointed out typographical errors in need of correction. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1194 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3510 - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT - PROCEDURES /GUIDELINES Resolution Number 3510 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3358 AND ADOPTING PROCEDURES IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE GUIDELINES OF THE SECRETARY FOR THE RESOURCES AGENCY, AS AMENDED." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3510 was waived. W' son moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Resolution Number 3510 with a minor language correction to Section 1. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1192 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2 -84 - ESTABLISHING REVIEW PROCEDURES - ADDITIONS /MODIFICATIONS - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, also noting that the City Attorney, upon approval 9 -9 -85 of ZTA -2 -84 at the August 12th City Council meeting, has made certain language changes to the Ordinance, as authorized and directed by the Council. The City Attorney reported a correction to Section A- 2- (i)(1), to read "Additional bathrooms are permitted" rather than "bedrooms." The staff agreed that the word "legal" could be added to the title of the proposed Ordinance as suggested by Council, noting however that the Ordinance does not apply to illegal structures. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to direct the City Attorney and Director of Development Services to prepare an analysis of the affect of the changes to the Ordinance proposed by Mr. Robert Cook for information of the Council prior to taking action on first reading of Ordinance Number 1192. . RESOLUTION NUMBER 3515 - APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 83 -1007 - KLISANIN - 132 - 4th STREET R Number 3515 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 83- 1007." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3515 was waived. Clift moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Resolution Number 3515 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1196 - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT - URGENCY Ordinance Number 1196 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONCERNING THE FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance • -, Number 1196 was waived. The City Engineer presented the • , staff report, noting a recent amendment to this Chapter _ of the City Code and subsequent contact by the staff of the Federal Emergency Management Agency informing the City that they had errored in noticing and informing the City of the appropriate amendments and Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map date. Mr. Hemphill reported that in order to fully comply with the Federal Program, the proposed Ordinance adopts the Federal Insurance Rate Map dated September 18, 1985 and adds "V- zones ", areas of one hundred year coastal flood with velocity (wave action), which did not appear on the previous FIRM. Brownell moved, second by Clift, to adopt Ordinance Number 1996 and declare the urgency thereof. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1197 - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT Ordinance Number 1197 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 9B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONCERNING THE FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1197 was waived. The City Manager offered an explanation of the definition of a mobile home as interpreted by the State versus i. manufactured housing with a permanent foundation. Brownell . moved, second by Clift, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1197 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried 9 -23 -85 September 23rd through September 29th, 1985 was proclaimed "National Arts Week" by the Mayor. Mayor Risner proclaimed October 6, 1985 as "Emily H. Ludwig Day," commemorating the Leisure World residents' one hundredth birthday. The Mayor proclaimed October 6th through October 12th, 1985 as "Fire Prevention Week." October 6th through October 12th, 1985 was proclaimed "Domestic Violence Awareness Week" by Mayor Risner. The Mayor proclaimed October 20th through October 26th, 1985 as "California Safe School Week." Mayor Risner proclaimed October 27th through November 2nd, 1985 as "California Delinquency Prevention Week." October, 1985 was proclaimed "Crime Prevention Month" by the Mayor. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 4 -85 - ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER - SIGN PROGRAM Clift moved, second by Brownell, to hold this scheduled public hearing over until next meeting, as requested by the appellant. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1192 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2 -84 - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES The City Manager referred to the Council directive for staff and the City Attorney to respond to changes proposed to this Ordinance by Mr. Robert Cook, and reported the City Attorney had requested this item be postponed until the next meeting when he would be in attendance. Clift moved, second by Wilson, to hold this item over until next meeting. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1193 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 4 -85 - SPECIFIC PLAN REGULATION ZONE and SPECIFIC PLAN PROCEDURES In response to concern that had been expressed by members of the Council to the inclusion of the Rockwell property in the Specific Plan limitations as set forth in Ordinance Section 28 -1702, the Assistant City Attorney proposed language be added exempting the Rockwell property to read "except , such portions thereof which are zoned M -1, Light Manufacturing, on the effective date of this Ordinance." Clift moved, second by Brownell, to approve the amendment as stated. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number - 1193 was waived. Brownell moved, second by Wilson, to approve the first reading of Ordinance Number 1193, as amended, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC PLAN REGULATION ZONE AND SPECIFIC PLAN PROCEDURES AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES:' None Motion carried 10 -14 -85 ORDINANCE NUMBER 1192 - NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES - ADDITIONS /MODIFICATIONS Ordinance Number 1192, as amended, was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number -- 1192 was waived. The City Attorney reviewed in detail his memorandum addressing changes proposed to the Ordinance by Mr. Robert Cook, and verified that all previous Council amendments had been incorporated in the Ordinance. Risner moved, second by Grgas, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1192 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1193 - SPECIFIC PLANS - REGULATION ZONE/ PROCEDURES Ordinance Number 1193 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC PLAN REGULATION ZONE AND SPECIFIC PLAN PROCEDURES AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1193 was waived. Clift moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Ordinance Number 1193 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1198 - MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS /MASSAGE TECHNICIANS Ordinance Number 1198 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO REGULATION OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIANS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1198 was waived. The City Manager reported the proposed Ordinance amends existing provisions relating to educational requirements and investigative fees. Brownell moved, second by Clift, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1198 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3526 - SUPPORTING SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION #30 - FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION Resolution Number 3526 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION #30 RELATIVE TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3526 was waived. Risner moved, second by Clift, to adopt Resolution Number 3526 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "I" THROUGH "R" The City Manager requested Item "Q" be removed from the Consent Calendar, and the City Attorney requested Item "N" removed. Clift moved, second by Brownell, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar, except Items "N" and "Q ", as presented. 10 -28 -85 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85 -1001 - 1623 SEAL WAY - GREELEY Mayor Pro Tem Clift declared the public hearing open to consider Tentative Parcel Map 85 -1001 for the conversion of an existing duplex into a two unit condominium. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The City Manager presented the staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Clift invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, offered to answer questions of the Council on behalf of the property owners, E. Thomas and Josephine Greeley. There were no other communications; Mayor Pro Tem Clift declared the public hearing closed. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3527 - APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85 -1001 - 1623 SEAL WAY - GREELEY Resolution Number 3527 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85 -1001 (85- 267)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3527 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, . to adopt Resolution Number 3527 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1192 - ADDITIONS /MODIFICATIONS - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Ordinance Number 1192 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1192 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Ordinance Number 1192 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1198 - MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS and MASSAGE TECHNICIANS Ordinance Number 1198 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, - CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, RELATING TO REGULATION OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE TECHNICIANS." By unanimous consent, full reading _ of Ordinance Number 1198 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Brownell, to adopt Ordinance Number 1198 as presented. AYES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Wilson -- NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3528 - MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKES - EMERGENCY RESCUE OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE Resolution Number 3528 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, COMMENDING THOSE WHO ASSISTED IN THE EMERGENCY RESCUE OPERATIONS RESULTING FROM MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKES." ORDINANCE NUMBER 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENLARGEMENTS OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES, PROHIBITING PARKING IN FRONT YARDS AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF-SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: •- Section 1: Article 24 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by amending Subparagraph (i) of Paragraph 2 of Subsection A of Section 28 -2407 to read: "(i) Minor enlargements or expansions which increase the floor area less than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area, subject to the following: 1. Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom /bathroom ratios: one bedroom /one bath; two bedrooms /two baths; three bedrooms /two baths; and four bedrooms /three baths. 2. The number of bedrooms may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density. 3. Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided." Section 2: Article 24 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding Paragraph 4 to Subsection A of Section 28 -2407 to read: "4. Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks may be approved by the Director of Development Services, subject to the following : (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width. (c) The existing nonconforming front yard setback shall deviate no more than twenty -five percent (25 %) from the current minimum front setback. (d) The existing nonconforming rear yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum rear setback. Section 3: Article 5 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding Subsection 8 to Section 28 -506 to read: 1 ORDINANCE NO. /27 Page Two . "8. General renovation and structural additions to nonconforming buildings which are nonconforming only due to inadequate setbacks may be approved pursuant to Section 28- 2407(A)(4)." Section 4: Article 22 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding Paragraph 7 to Section 28- 2209 to read: "7. parking Prohibited: In residential zones, no motor vehicle, boat or recreational vehicle of any kind may be parked or stored in any required yard or open space other than a paved driveway or a paved area on one side of the lot to the rear of the required front yard." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Cot1nc of 0 ity of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the p..day of , 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember(s > IP . ea NOES: Councilmember(s) , ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s) ' r , ABSENT: Councilmember(s) 7'f...4 Mayor // ATTEST: h f f. G City Clerk 7 �3 'br Oaf 4,r`+�c °C °6 IS STATE OF CALIFORNIA) NC� 4 COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Be- California do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance wa sed, approved and adopted by the City Council o the City of Se. • : -pch at a regulat meeting thereof on the a' day of , 1988. ,u rcD City erk 6 -6 -88 Councilman Grgas spoke of the difficulties associated with requests such as this variance, where it is preferred that properties be upgraded and improved, yet it is necessary to impose Code requirements on an equitable basis. He noted however that this is a 1620 square foot addition rather than a minor modification, that approval could result in reduced density by one dwelling unit, also pointing out that although the General Plan would allow additional units to be developed, each would be required to meet parking and setback requirements. Mr. Grgas questioned whether or not a t. duplex could be built on the subject property and meet parking, also expressed concern that a number of properties in the immediate area have conformed to the setback - requirements, and if the variance were approved those property owners could come back to the City seeking the same privilege of using the extra rear setback square footage. He stated he felt that the problem was created with the 1973 variance, however expressed support for allowing the second story to remain at the zero lot line setback, and ask that the ground floor be modified to meet setback and parking regulations. Councilmember Risner stated she felt that findings could be made for this variance, one being a financial hardship due to the replacement of the plumbing in recent.years, another being that the same setback exists on adjacent properties, and citing information that may not have been before the Planning Commission, asked that this matter be referred back to the Commission for further consideration. Mr. Knight reported that the Commission had discussed the 1973 variance, grandfathering of the second story, and the surrounding properties, the Commission determining that the variance would create a precedent rather than a basis for findings for the variance. Discussion continued. Grgas moved, second by Laszlo, to deny the appeal to Variance 4 -88, and that staff be directed that the applicant be allowed to retain the second story configuration with the backyard set back as it exists, if the property owner so desires, however the ground floor would be required to conform to current Code. AYES: Grgas, Hunt,•Laszlo NOES: Wilson ABSTAIN: Risner Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 7 -87 - ENLARGEMENTS/ ALTERATIONS - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS / FRONT YARD PARKING Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 7 -87 relating to enlargements or structural alterations to nonconforming residential buildings and prohibiting parking in front yards. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications had been received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services explained that the Zoning Text Amendment would allow all nonconforming units, regardless of density, to upgrade their property with a minor enlargement, removing the requirement for one parking space per unit if the density is over thirty units per acre, allows major additions to nonconforming residential units that meet density and parking requirements but have minor setback deviations, the minimum sideyard setback would be three feet, and adds a provision to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on front yards in residential areas. There being no public comments, Mayor Hunt declared the public hearing closed. 6 -6 -88 ORDINANCE NUMBER 1274 - ENLARGEMENTS /ALTERATIONS - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS / FRONT YARD PARKING Ordinance Number 1274 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENLARGEMENTS OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND'USES, PROHIBITING PARKING IN FRONT YARDS AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1274 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1274 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3790 - MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS Resolution Number 3790 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR OF REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS BOARDS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, ASSIGNING CERTAIN DUTIES TO COUNCILMEMBERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3698." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3790 was waived. Mayor Hunt noted for the record that Councilmember Wilson would be attending the Sanitation District meetings on his behalf as the alternate representative. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3790 as amended to include the name(s) of the Mayor's appointments. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3791 - ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM - SEAL BEACH MASTER PLAN OF HIGHWAYS Resolution Number 3791 was presented to Council - entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, INFORMING THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3791 was waived. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3791 as presented. In response to Council, the City Engineer reported that the overlay of Bolsa Avenue was one of the projects cut from the 1988/89 budget, and that it will be sumitted for consideration in the future, also that the AHFP is a fifty /fifty share program designated for arterial hgihways. Discussion followed regarding the various street and highway funding sources. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3792 - APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT - FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 Resolution Number 3792 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS PROPOSITION 4, THE GANN INITIATIVE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3792 was waived. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to adopt Resolution Number 3792 as presented. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried 6 -20 -88 Director advised that the traffic signal loops were to be installed on Westminster in advance of Kitts Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, the loops sending a signal to the controller of an approaching vehicle therefore the signal would remain green. Councilman Laszlo reported complaints that the signs on Lampson Avenue are difficult to read and asked that consideration be given to replacement with larger signs. Mr. Jue advised that high intensity, light illuminated signs of eighteen by seventy -two inches are approximately $250 each, and ten would be required to outfit the five intersections. Councilman Grgas inquired if the -- overtime was eliminated from the Animal Control budget because of lack of funds or if it is expected the Friends of 1. _ the Shelter would be assuming some of that burden. The staff responded in the affirmative to both. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to allocate $10,000 to lifeguard tower refurbishing /replacement. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to allocate $6500 for ' Westminster traffic signal loops. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried Wilson moved, second by Laszlo, to approve a $2500 expenditure for Lampson Avenue street signs. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried The City Manager reported that after Council actions, $35,680 remains as the unallocated reserve balance. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3792 as amended. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3793 - DENYING VARIANCE 4 -88 - SYKORA - 225 - 8TH STREET Resolution Number 3793 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING VARIANCE 4 -88, A REQUEST TO PERMIT AN ADDITION THAT EXCEEDS TEN PERCENT OF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (225 - 8th Street)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3793 was waived. Members of the Council expressed their regrets in having to take this action. Grgas moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 3793. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo NOES: Wilson ABSENT: Risner Motion carried . ' ORDINANCE NUMBER 1274 - ENLARGEMENTS /STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS - NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS / PROHIBITING FRONT YARD PARKING Ordinance Number 1274 was presented to Council for second reading entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENLARGEMENTS OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES, PROHIBITING PARKING IN FRONT YARDS AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA." J 6 -20 -88 By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1274 was waived. Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1274 as presented. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3794 - 1988 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES Resolution Number 3794 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, ' PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF ITS 1988 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,500,000; APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT, TERMS OF SALE, NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; APPOINTING BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANT; PLEDGING REVENUES AND ENTERING INTO CERTAIN TAX COVENANTS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID NOTES." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3794 was waived. The Finance Director noted that with the uncertainty of interest rates, the spread for 1988/89 may not be as great as in previous years, and it should be recognized that there is a possibility that the staff may recommend not proceeding with the TRAN if it is determined that no more than one percentage point may be realized. . Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3794 as presented. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None , ABSENT: Risner Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1275 - PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM - CROSS - CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM _ Ordinance Number 1275 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH INSTITUTING A CROSS - CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1275 was waived. The Director of Public Works presented the staff report and reviewed the scope of the Ordinance, noting that this program is required to be implemented by each water purveyor pursuant to State law. He pointed out there are approximately eighty -three commercial or industrial locations that will be inspected and may or may not be subject to some protection needs, which is basically dependent upon the type of water usage. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1275 and that it be passed to second . reading. AYES: Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Risner Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3795 - SALA_RY /WAGE /BENEFITS - POLICE DEPARTMENT Resolution Number 3795 was presented to_Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, ESTABLISHING SALARY RATES, A SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULE, AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND REPEALING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATES SPECIFIED ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3795 was waived. The City Manager presented an overview of the negotiated Police Department salary schedule and benefits as set forth in the two year Memorandum of Understanding. Wilson moved, second by Grgas, to adopt Resolution Number 3795 as presented. ORDINANCE NUMBER /-:,.,',., � AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING SOLELY DUE TO DENSITY AND TANDEM PARKING (ZTA 5 -90) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Article 24, Chapter 28, Section 28- 2407.A.4 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby renumbered to Article 24, Chapter 28, Section 28- 2407.A.5. Section 2 Article 24, Chapter 28, Section 28- 2407.A.4 of_the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 28- 2407.A.4. Maiar Structural Alterations. • Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this Chapter excluding density and parking are satisfied. The following expansions and enlargements may _ be approved provided the parcel is nonconforming due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width: (a) One -time or .cumulative enlargements and /or expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area. • (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the structures interior bearing walls. (c) The number of bedrooms may not be increased. (d) Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines_ that all feasible parking given the availability and location - of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided." . ED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council Ahe City of 7 eac at meeting thereof held on the - day of 1990. L) 7. 6/1/ ) 7. @i . ti -6-,4) - -- Mayor 1 P t i /.) ` C }tY Clerk " ----- .: ; _ C - .1 . - .. \ - y Ordinance Number /e�� STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy f • dinance) Number 1315 on file in the office "tile City Clerk, / d ced /at a meeting held on the day of / __.0--.1il , 0, and passed, approved and adopted by the Cit4 pcil of thy ty of •ea Beach at a meeting held on the p - day of / , r. , , 1990 by t e +llowin• vote: AYES: Councilmember=_ 4 , - , •,4 /e ..,. , 1 '' i NOES: Councilmember i v ABSENT: Councilmembers /s,, (1.2 and do hereby further certify aat Ordinance Number 1315 has been published pursuant'to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. C --j -g- 4 ' ( I -I-- ( ;a Cilerk 11 -13 -90 understanding that the Commission concerns were directed to parking and density in the downtown area, and it was suggested that advertised public hearings be held by the Planning Commission to seek the opinions of the residents of the community regarding expansions to nonconforming structures. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt urgency Ordinance Number 1319 as amended to incorporate Section 5 as recommended by the Assistant City Attorney, ," that existing Section 5 and 6 be renumbered as Sections 6 and 7, and that the City Clerk provide notice of the public hearing on this matter as set forth in Section 6. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to extend the adjournment . of the meeting until 1:00 a.m. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: Hunt Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - FIRE PREVENTION FEES The Acting City Manager noted the public hearing to consider proposed Orange County Fire Department fire prevention fees had been continued from the September 10th meeting until this date, and that Orange County Fire is considering additional modifications to the costs for general fire services and paramedic fees, therefore staff would recommend that this item be postponed until such time as the costs for all fire services can be analyzed. Hunt moved, second by Laszlo, to conclude the public hearing, that the item be — postponed indefinitely, to be renoticed for future consideration. 1 AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 3 -90 - VIDEO ARCADES/ AMUSEMENT DEVICES Councilmember Hastings requested that this item be postponed and that an expanded notice of public hearing be provided. Councilmember Forsythe reported there was considerable public input on this subject at the Planning Commission level, explained that research was done in drafting the Ordinance, that there is provision that two machines or less within certain establishments in commercial zones would require review by the Planning Commission and more than two machines would require a conditional use permit under public hearing and noticed to property owners within three hundred feet. Forsythe moved, second by Laszlo, to declare the public hearing open, that the hearing be continued until the second meeting in January and that there be an expanded notice of hearing. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried t li ‘ ! PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5 -90 - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - DENSITY /TANDEM PARKING The Director of Development Services reported the Zoning Text Amendment would allow the owners of nonconforming residential properties which are nonconforming solely due to density and tandem parking and desiring to expand their property by more than ten percent to seek approval from the Planning Commission under the conditional use permit process. He explained that currently if the property is over density, application can be made for less than ten • 11 -13 -90 percent under minor plan review or for more than ten percent under the conditional use permit process if parking requirements are not met, and for those properties that meet parking requirements through tandem parking there is currently no provision to allow expansion of those structures more than ten percent, therefore the Planning Commission has recommended that in those cases expansion be considered under the conditional use permit process. He noted the change would affect approximately six to eight properties, generally with two units, that were developed during the short period of time that the City allowed tandem parking. Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 5 -90 regarding additions to nonconforming residential structures which are nonconforming solely due to density and tandem parking. The Mayor invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Ms. Marla Wicorek, 208 - 4th Street, spoke in favor of the Zoning Text Amendment, stated her plan would not increase density, that the existing three bedrooms would be relocated, one converted to a family room, the duplex having four existing tandem parking spaces accessible from the alley. Mr. James Funk, 215 -1/2 - 10th Street, offered that his residential property is similar to the previous speaker, however an expansion of up to two thousand square feet would be allowed for his property where no expansion would be allowed on the 4th Street property, and stated the proposed ZTA would resolve existing inequities. The Development Services Director explained the ZTA would apply to expansions greater than ten percent of the allowable floor area through a conditional use permit. There being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1315 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5 -90 - vONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - EXPANSION - DENSITY/ TANDEM PARKING Ordinance Number 1315 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING SOLELY DUE TO DENSITY AND TANDEM PARKING (ZTA 5 -90)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1315 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Hunt, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1315 and that it be passed to second reading. 'I AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson OES: None Motion carried APPEAL - VARIANCE 5 -90 - REAR /SIDE YARD SETBACKS - PATIO DECK - 1733 CRESTVIEW AVENUE Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to continue the appeal to -- denial of Variance 5 -90 relating to the rear and sideyard setbacks for a patio deck located at 1733 Crestview Avenue until the November 26, 1990 meeting, as requested by staff. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3985 - REVERSING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - VARIANCE 8 -89 - 101 MAIN STREET - WATSON The Director of Development Services recommended that the title of the Resolution be amended to read "Reversing the Decision of the Planning Commission" rather than "Reversing 11 -26 -90 AYES: Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - VARIANCE 5 -90 - PATIO DECK - 1733 CRESTVIEW AVENUE - RALSTON Mayor Wilson declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of Planning Commission denial of Variance 5 -90. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to continue the public hearing until the December 10th regular meeting. AYES: Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1315 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5 -90 - NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - DUE TO DENSITY /TANDEM PARKING Ordinance Number 1315 was presented to for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING SOLELY DUE TO DENSITY AND TANDEM PARKING (ZTA 5 -90)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1315 was waived. The City Attorney recommended the second sentence of Section 2 be amended to include language to read "The following expansions and enlargements may be approved provided the parcel is nonconforming..." Hunt moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1315 as amended. AYES: Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 3992 - MAIN STREET /PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - CLOSURE OF NORTH /SOUTH TURNPOCKETS Resolution Number 3992 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND TURNPOCKETS LOCATED AT THE MAIN STREET /PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTERSECTION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3992 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 3992 as presented. AYES: Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1316 - VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS Ordinance Number 1316 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1316 was waived. The Director of Development Services reported current Code limits the application for a vesting tentative map to residential property only, does not allow such application for commercial or industrial subdivision of - property, and that the proposed Ordinance would allow any subdivision to apply for a vesting tentative map. The City Attorney pointed out that State law now requires that local regulations provide for a vesting tentative map for commercial as well as residential development. He noted ORDINANCE NUMBER icc AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1 -91, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -701, 28 -801 _ AND 28 -2301 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY ZONES (RMD) AND (RHD) OF PLANNING DISTRICT I FROM THE EXISTING 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby finds that: (a) In March of 1990, the Council authorized the Planning Commission to initiate a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to decrease the minimum lot size in the Old Town area (excluding the Gold Coast) from the existing 5,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet. (b) The intent of the proposed ZTA is to bring the minimum lot size requirements into conformity with the City's density requirements. (c) Staff has prepared an initial environmental assessment and proposed Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff received no comments back regarding the proposed ZTA (d) The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 1991 which was continued to February 6, 1991 and adopted Resolution No. 1612 recommending approval of Zoning Text Amendment 1 -91 the City Council. (e) The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. ZTA 1 -91 is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan. 2. The proposal will not increase the density of development within the Old Town area (RMD and RHD zones of Planning District I). 3. The effect of this proposed amendment will be to allow the large non - subdivided or previously subdivided properties which are not subdivided to 25 foot wide lots in Old Town to subdivide down to 25 foot wide lots, similar to the majority of lots in Old Town. 4. ZTA 1- 91 'will encourage the construction of single - family dwellings over the same number multi - family dwellings. 5. ZTA 1 -91 will not alter the number of units which could ultimately be constructed in these zones. Since the density requirements will remain the same, the same number of units will ultimately be available. 1 6. ZTA 1 -91 coupled with the proposed amendment to the City's subdivision ordinance, will encourage subdivision of the larger lots in Old Town which will generate park land fees, as opposed to the present policy which encourages condominium conversions which provide the City with no park land fees. The City can utilize these park land fees to improve existing City park facilities, as well as to purchase new park land. Ordinance Number /3. 7. The majority of 'parcels affected by ZTA 1 -91 are already subdivided lots and any future subdivisions would simply be re- subdivision of the land, very similar to an internal lot line adjustment. (f) The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, February 25, 1991. (g) ZTA 1 -91 will not cause any adverse environmental impact as shown in the initial study for the Negative Declaration 3 -91, and therefore the City Council adopts this Negative Declaration. (h) ZTA 1 -91 will not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community. Section 2. Article 7. Paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 28 -701 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3. Existing Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 28 -701 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach are hereby renumbered (a), (b) and (c), respectively. Section 4. Article 7. Paragraph (a) of Subsection (2) of Section 28 -701 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby added to read: "(a) Minimum Lot Size: Width, interior lot - District I 25 ft. Districts II 50 ft. Width, corner lot - District I 27h ft. Districts II 55 ft. Depth - Districts I, II 100 ft. Area, interior lot -- District I 2,500 sq. ft. Districts II 5,000 sq. ft. Area, corner lot - District I 2,750 sq. ft. Districts II 5,500 sq. ft." Section 5. Existing Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Subsection (2) of Section 28 -701 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach are hereby renumbered (b), (c), (d) and (e), respectively. Section 6. Article 8. Subsection (1) of Section 28 -801 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: i "(1) Minimum Lot Size: Width, interior lot - District I 25 ft. Districts II, VI 50 ft. Width, corner lot - District I 27h ft. Districts II, VI 55 ft. Depth - Districts I, II, VI 100 ft. Ordinance Number /30 Area, interior lot - District I 2,500 sq. ft. Districts II, VI 5,000 sq. ft. Area, corner lot - District I 2,750 sq. ft. Districts II, VI 5,500 sq. ft." Section 7. Article 23. Subsection (2) of Section 28 -2301 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: "(2) Exceptions: Area, width and depth of nonconforming lots. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter a lot having an area, frontage, width or depth less than the minimum prescribed for the district and zone in which the lot is located, which lot is shown on a duly approved and recorded subdivision map or record of survey map or for which a deed or valid contract of sale was of record prior to the adoption of this chapter and which had a legal area, frontage, width and depth at the time that the subdivision map or record of survey map, deed or contract of sale was recorded, may be used for any use permitted in the district and zone in which the lot is located; provided that said lot and use conform to all regulations of the district and zone other than lot minimum area, width or depth. NOTE: The following schedule is provided for information purposes indicating legally acceptable minimum lot areas and widths prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Schedule Of Legal Lot Areas Prior To Adoption Of The Ordinance Codified Herein Minimum Legal Area and Dimensions of Lots of Record g . Prior to 1/18/55 1/18/55 to 1/466 U Per Ord. 406 Per Code 21 -8 Area Width Area Width Zones Sq. Ft. Feet Sa. Ft. Feet R -1 2,400 25 5,000 50* R -2 2,400 25 5,500 50* R -3 2,400 25 6,500 50* 1/15/66 to 6/26/74 6/26/74 to 4 -10 -91 Per Code 21 -8 Per Ord. 948 Area Width Area Width Zones Sct. Ft. Feet Sct. Ft. Feet R- 1(RLD) 7,000 70 5,000 50* RMD(RMD) 7,000 70 5,000 50* RHD(RHD) 7,000 70 5,000 50* *Minimum corner lot width - -55 feet. (3) No lot area shall be so reduced or diminished that the lot area, yard or other open spaces shall be smaller than prescribed by this chapter, nor shall the density of population be increased in any manner except in conformity with the regulations established by this chapter. (4) The minimum width of corner lots shall be ten percent greater than the minimum width for the district or zone given in the zoning schedule. Ordinance Number / 40 . (5) When any lot or parcel in any zone contains a greater area than the required minimum lot area for the zone in which it is located, said lot or parcel may be divided into individual lots provided each resulting lot contains the minimum required length, width and area for the zone in which it is located." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby approve Zoning Text Amendment 1 -91. P' - -_ D, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council sf the City of "Seal :each at a meeting thereof held on the 1/ - day of Ar, Allft , 1991. ' '-p I /� Mayor CITY OF SEAL BEACH f :ATTEST: EST: / �7 J r ti-„ ' � ��qq f ' r, a �,:? r, dtj C1t ClerJt' r • ., ' xr, 5 '{r a c � • .- ' 3: l ..r . • . 7's'' ` . fie - fT- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF ORANGE ) I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do Hereby certify that/he foregoing ordinance is an ori•inal copy or Ordinance Number l on file in the Office of t e C'ty Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the o 5 day of Ap: /_ ,,__,dmik , 1991, and passed, approved and adopted by the 1ty Coun of the Cit Seal each at a meeting thereof held on the . day of 1991, by the following vote: _ AYES: cilmem 3 4 u L NOES: ilmembers ABSENT: C ilmembers and do hereby certify that Ordinance No. / j e 3CJ has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Cit Charter and Resolution No. 2836. C f t J M. • lerk 2 -25 -91 ITEM "N" - 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS - CHALLENGE The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, specifically noting that the 1990 'Federal Census indicates a population of 25,098, a decrease of 2,252 from the January 1st estimate from the State Department of Finance of 27,350, and from a review of the preliminary census numbers most of the population loss appears to be from the Leisure World area, and as a comparison the 1980 Leisure World population was 8,828 and the 1990 figure decreased to 6,652 or a drop of 1,800 persons in the Leisure World area based upon the census figures. He noted that in talking with representatives of the Golden Rain Foundation their figures as of July 1, 1990 indicate 8,450 Leisure World residents. He said the concern of the City is that a number of State revenue sources are based on the population of the City, and if the population is in fact miscounted that would result in a substantial revenue loss to the City on a continuing basis, approximately $56 per person, or $80,000 to $100,000 annually over a ten year period. The Director reported to conduct a challenge of the census figures there are two agencies that would conduct a Special Census, the State Department of Finance and /or the U. S. Census Bureau, neither agency having the criteria or costs in place at this time for conducting a Special Census, however that information may be available by July or August of this year. He recalled that a Special Census in the City of Bellflower in 1973 was somewhere in the area of $20,000 to $30,000 for a population of approximately 55,000. The Director reported that as a result of the initial challenge of the census figures there was an adjustment from 24,400 persons to 25,098, however it is still felt that the figures are substantially low. Councilman Hunt pointed out that a recent tally of registered voters shows 7,105 therefore it is felt the population figure is well over that, also said there must be a means to recount an area rather than the entire City. The Director clarified that a smaller area of the City can be counted, however the Department of Finance will not accept a portion count as an adjustment for the entire community. The Director stated also that the information regarding a Special Census will be provided the Council as soon as it is available. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to hold this matter over until the additional information is received. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo NOES: None ABSENT: Wilson Motion carried CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91 - MINIMUM LOT SIZE - OLD TOWN - RMD and RHD - SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91 - PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES The Director of Development Services suggested that the two items be considered concurrently under a consolidated public hearing as they are interrelated. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearings had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against these items. The Director of Development Services presented the staff reports and- . recommendations of the Planning Commission. He noted that the proposed change to the Subdivision Ordinance is to establish a different criteria for subdivisions that create fifty lots or less, a flat fee of $10,000 per lot created, as opposed to current Code that requires either land dedication or a fee based upon a certain ratio of land area per residential housing unit constructed, and as brought forth during consideration of Variance 1 -90, a request to create two twenty -five foot wide lots of a fifty foot wide 2 -25 -91 lot, in that case the park land dedication fee would have been $156,000 or $78,000 per lot. He reported the second component of ZTA 1 -91 proposes to decrease the minimum lot size in Old Town of Residential Medium and High Density Zones from the existing five thousand square feet to two thousand five hundred square feet, bringing the minimum lot size into conformity with the City's density requirement as set forth in the General Plan and City Code. The Director explained that due to the provisions of the existing ordinances and the high park dedication fee, an individual having a lot of a size where more than one unit could be developed, there is an incentive to develop that property with as many rental units as the Code will allow rather than a single family unit. He noted that there has been no park dedication fees collected since 1975, quite likely because of the high dedication fee and significantly increased land values. He pointed out that there is a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance that exempts the conversion of rental units to condos, if those units have been in existence for five years or more, from the payment of any park dedication fees, as an example, rental units are constructed, remain as such for a period of five years, are converted to condos, sold as owner - occupied homes under the condo conversion, realizing a substantial return on the original investment, yet the City has no ability to collect the park dedication fee at any time. The Director explained the intent of the Planning Commission was to lower the minimum lot size back to two thousand five hundred feet being that ninety -one percent of the lots in Old Town in the RMD and RHD zones are twenty -five feet in width, current zoning providing for one house per twenty -five foot lot, and the Planning Commission ,_ felt that the park dedication fee should be reduced accordingly to encourage the construction of the single family units. - - The Director suggested change to Section 1(c) of proposed Ordinance 1329 to delete the word "will" to read "Staff prepared an initial environmental assessment... ", also noted _ that the Planning Commission had recommended that the park dedication fee be reviewed on a regular basis, suggesting every five years, the City Attorney agreeing with that recommendation, however it was that directive could be part of the Ordinance rather than being in the Subdivision Ordinance. Councilmember Hastings pointed out that most corner lots are twenty -seven and one half feet wide, and by implementing this change it will essentially make the - twenty -five foot wide corner lots legal nonconforming. The Director responded that if there are existing twenty -five foot corner lots they are already nonconforming under existing provisions of the Code which requires a minimum fifty -five foot wide corner lot, and the intent is to not increase the number of nonconforming lots in the community, noting that there is a subsequent provision of the Code for corner lots that states the width of the lot would be increased by ten percent of the minimum required width, which applies throughout the City. Councilmember Hastings __ said she is aware of twenty -five foot wide corner lots in Old Town, therefore there should be a specific provision to reflect minimizing those lots. The Director said he understood the request to be for an exception for the RMD and RHD zones in Old Town from the additional ten percent, yet since those corner lots are presently nonconforming it would be necessary to refer that matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Discussion continued. The Director suggested that if the Council so desired, the Ordinances could be introduced at this time, and the corner lot issue could be referred to the Planning Commission for an amendment. 2 -25 -91 Mayor ProTem Laszlo invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this matter to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach, stated her home was constructed in 1978, that she had not been informed that it was legal nonconforming, however the Planning Department at that time had stated it was not legal nonconforming, and inquired of the reason why park dedication fees had not been collected. She noted her corner lot is twenty -five by one hundred feet, a divided fifty foot lot. The Director responded that he could not answer why the fees were not imposed during that time frame, the last park dedication fee payment that was a matter of record was on 8th Street in 1875 He explained that there is a difference between a nonconforming lot and a nonconforming residence, the nonconforming residence would exist if, as an example, there were not proper setbacks, parking, or over lot coverage, also that the term nonconforming does not mean it is illegal, it simply means that at the time it was built it met all the requirements of the City, and there would be nothing that would prohibit one from building a new structure as long as current Code requirements are met. He added that the twenty -five by one hundred foot lot is not illegal, it is a buildable lot, yet it is nonconforming in that it does not now meet what is the City's minimum size of a fifty foot wide lot, that nonconforming means that one can not come to the City and request to subdivide that lot into smaller parcels because it presently does not meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Kurt Dimere, 242 - 5th Street, stated the Director had expressed his comments, he spoke for the Zoning Text Amendment and the construction of single family units, he offered that current Code would have allowed him to built a much higher density than he had chosen to build. There being no further comments, Mayor ProTem Laszlo declared the public hearing closed. In response to a question posed, the Director reported from 1955 to 1966 the City required a minimum lot size of six thousand five hundred square feet for the R -3 zone, five thousand five hundred square feet in the R -2 zone, in 1966 it was change to a of seven thousand square feet in both zones, and in 1974 it was changed to the current five thousand square feet. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1329 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91 - PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES - RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS Ordinance Number 1329 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1- 91, APPROVING SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91, AMENDING SECTION 21 -32 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF FIFTY (50) OR FEWER LOTS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1329 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1329 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo NOES: None ABSENT: Wilson Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1330 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91 - DECREASING MINIMUM LOT SIZE - RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM /RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONES - PLANNING DISTRICT ONE Ordinance Number 1330 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 2 -25 -91 CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1- 91, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -701, 28 -801 AND 28 -2301 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY ZONES (RMD) AND (RHD) OF PLANNING DISTRICT I FROM THE EXISTING 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1330 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1330 as amended, and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo NOES: None ABSENT: Wilson Motion carried The Assistant City Attorney noted that the amendment, as requested by Councilmember Hastings, would be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NUMBER 1328 - COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES It was the consensus of the Council to hold over until the next meeting proposed Ordinance Number 1328 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A CHARTER CITY, AMENDING THE COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF COUNCILMANIC DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND CORRECTING THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 1, COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 3, AND COUNCILMANIC DISTRICT 5, AND AMENDING SECTION 2 -70 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." RESOLUTION NUMBER 4015 - HONORING DENIS THOMAS - FINANCE DIRECTOR I Resolution Number 4015 was presented to Council entitled "A - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING AND COMMENDING DENIS THOMAS FOR HIS MORE THAN TWENTY -TWO YEARS OF DEDICATED AND LOYAL SERVICE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4015 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4015 as presented. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo NOES: None ABSENT: Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4016 - SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION Resolution Number 4016 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN DEMANDS AND CHECKS FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK, WELLS FARGO BANK AND FIRST INTERSTATE BANK; AND AUTHORIZING ALTERNATE SIGNATURES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 3987." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4016 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 4016 as presented. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo NOES: None ABSENT: Wilson Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4017 - INSTALLATION OF HANDICAPPED RESTROOMS - PROJECT NUMBER 610 - MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER Resolution Number 4017 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #610 - INSTALLATION OF 3 -11 -91 CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1 -91, APPROVING SUBDIVISION TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91, AMENDING SECTION 21 -32 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF FIFTY (50) OR FEWER LOTS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1329 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1329 as presented. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1330 - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1 -91 - MINIMUM LOT SIZE - RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM and HIGH DENSITY ZONES - PLANNING DISTRICT I Ordinance Number 1330 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (ZTA) 1- 91, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -701, 28 -801 AND 28 -2301 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY ZONES (RMD) AND (RHD) OF PLANNING DISTRICT I FROM THE EXISTING 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1330 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Forsythe, to adopt Ordinance Number 1330 as presented. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried ORDINANCE NUMBER 1331 - WATER CONSERVATION Ordinance Number 1331 was presented to Council for second reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 26A OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONSERVE THE AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND SAFETY." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1331 was waived. The Acting City Manager advised of minor changes to the Ordinance, the word "stage" changed to "phase ", Section 26A -15 had been deleted as it was inapplicable, and clarifying language had been added to the "mandatory compliance" provisions. Wilson moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Ordinance Number 1331 as amended. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4024 - CLOSURE OF TURNPOCKETS - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY /MAIN STREET - ANTIQUE SHOW /SIDEWALK SALE Resolution Number 4024 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND TURNPOCKETS LOCATED AT THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY /MAIN STREET INTERSECTION." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4024 was waived. Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to adopt Resolution Number 4024 as presented. AYES: Forsythe, Hastings, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson NOES: None Motion carried RESOLUTION NUMBER 4025 - CHANGING REGENCY DRIVE TO ADOLFO LOPEZ DRIVE Resolution Number 4025 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CHANGING THE NAME OF REGENCY DRIVE TO ADOLFO LOPEZ DRIVE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4025 was waived. Forsythe moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 4025 as presented. • ORDINANCE NUMBER /./16/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 92 -5, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -210 AND 28 -2407, RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on November 7, 1990, the Planning Commission considered a Staff Report which discussed the following issues; Processing of Development Applications, Standard of Review for Minor Plan Reviews, and General History of City Policy re: Expansion of Non - Conforming Residential Structures; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1990, the Planning Commission requested direction of the City Council regarding several issues of concern relative to the Minor Plan Review process; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1990, the City Council considered the request of the Planning Commission, received comments from city staff relative to this issue, and adopted Ordinance No. 1319, which prohibited the processing of development applications for the expansion of non- conforming residential structures as an urgency measure; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 1990, the Planning Commission received and filed a staff report regarding the City Council actions of November 13; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 1990, the City Council considered an extension of Ordinance No. 1319 and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1321, extending the urgency ordinance until October, 1991; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session to receive citizen input regarding the issue of expansion of non- conforming uses, received public comments from five persons, and determined to schedule an additional study session; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session to further consider the issue, received a staff proposal which would establish separate standards for single family /duplex structures and for triplex or larger structures, received public comments from five persons, and continued the study session to March 20, 1991; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 1991, the Planning Commission continued the Study Session, received additional public comments from seven persons, and requested the Department of Development Services to distill the public and Commission comments and prepare a report for the Commission as time allows; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session regarding the enlargement of non - conforming residential structures, considered additional information prepared by staff, received public Ordinance Number !904/ comments from five persons, and instructed staff to prepare two to three alternatives for consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission at a Joint Study Session; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session, received proposals submitted by staff, and requested the City Council to schedule a Joint Study Session to discuss this issue; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, the City Council considered the request of the Planning Commission for a Joint Study Session, and determined to schedule February 19, 1992, for that purpose; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 1992, the City Council and Planning Commission conducted the Joint Study Session, considered two alternative proposals from staff, received public comments from nine persons, and provided direction to staff for additional provisions to be included in the necessary zone text amendment proposal for public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential strictures; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all non-conforming residential structures within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305; and :- WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1992 to consider Zone Text Amendment 92 -5; and . WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing; and 'WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was no oral or written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. The proposed Zone Text Amendment will allow for less intensive expansion of non - conforming structures than is presently allowed under current regulations. 2. This proposal will result in completion of a city study which was initiated in November, 1990, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment. 3. This proposal will allow for the expansion of non - conforming structures, subject to more restrictive conditions and requirements than currently exist. 4. This proposal will limit and discourage proposals for major expansion of multiple- family non - conforming residential structures by requiring the provision of a minimum of one off - street parking space per dwelling unit. 5. This proposal will minimize the visual and functional conflicts between non - conforming and conforming residential structures within the City by reducing the allowable area expansion. Ordinance Number _17, /, 6. This proposal will encourage the provision of additional off - street parking spaces by allowing for the use of tandem parking spaces for only non- conforming residential structures. 'WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, August 24, 1992; and WHEREAS, • the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1992, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 92- 24. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 92 -5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby approve Zone Text Amendment 92 -5, and amend Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach as indicated in the following Sections: SECTION 1. Section 28 -210 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby deleted in its entirety and a new Section 28 -210 is hereby adopted to read as follows: "Section 28 -210. Bedroom. "Bedroom" means any room other than a living room, dining room, breakfast room, kitchen, hallway, pantry, foyer, closet or bathroom." SECTION 2. Section 28 -2407 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby deleted in its entirety and a new Section 28 -2407 is hereby adopted to read as follows: "Section 28 -2407. Enlargements Or Structural Alterations To Nonconforming Residential Buildings And Uses. Nonconforming residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in this section. A. permitted Improvements. 1. Minor Structural Alterations and Improvements to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit: (a) Skylights. (b) Solar Systems. (c) Additional windows. (d) Decorative exterior improvements. (e) Building maintenance. _ (f) Adding or replacing utilities. (g) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. Ordinance Number 36/ 2. Minor Structural Alterations. Enlargements Or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to consent calendar plan review: (a) Open roof decks. (b) Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed) (c) Roof additions over balconies and porches (not enclosed). (d) Additional exterior doors. (e) Additional garages and carports, including tandem garages and carports. (f) Interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to less than twenty-five percent (25 %) of the • structure's interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms provided that the number does not - exceed the following bedroom /bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The number of bedrooms, as defined in §28- 210 of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. (g) Reduction in the number of units involving removal or structural alteration to less than fifty percent (50%) of the structures interior walls. (h) Minor enlargements or expansions. (1) Single Family Dwellings and Duplexes: - -- One time or cumulative minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone less than ten percent (10%) of the allowable floor area if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; or a maximum of 288 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 576 square feet per property, if the subject property is nonconforming due to parking, subject to the following: [a] Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom /bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. [b] The number of bedrooms, as defined in §28 -210, may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. [c] Enclosures of balconies and porches shall constitute the addition of habitable space. [d] Such expansions and enlargements to properties that are nonconforming due to parking shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided. Ordinance Number . / [e] The provision of enclosed tandem parking spaces may be utilized to comply with the required off -street parking requirements, provided all required setbacks are provided. (2) Three (3) or More Units: . One time or cumulative minor structural alterations or expansions which increase the floor area less than ten percent (10%) of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone if the subject property meets the minimum parking requirements; or a maximum of 144 square feet per unit up to a maximum of 400 square feet per property, if: [a] the subject property is nonconforming due to parking, and [b] a minimum of one (1) standard, open and accessible covered parking space is provided for each unit, subject to the following: [1] Additional bathrooms are permitted provided that the number per unit does not exceed the following bedroom /bathroom ratio: one bath for each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. [2] The number of bedrooms, as defined in §28 -210, may not be increased if the subject property is nonconforming due to density or parking. . [3] Enclosures of balconies and porches shall constitute the addition of habitable space. [4] Such expansions and enlargements to properties that are nonconforming due to parking shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking, given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure, is provided. [5] The provision of enclosed tandem parking spaces may be utilized to comply with the required off - street parking requirements, provided all required setbacks are provided. (i) One -time or cumulative enlargements or expansions of ten percent (10%) or more of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone to properties that are nonconforming only due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided clue to lot width. (j) Other minor structural alterations and improvements similar to the foregoing, as determined by the Planning Commission. 3. Major Structural Alt erations. eme nts or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density and the required setback for Ordinance Number /J / existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports and exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback, are satisfied: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions of ten percent (104 %) or more of the allowable floor area under the Floor Area Ratio standards of the appropriate zone. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which • involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structures interior walls. 4. Major Structural Alterations. Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as follows may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit provided that all the requirements of this chapter excluding density and parking are satisfied. Provided the parcel is nonconforming due to the use of tandem parking when the required number of spaces are provided and the required standard spaces cannot be physically provided due to lot width: (a) One -time or cumulative enlargements and/or expansions greater than ten percent (10 %) of the allowable floor area. (b) One -time or cumulative interior wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration to greater than fifty percent (50%) of the structures interior bearing walls. (c) The number of bedrooms, as defined in §28 -210, may not be increased. (d) Such expansions and enlargements shall be permitted only if the Planning Commission determines that all feasible parking given the availability and location of space on the site or the constraints imposed by the existing sound primary structure is provided. 5. Structural Alterations. Enlargements Or Expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by reason of inadequate setbacks, including the required setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages, carports, and exterior stairways may be approved by the Director of Development Services, subject to the following: (a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and district in which the building or use is located. (b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior stairways, which shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as most recently adopted by the City, with the exception of the required setback. (c) The existing nonconforming front yard setback shall deviate no more than - - ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum front setback. (d) The existing nonconforming rear yard setback shall deviate no more than ten percent (10 %) from the current minimum rear setback. Ordinance Number // B. Procedure. 1. Consent Calendar Plan Review - Any person desiring to apply for consent calendar plan review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this section shall submit an application, required plans and property owner list to the Department of Development Services together with payment of the minor plan review fee 21 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Notice of the application for consent calendar plan review shall be given to all property owners - - within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property. 2. Inspection - Any person requesting approval pursuant to Section 28- 2407(A)(2)(h) or (i), Section 28- 2407(A)(3)(a) or (b) or, Section 28- 2407(A)(4)(a) or (b) for any building which was constructed prior to 1965, shall request a special investigation of the subject property prior to filing such an application. The Building and Safety Division, after the investigation request is made and fees paid pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, shall inspect the subject side and building, both internally and externally, to determine the condition of the site and building, including but not limited to the wiring, plumbing, structural integrity, roofing and condition of the walls, ceiling, floors and garage." SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. PA QED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach } a mee in ther of held on the /4 day of ■ lI , 1992. Mayor CITY OF SEAL BEACH ATIES -1 � / E AE a 111� J � O fi • .... " rr q �! /77 ( J \ • 1 City/ Clerk / % r; 1.� 0; dill! e o ; 1 '4i__ - • Ordinance Number /3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } 1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number California, (v/ o9 file in the office of the -City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the` day of - - - ( Z.,24 1992, and passed, approved and adopted by th • e i o u cil of the City of e Beach at a meeting held on the /2. day ( , 4 , 71,. -- 1992 bye following vote: 1 Y AYES: Councilmembers S . " . " r^` • C • , r , /o NOES: Councilmembe ABSENT: 4dble and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number /� has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Num r 36. ' d1 _ Y "C ty Clerk 8 -24 -92 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "I" - STORM WATER PERMIT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT - TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY -LAWS. In response to Mayor Forsythe, the City Manager explained that this Program, the Drainage Area Management Plan under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, is a federally mandated program for all jurisdictions nationwide, and although there is flexibility for a city to participate individually, the Orange County cities elected to participate jointly in the permitting process primarily for the purpose of reducing their costs. The Mayor made reference to a City of San Clemente communication expressing concern with regard to the costs associated with inspection, monitoring and record keeping under the program, referred also to an April 3rd memorandum from the Orange County Environmental Resources Division acknowledging that certain co- permittees could be impacted adversely by flows from drainage areas outside the two stormwater permit areas of San Diego and Santa Ana Regions, without a proposed remedy, which she noted is the case in Seal Beach, and questioned the required monetary contribution and benefit for this community. The City Manager noted that the City's payment is for the permitting of the storm drain inlets from Seal Beach only, that through the permitting process and resulting reports it is presumed that over time there will be sufficient data to identify the impact areas and afford a means of mitigation, this program primarily for information gathering, identification of inlet and discharge locations, etc. Also, recognizing in this case that county boundaries meet within the Channel, the federal agency having area jurisdiction will be the lead agency rather than Los Angeles or Orange counties. He confirmed that there is no means for reimbursement of this cost. Hastings moved, second by Brown, to approve Amendment No. 1 to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit Implementation Agreement, Santa Ana /San Diego Regions, between the Orange County Flood Control District and the Orange County cities, the Amendment adding the cities of Lake Forest and Laguna Hills, establishes recomputed share contributions, allows the County to retain professional services to implement work programs, and establishes a Technical Advisory Committee, the motion also approved the By -laws of that Committee. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 92 -5 - EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider Zone Text Amendment 92 -5 relating to the expansion of nonconforming structures. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and reviewed the background that led to this ZTA. He explained that the basic difference from existing Code provisions is that the proposed amendments restrict to a lesser amount the allowable floor area of additions that may be constructed, current Code allowing ten percent of the allowable floor area of a property to be added through the Minor Plan Review process, the Conditional Use Permit process required for expansions of greater than ten percent of the allowable floor area. He noted that the proposed amendments place single family and duplex units in one category, triplex and larger properties in another category, a maximum two hundred eighty -eight square foot addition per unit proposed for nonconforming single family and duplex units that do not meet parking requirements, one hundred forty -four square feet of 8 -24 -92 additional building area per unit proposed for three or more unit structures with a maximum of four hundred square feet per property if nonconforming due to parking, both categories considered under the Minor Plan Review process, and additions proposed larger than those square footages would fall within the Conditional Use Permit process with notices to properties within three hundred feet and the requirement for specific findings. The Director pointed out that the amendment proposes a provision for tandem parking as a means of satisfying off - street parking requirements, where current Code does not allow tandem parking, and for triplex or larger projects at least one off - street parking space per unit where none are presently required. He explained that the amendment would allow tandem parking to be used as legal parking for nonconforming residential properties only. Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Ms. Beverly Casares, Seal Beach, spoke regarding the bedroom to bath ratio and suggested that provision should be made to allow bathrooms equal to the number of bedrooms as well as a half or guest bath. She made reference to her residence where the garage dimensions do not meet Code and inquired if her ability to add living area, specifically bedrooms, would be reduced by this amendment, and stated her view that possibly the ordinance should be rewritten to apply to the Old Town area only. The Director responded that there is a specific provision of the Code that applies to the residential low density areas, and in the case of interior garage dimensions that are less than Code requirements the structure is considered legal conforming to which an addition could be made providing that the addition meets all other requirements of the Code. The Director explained that the proposed amendments would apply to residential non - conforming properties throughout the community, properties where there is an existing nonconformity other than the garage dimensions as an example. Ms. Casares mentioned nonconformities such as the lack of insulation, wiring that is no longer allowed, etc., stated her understanding that a definition of density does not exist, and to that cited an example of a fifty by fifty lot in the Old Town area where a third story could be added at the rear of the structure. She suggested also that bedroom be redefined to reflect guidelines generally used by the federal government and realtors, 'any place that has built -in storage or a closet for storage purposes that may be used with a bed.' Mr. Charles Antos, 328 - 17th Street, explained that the definition of bedroom originated as a means of assuring that parking requirements were met for the various types of units. He suggested also that persons in the flood zone should not be penalized heightwise as a result of raising their dwelling above the flood zone, in such cases height should be measured from above that zone rather than from grade, a benefit of that being that the first level of the structure could be used for parking. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, claimed that the Zone Text Amendment is directed solely at Old Town, that the thrust is to eliminate the multi - family dwellings and apartment units that meet the goals of the Housing Element and encourage much larger single family dwellings. At the request of Council, the Director stated that the thrust of the amendments actually encourages the retention of the multi - family properties, allowing them to be maintained, improved and expanded, where many cities allow no expansion of nonconforming properties. With regard to nonconforming properties in College Park East, the Director confirmed that there could possibly be some setback nonconformities, a residence built at the end of a cul -de -sac as an example, that it is unlikely there would be density or parking nonconformities, also noted that a prior problem relating to patios in that area was resolved in years past and are now 8 -24 -92 conforming. Ms. Rhonda Hjelm cited her ownership of a property at 225 - 14th Street with a nonconforming house and a bachelor unit at the rear, her family's intent being to add nine hundred to one thousand square feet of living area to the residence, not the unit, and questioned if that would be allowed under the amendments since there would be one less than the required four parking spaces. The Director advised that should the amendments be adopted, application could be made for that degree of !` expansion through the Conditional Use Permit process, noticed to neighboring properties within three hundred feet, and considered under public hearing before the Planning Commission, where current Code would not allow the City to even consider such request. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1361 - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 92 -5 - EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES In response to previous comments, the Director of Development Services explained that the proposed ordinance does not address Building Code compliance, confirmed that there are a number of structures in the community that do not comply with current Building Code provisions however stated such noncompliance does not yield a structure to be nonconforming in terms of the zoning ordinance for additions to a property, yet noted that at such time as a nonconforming structure proceeds through the building review process for additions or remodels, if the valuation of the new work meets a certain level the structure is required to be upgraded to met current electrical and plumbing requirements regardless. The Director pointed out that density is defined in the General Plan as to the land area required to construct a residential unit in the Old Town area, five thousand square feet _ required for a single family residence in the Low Density Zone, _ two thousand five hundred in the Medium Density Zone, two thousand one hundred seventy -eight in the High Density Zone, nine hundred fifty square feet in Surfside, and one thousand three hundred fifty square feet in the Bridgeport area, those definitions repeated in the Zoning Ordinance for those specific land use designations. The Director advised that the issue of buildings being constructed above the flood zone will be forthcoming before the Planning Commission, noting that it is the feeling if staff that the height of a building should not be affected as a result of raising the structure, the Planning Commission to also consider the issue of third stories on any lot in the City. Brief discussion followed with regard to bedroom/ bathroom ratios, the Director again clarifying that the amendments relate to nonconforming structures only, and pointed out that there is no restriction on the number of baths with new construction as long as other requirements of the Code are met. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1361 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 92 -5, AMENDING SECTIONS 28- 2407 AND 28 -210, RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF NON - CONFORMING • STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH" with the amendment of Sections 28- 2407- A -2(f), A- 2(h)(1)(i), and A- 2(h)(2)(i) to reflect a one to one bedroom to bathroom ratio plus one half --- bath, and that Ordinance Number 1361 be passed to second reading. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1361 was waived. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 8:06 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:14 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. 9 -14 -92 H. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of August 24, 1992. I. Approved second reading and adoption of Ordinance Number 1361 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ___ APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 92 -5, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -210 AND 28 -2407, RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF NON- . CONFORMING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1361 was waived. J. Received and filed the Report of the California Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Consensus Group, requested staff to monitor activities of the EMF Consensus Group and the Public Utilities Commission regarding this issue, and that the Report be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Control Board for their information. K. Received and filed the report relating to the South Coast Air Quality Management District consideration of adopting proposed Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and proposed amendments to Rule 1401, New Source Review of - Carcinogenic Air Contaminants, requested staff to monitor the rule- making process and provide additional information to the - - - City Council as deemed appropriate, also that the Report be forwarded to the Environmental Quality Control Board for their information. L. Received and filed the report regarding the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed public notification procedures pursuant to The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information Act of 1987 (AB 2588), instructed staff to forward said Report to the Environmental Quality Control Board for their information, and that staff monitor and report to the City Council regarding this proposed notification process. M. Received and filed the report relating to "The State Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) Determination of Existing and Future Housing Needs in the SCAG Region for the period of July 1, - 1992 to June 30, 1999, the information received from the Southern California Association of - "i Governments, and instructed staff to - -' "provide same to the Planning Commission for their information. N. Approved the extension of the Parking Permit Program Agreement with the Seal Beach Business Association for the period of one year commencing October 1, 1992. ORDINANCE NUMBER /e4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING- TEXT - AMENDMENT 93 -1, DELETING SECTION 28- 2407. (A) (4) (c), RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENCES WITH TANDEM PARKING WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on September 14, 1992, the City Council approved Zone Text Amendment 92 -5, which substantially amended Section 28 -2407 of the Code, relating to standards for additions and remodeling of nonconforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, during the Planning Commission and City Council hearings concerning ZTA 92 -5, City staff understood that Section 28- 2407.(A)(4)(c) was to be removed to permit the addition of new bedrooms in conjunction with a proposed major remodel approved pursuant to Section 28-2407.(A)(4); and WHEREAS, Section 28- 2407.(A)(4) permits major expansions and remodels to nonconforming residential structures which are nonconforming due to density and approved tandem parking. In such circumstances the subject property is considered to meet all off -street parking requirements and a prohibition on the addition of bedrooms seems unreasonable, since a conforming residence which meets all off -street parking requirements is not prohibited from adding bedrooms; and 'WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the provisions of the Code, and feels this section was not intended by the Planning Commission or the City Council and is requesting the deletion of the subject section; and WHEREAS, a request was made by a project proponent for the Planning Commission to consider a development application in accordance with the above stated understanding of this particular section of the Code; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission and City Council considered a staff report regarding this matter on March 3, 1993, and March 8, 1993, respectively, and concurred with the recommendation of staff in regards to the recommended deletion of this section; and WHEREAS, the subject zone text amendment would apply to all properties within the City which are currently nonconforming due to density and the provision of tandem parking; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993 to consider Zone Text Amendment 93 -1; and Ordinance Number 4'34 WHEREAS, the said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing and received the Staff Report; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing there was no oral or written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. The proposed Zone Text Amendment will apply to all properties within the City which are currently nonconforming due to density and the provision of tandem parking, allowing the addition of bedrooms. 2. The proposed Zone Text Amendment will place nonconforming residences and conforming residences which provide all required off - street parking under the same criteria regarding the provision of additional bedrooms. 3. This proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts. 4. This proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration 8 -91, which was approved by the City Council on December 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 12, 1993 to consider Zone Text Amendment 93 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minuted of April 7, 1993, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 93- 22. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence - presented at the time of the public hearing; and 'WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 93 -1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby approve Zone Text Amendment 93 -1 and amend Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach as indicated in the following sections: Section 1. Delete Section 28- 2407.(A)(4)(c). Section 2. - Renumber Section 28- 2407.(A)(4)(d) to Section 28- 2407.(A)(4)(c). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO7TED by the City C6�l�il of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the - day of �� -_,1993. • 11 /c u .® f0 ,t6., Mayor Attest:. �_-- SEAT �`tlill .t rs City Clerk - ; gyp- , r. fi. 1 c q E g r'Ct.!. er r 1 � - il co:, t c.. . Ordinance Number ,./.30 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, Calif° is do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number 3 7 on fileini the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the ,-,761..q day of C/},i , 1993, and passed, approv „and adopted • e City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the dray of 1 , 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembe , - 7 J. e 5 a f NOES: Councilmembers 1. � ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers�� and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number /14 1 has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. / Al '.u. cwt - /2( { d. C ty.Llerk 4 -26 -93 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 'ITEM "G" - ORDINANCE NUMBER 1365 - BEACHES and PARKS - CURFEW Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, inquired if exceptions to the curfew hours for certain events or activities had been resolved. The City Manager advised that guidelines for special events will be provided for consideration at the next meeting. Brown moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Ordinance Number 1365 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 -2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING THE HOURS OF UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC BEACHES AND PUBLIC PARKS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1365 was waived. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried ITEM "H" - WEST ORANGE COUNTY WATER BOARD BUDGET As the representative to that agency, Councilman Doane concurred with the proposed 1993/94 fiscal year budget for the West Orange County Water Board, and noted an anticipated carry over of monies from the 1992/93 fiscal year. Laszlo moved, second by Doane, to ratify the proposed 1993/94 West Orange County Water Board budget as presented. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried ITEM "K" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4219 - APPROVING GMA -6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING AND COORDINATION PROJECT / RELEASE OF FUNDS At the request of Councilman Laszlo, the City Manager explained that this funding is the result of the one -half sales tax. approved by Measure M in 1990, a portion of which is designated for signalization improvements, and that the Seal Beach allotment for this project is $48,000. He noted that this project consists of ten signals on Seal Beach Boulevard from the 405 Freeway to Pacific Coast Highway and on Westminster Boulevard from Kitts Highway to Road C, the improvements consisting of removal of the individual signal controls and replaced with a master computer hardwired to each to the signals, the timing and phasing will likely be unchanged and should there be a need to make adjustments in the future that will be under the control of the City. Councilman Laszlo inquired if opticon units could be funded by signal synchronization monies. The Manager reported there had been a proposal from the Orange County Fire District to fund opticon units however reports from a number of jurisdictions that claimed the units created more of a safety problem than they eliminated, thus the proposal was dropped. Hastings moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4219 as presented entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF GMA -6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING AND COORDINATION PROJECT AND REQUESTING RELEASE OF FUND FOR PROJECT COST." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4219 was waived. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 93 -1 - ADDITION OF BEDROOMS - NONCONFORMING PROPERTIES Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider Zoning Text Amendment 93 -1, deletion of Section 28- 2407(A)(4)(c) of the Municipal Code. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required by law, and reported no communications received either for or against this item. Mr. Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant /Planning, 4 -26 -93 explained that ZTA 93 -1 would then allow the addition of bedrooms in conjunction with major remodels or expansions for those nonconforming residences only due to density and providing all of the required parking, including approved tandem parking. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Forsythe declared the _ public hearing closed. I , ORDINANCE NUMBER 1367 - APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 93 -1 - ADDITION OF BEDROOMS - NONCONFORMING PROPERTIES Ordinance Number 1367 was presented to Council for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 93 -1, DELETING SECTION 28- 2407(A)(4)(c), RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENCES WITH TANDEM PARKING WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1367 was waived. Hastings moved, second by Brown, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1367 and that it be passed to second reading. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried UTILITY USERS TAX The City Manager reported this item was placed on the agenda in compliance with State law to announce the proposal to increase the Utility Users Tax, accept comments from the public, and that the public hearing to consider same is scheduled for May 24th. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, recalled his opposition to the initial enactment of the Utility Users Tax, however given the current financial situation he reported the Seal Beach Residential Homeowners Association had recently voted to unanimously support the increase as proposed. STATE BUDGET UPDATE The City Manager said there now appears to be some certainty that AB8 monies will be lost as they are identified in the budget proposals of the Governor, the House and Senate. He mentioned that until the budget crisis not much attention had been paid to local costs resulting from State and Federal legislation, however a review has shown that for the period of 1991/92 and the current year the cumulative cost of State and Federal mandates has been $938,000, last year $32,000 was reimbursed by the State, nothing received from the Federal government, and cited as an example the assistance provided during the riots of last year was to have been reimbursed at a rate of $.75 on the dollar, the expenses incurred by Seal Beach was $89,000, the same ratio applied to storm damage expenses. He reported also that revenues to the City for this fiscal year are ten percent below last year, or just $100,000 over 1989/90 revenues, and adjustment of the Utility Users Tax will barely keep the financial situation status quo. Mayor Forsythe cited AB 939 as an example, the State mandated program for implementation of waste reduction and recycling, which required expenditure of funds at the local level for studies, implementation plans, etc., and is now rumored may be a casualty of the State budget. The Manager noted that the aerospace payback of an approximate half million dollars may not be known until August, the issue before the Supreme Court being I • the payback formula based upon either the three year California statute of limitations or the Federal statute of six years, should the Federal statute be used the amount owed would more than double, and to that, legislation is being proposed requesting the Federal government to waive the six year statute as they, rather than aerospace, are the ultimate recipient of the payback. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilman Laszlo mentioned his belief that there is more traffic congestion in the area of the freeway entrances /exits since 5 -10 -93 having implemented a smoking ban within their restaurant area on a trial basis. Mrs. Babcock, who was present in the audience, confirmed their ban to which there have been no complaints, however spoke favorably of the City not having enacted a mandatory smoking ban. It was noted that the remaining two appointments to this Committee would be placed on the next agenda. RESOLUTION NUMBER 4221 - CREATION OF THE DISNEYLAND RESORT Resolution Number 4221 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUPPORTING THE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DISNEYLAND IN THE CREATION OF THE DISNEYLAND RESORT." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4221 was waived. Brown moved, second by Laszlo, to adopt Resolution Number 4221 as presented. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None - Motion carried CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" thru "S" Doane moved, second by Brown, to approve the recommended action for items on the Consent Calendar as presented. E. Approved regular demands numbered 1967 through 2126 in the amount of $463,352.59 , and payroll demands numbered 1381 through 1557 in the amount of $338,376.75 as _ approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. F. Approved the minutes of the regular meeting of April 26, 1993. G. Adopted Ordinance Number 1366 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, ADDING SECTION 15 -24 REGARDING SEIZURE OF FIREWORKS." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1366 was waived. H. (Action was taken on the "Poppy Days" proclamation earlier in the meeting.) I. Adopted Ordinance Number 1367 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 93 -1, DELETING SECTION 28- 2407(A)(4)(c), RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF BEDROOMS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENCES WITH TANDEM PARKING WITHIN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1367 was waived. J. Accepted the resignation of Lorraine Rice, a District Five appointee to the Archaeological Advisory Committee, and declared said position to be vacant. K. Denied the claim for recovery of personal expenditure of Richard Allen aka R. A. Weaver. L. Approved plans and specifications for Project Number 634, Improvements for the Bolsa Chica Well Site, and authorized the City Manager to advertise for bids. . ORDINANCE NO. 07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ' CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 28 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOTIFICATION TO OCCUPANTS (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 95- 2) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing at its meeting of September 6, 1995, the Planning Commission considered and approved Zoning text Amendment 95 -2. This amendment will amend Sections 28- 2407.b.1, 28 -2705 and 28 -2757 of the Code to require hearing notices be mailed to occupants as well as property owners; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zoning Text Amendment 95 -2 is exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to § 15051(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the record of the hearing on September 6, 1995 indicates the following: (a) The said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing and received the Staff Report. (b) At said public hearing there was no oral or written testimony or evidence received by the Planning Commission. (c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development. Specifically, this amendment is intended to broaden public participation in the land use decision making process. This will be accomplished through mailing hearing notices to all occupants living within a given radius of a property which is seeking a discretionary permit from the City. Currently only property owners living within the radius are notified by mail; and WHEREAS, based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 95 -23, adopted September 20, 1995, and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission made the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 95 -2 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. Ordinance Number 29/ (b) The proposed text amendment is intended to broaden public participation in the land use decision making process. This will be accomplished through mailing hearing notices to all occupants living within a given radius of a property which is seeking a discretionary permit from the City. Currently only property owners living within the radius are notified by mail. (c) The proposed text amendment will not result in any significant adverse impacts. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on October 9, - 1995 to consider Zone Text Amendment 95 -2; and WHEREAS, the City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning Commission, including the Staff Report, Planning Commission Minutes of September 6 and September 20, 1995, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 95 -22. In addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented at the time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented, the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 95 -2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby approve Zone Text Amendment 95 -2 and amend Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach as indicated in the following sections: Section L Article 24. Section 28- 2407.B.1. of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: - "B. Procedure. - • 1. Consent Calendar Plan Review - Any person desiring to apply for consent calendar plan review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this section shall submit an application, required plans and property owner list to the Department of Development Services together with payment of the minor plan review fee 14 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Notice of the application for consent calendar plan review shall be given to all property owners and to all addresses within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property." Section 2., Article 27. Section 28 -2705. of Chapter 28 of The Code of /he City of ,Seal Beach is hereby amended to read: "Section 28 -2705. Notices. Notice of time and place of public hearings shall be given in the following manner: (1) Changes of zone request initiated by property owner, appeals, planned unit developments and unclassified use permits shall be by written notice published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailing a written notice to all property owners and to all addresses within a three hundred foot radius of the property to be directly affected. This action shall take place not less than ten days before the hearing date. Ordinance Number /317 (2) Amendments to the ordinance codified herein or changes to zoning districts shall be by written notice published in a newspaper of general circulation not less than ten days before the hearing date. (3) Variances, conditional use permits or tentative tract maps shall be by written notice mailed to all property owners and to all addresses within three hundred feet of the property to be affected, not less than ten days before the hearing date. (4) Changes of zone initiated by the City shall be by written notice mailed to the affected property owner(s), and to all property owners and to all addresses within three hunnred feet of the property to be affected, and publistf in a >N" newspaper of general circulation, not less than ten days before the hearing date. • (5) Appeals shall be by the same notice method employed in the original application upon which the appeal is filed. (Ord. No. 948; Ord. No. 972, Sll; Ord. No. 1047, S3)" Section Article 27.5. Section 28 -2757. of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal $each is hereby amended to read: "Section 28 -2757. Notices. Notice of time and place of public hearings to consider adoption of the development agreement shall be given in the following manner: (1) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property or the ownerbduly authorized agent, and to the yy'° project applicant. • (2) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to each local agency expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide these facilities and services may be significantly affected. (3) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll and to all addresses within 300 feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing. (4) Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation not less that ten days before the hearing date. Notice as provided herein shall be given in addition to any notice required for actions considered concurrently with the development agreement. (Ord. No. 1247, Sly PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Coukil of the City of Seal �eac at a eetin thereof held on the C day of � � 1 �fai 4Jt.! , 1995 Ordinance Number /397 7 t . \\ • Ma or 4ttest:'� S E ,.r } till_ `, .- r7 � svo " 8� lit A o 1 „'.� n Y C r ' •-:..411, _,/ i .b r ) (.1. e 40 '"' City. Clerk - —./ :%, 0 : 111 ,,.,,,,,,. , . �� , • , ; „ �‹...'l F,' te ,ice L g l yea < 4a ..'7° .,, `� : P ✓ STATE OF CALIFORNIA } f }f l� � C.-^..-...;.,.' " pti '” ' COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS 111 1th E �.�.�-4 CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance is-an original copy of Ordinance Number __ on file in the office of tI a ,city Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the day of { ( , 1995, and passed, approved and adopted by [he ty Council of the City f) Seal B ch at a meeting held on the ; -- day • of �L. .,/, ,P., , 1995 by the following vote: L'� i AYES: . Councilmembers /`,, i ; ,, _ ._, . , k,,�_, NOES: Councilmembers / o , -- ABSENT: Councilmembers (�r7Zp -_ ' tl ABSTAIN: Councilmembe I rk! , and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number ,r has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836:' (---) 1 ----.) / , -_.......,,,,, , /,,, ; ,t_ /./ 6 . City Clerk `'- 10 -9 -95 Catalina Avenue as well, which has nothing to do with this being a restaurant or bar. He asked why it is assumed that this operator is going to have problems, Bonadonna's is open until 1:00 a.m. and there are no problems there, Los Cabos is just a restaurant that the owner is trying to service. There being no further comments, Mayor Hastings declared Oral Communications closed. Councilman Doane agreed with the speakers that a level playing field is needed, yet what he is hearing is that if the hours requested are granted this restaurant will suddenly become something else, as to the rumor of sale he said that there is nothing that would prevent the owner from selling Bonadonna's now, with its forty -seven license, if the intent was to make it a bar. Councilman Doane urged that the extension of hours be granted, that condition to receive a six month review, and if the operation becomes something other than what is represented, the establishment can be closed. Councilmember Forsythe said she felt what was being overlooked is that the applicant originally asked for hours of 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m., it was the Planning Commission who compromised to allow the hours that currently exists, and offered that if all of the class forty - seven licenses were merged into what the majority of hours are, there could possibly be a need to reduce the hours of Bonadonna's, Hennesseys, Pappilions and the Glider Inn. She reminded that Seal Beach is a bedroom community, family oriented, this restaurant is located in a residential area on property that was previously a lumberyard. Councilmember Forsythe stated this use does impact the neighborhood, she was in the opposition to the hours requested by the appeal, and moved to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission. Mayor Hastings seconded the motion. AYES: Brown, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: Doane Motion carried The City Attorney advised that a resolution will be prepared to reflect the action of the Council for a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to continue the intended adjournment to Closed Session until 10:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 95 -2 - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION TO OCCUPANTS Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing open to consider Zone Text Amendment 95 -2 relating to public hearing notification to occupants. The City Clerk certified that the notice of public hearing had been advertised as required by law and reported no communications received relating to this item. The Director of Development Services explained that this Zone Text Amendment would expand the current noticing requirements to all property owners within three hundred feet of a project to also include the occupants of structures within that area, the cost of the additional noticing to be passed on to the applicant. Mayor Hastings invited members of the audience wishing to speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Brian Brown, speaking as a member of the Planning Commission, favored ZTA 95 -2 as a resolution to a problem that primarily exists in the downtown area where the majority of residents are not property owners and are often not aware of upcoming projects, the cost of the additional mailings will be borne by the applicant, the only area where the additional notification may be more difficult and costly may be Leisure World. Councilman Brown advised that in Leisure World 10 -9 -95 the notices should be sent to the Mutual Presidents for distribution. There being no further comments, Mayor Hastings declared the public hearing closed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1397 - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 95 -2 - NOTIFICATION TO OCCUPANTS Ordinance Number 1397 was presented to Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDMENT CHAPTER 28 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOTIFICATION TO OCCUPANTS (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 95 -2)." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1397 was waived. Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to approve the introduction of Ordinance Number 1397 as presented and that it be passed on to second reading. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried CITY MANAGER REPORTS There were no City Manager reports. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Brown commended the Miss Seal Beach Pageant and its program, and announced the selection of Miss Ashley Eagle as this years Miss Seal Beach, noting that Miss Eagle is the daughter of Parks Supervisor, Bob Eagle. Councilman Laszlo announced the installation of a cellular phone antenna in the vicinity of Almond and Aster behind the Old Ranch tennis courts on the Bixby property. Councilmember Forsythe referred to the comments of Mr. Yost earlier in the meeting and stated there is considerable community interest in having the power lines along Bolsa Avenue removed, especially in the vicinity of schools, this matter upcoming for consideration by the Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council. In response to letters published in two newspapers relating to the stingray issue, Councilmember Forsythe clarified that at no time did the City Council give permission for the stingray fishing derby to take place, noting that the night prior to this activity considerable time had been spent on the telephone in an attempt to have this activity stopped as it was learned that there were other means to take care of the problem, and stated that she hoped this did not malign the reputation of Seal Beach as this community would not intentionally hurt living creatures, especially in the festive manner in which it had been proposed. Councilmember Forsythe said she would hope this type of activity will not occur in the future, that proposals such as this issue should be brought before the Council prior to release to the press, and again, there are other means of control to be looked at. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 10:23 p.m. By actions taken during this meeting, the Council adjourned back to the regular adjourned meeting of 6:30 p.m. to once again meet in Closed Session. The Council directed that the City Clerk cancel the October 23rd regular meeting and adjourn that meeting until Monday, October 30th at 6:30 p.m., the agenda for October 30th to be minimal, commencing with a Closed Session and consist of warrants, a draft ordinance, etc. 11 -27 -95 R. Held second reading and adopted Ordinance Number 1397 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 28 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NOTIFICATION TO OCCUPANTS (ZONE TEXT ___ AMENDMENT 95 -2)." By unanimous consent, r. full reading of Ordinance Number 1397 was waived. S. Received and filed the staff report relating to the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Request for Wastewater Discharge Permit, Tentative Order No. 95 -71, NPDES No. CA 8000375. U. Ratified the West Orange County Water Board Amended 1995/1996 Budget and approved Resolution Number 95 -01, "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of West Orange County Water Board Reestablishing Percentages for Allocation of Cost of Operation, Maintenance and Administration and Ownership of Facilities of West Orange County,Water Board." AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo NOES: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM "L" - FIRST and SECOND AMENDMENTS - COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE'AGREEMENT - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES To questions posed by Councilman Laszlo, staff confirmed that . the cellular transmitter antenna will be located on City property and the site rental, as set forth in the original agreement, is thought to be $800 per month. Laszlo moved, second by Brown, to ratify the First and Second Amendments to the Communications Site Lease Agreement between Pacific Bell Mobile Services and the City of Seal Beach. AYES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, laszlo NOES: None Motion carried ITEMS "0" and "P" - COVE AREA STORM DRAIN REPAIR - PROJECT NUMBER 666 - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4430 The Director of Public Works reported that the request for bids for the repair of the storm drains in the Cove areas resulted in only one bid being received and it was considered to be nonresponsive due to problems with that bid. He reported what is now before the Council for consideration is a revised repair plan to move forward and the budget amendment with a request to direct staff to negotiate a contract with one of three qualified contractors to construct the project, the intent being to meet with the City's design engineer and the qualified contractors to determine some reasonable unit prices on a time and materials basis to not exceed the $75,000 proposed appropriation even though the original estimate was in the $50,000 range. The Director explained that the desire is to move forward as quickly as possible, be under construction before Christmas, and noted that the adjacent property owners have been contacted and are supportive of the project. Councilmember Forsythe thanked staff for their efforts towards moving this project forward before the rainy season. Forsythe moved, second by Brown, to approve a budget amendment transferring funds in the amount of $75,000 from the Beach Sand Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 8 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED PROJECT FROM THOMAS GREELEY, 1629 SEAL WAY 53 11;10/2002 16:14 562- 799 - 1026 TOM GREELEY PAGE 02 • • • • Novi I(it 2002 f ` ; • • 4a , i' a ,: , in k i� l a I • Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach, California Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter because I am very concerned by the Planning Commission's recent approval of a massive addition to a multi -unit severely non - conforming apartment structure at 1210 Electric Avenue. Not only did the applicant request a very large addition, but also a roof access structure. No additional parking spaces were offered or required. This property is already very deficient in off street parking, without exacerbating the problem by enlarging the building even more. This was the wrong decision by the Commission. The testimony of the neighbors in opposition appeared to be ignored. Furthermore the proposed addition it is out of character with an area which has been converting to single family dwellings. My concern is the precedent this will have in Old Town Seal Beach. There are many, many older nuttifamily buildings that are single story with inadequate parking south of Pacific Coast Highway. This approval `opens the door' to every such property owner to ask [and apparently receive quite easily] very large additions from the city Planning Commission to these structures. The net result will be enormous intensification of usage in this area which is exactly contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of Seal Beach residents. What owner would not take advantage of this lax and free wheeling policy to maximize his or her rental income profits? What does the City of Seal Beach want to look like ten or fifteen years from now? What quality of life do we want to offer our residents? These are questions that I respectfully ask the City Council to seriously look at in regards to this recent action by our Planning Commission. - Sincerely, , Thomas Greeley 1629 Seal Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Public Hearing — Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 02 -16 and Height Variation 02 -5 • 1210 Electric Avenue City Council Staff Report December 9, 2002 ATTACHMENT 9 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS • 54 •