Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2002-12-09 #Z AGENDA REPORT I1/ DATE: December 9, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council I� THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: Zone Text Amendment 02 -1 (Retaining Walls) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After receiving all public testimony and considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Introduce the Zone Text Amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission (the appropriate Ordinance has been prepared and is attached as Attachment A). 2) Introduce the Zone Text Amendment with modifications based on testimony received and concerns of the City Council. 3) Refer the recommendation back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration if new, material information is presented which was not considered by the Planning Commission, or if additional provisions are proposed to be added to the Ordinance which were not considered by the Commission. 4) Take no action. BACKGROUND: In 1996, the City Council considered this issue when looking at the unpermitted decks along Crestview Ave. The Council directed staff to address the issue at a later date. The Planning Commission has held three study sessions on the item; the most recent being the last meeting, September 18, 2002. At that meeting several options were discussed and the Commission directed staff to come back with the appropriate language for a Zone Text Amendment to address the height of retaining walls within the City. Staff took the direction of the Commission and drafted the attached proposed Zone Text Amendment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on October 23, 2002, made certain findings and voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the Zone Text Amendment. The • Agenda Item ,Z. Commission's resolution and the minutes of the meeting are provided for Council review. This item is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review. DISCUSSION: The proposed text amendment would specify the height of retaining walls within the City. Staff has drafted overall City standards and set out two separate areas, which have unique characteristics to be addressed independently. Those two areas are: • Rear yards abutting Gum Grove Park, the Hellman Property, and other vacant lands north of the existing RLD housing in planning District V. • Side yards abutting stub streets along the "Gold Coast." There will also be general City wide standards. A recap of the standards to be imposed: ❑ City Wide: 1. Retaining walls less than 30 inches in height are permitted by right. 2. Retaining walls between 30 inches in height and 4 feet in height are permitted, subject to Minor Plan Review. No retaining wall taller than 4 feet is permitted in any situation (Except along the rear yards of the houses which abut Hellman/Gum Grove Park). 3. Fences shall still be allowed up to the maximum height as allowed under Section 28 -2316. 4. No one segment of fence /retaining wall combination, under any circumstances, shall be taller than 10 feet. 5. A retaining wall /fence combination taller than 6 feet shall have a minimum 2 foot landscape buffer between the top of the retaining wall and the start of the fence. 6. Retaining wall sections may be necessary up to 4 feet in height, subject to Minor Plan Review. When more than 4 feet is required, a 2 foot landscape buffer shall be required between each 4 foot section. (e.g. when an applicant needs 10 feet of earth retained, they would apply for a MPR, and design the wall to be 4 feet in height, then 2 foot landscape buffer, then 4 feet in height, then 2 foot landscape buffer, then 2 foot retaining wall height). 7. Retaining walls facing public streets or spaces and greater than 30 inches in height would be required to have an 18 inch landscape buffer at the base of the wall. 8. If required by Building Code, a guard rail shall be installed on top of any retaining wall. 9. The definition of a retaining wall will taken from the Uniform Building Code and adopted into the definitions section of Article 28 (Zoning Code) of the City of Seal Beach. 10. All pre- existing non - conforming retaining wall/fence combinations will be grandfathered and not subject to this chapter. All new construction, including replacement, would need to meet the restrictions of the proposed ZTA. Agenda Item ❑ Side Yards along the Gold Coast: 1. Retaining walls are permitted along the stub streets, subject to Minor Plan Review, when taller than 30 inches. 2. Automatic sprinklers and a minimum 2 foot landscape buffer shall be required, along with an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works, if necessary. 3. No retaining walls shall be allowed along the rear 96 feet of the property. ❑ Rear Yards abutting Gum Grove Park/Hellman: 1. Maximum height of retaining walls shall be 6 feet, subject to Minor Plan Review. 2. Minimum 3 foot landscape buffer between each 6 foot tall section of retaining wall. FISCAL IMPACT: - None. Staff time is preparing reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission considered this item on October 23, 2002 and adopted a resolution recommend' approval of this Zone Text Amendment on a 5 -0 vote. ge /11 Mac Cummins Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager NOTED AND APPROVED: All Y d John . Bahorski, City Manager ATTACHMENT 1: Proposed Ordinance No. , An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of . Seal Beach Amending Chapter 28 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code Amending Section 28 )11, a/, Restricting the Height of Retaining Walls in the City of Seal Beach. Agenda Item ATTACHMENT 2: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1, amending the provisions regarding retaining walls within the city ATTACHMENT 3: Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 & September 18, 2002 (Study Session) ATTACHMENT 4: Planning Commission Staff Report of October 23, 2002 Agenda Item ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING RETAINING WALLS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH .o Agenda Item ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING RETAINING WALLS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding a new Section 28- 270.01 to read as follows: "Section 28- 270.01. Retaining Wall. "Retaining wall" means a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials." Section 2. Sub - paragraph (D) of Paragraph (2) of Section 28 -2316 of Article 23 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby deleted. Section 3. Section 28 -2316 of Article 23 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph (3) to read as follows: "3. Retaining Walls: (A) City -Wide Standards (1) A retaining wall less than or equal to thirty (30) inches in height is automatically permitted. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. If such a wall faces a public street or place, said wall shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least eighteen (18) inches wide. (3) A retaining wall shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet. (4) A guard rail shall be placed, when necessary, on a retaining wall in accordance with building code requirements. (5) A fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be placed on a retaining wall provided the combined height of the retaining wall and • fence, wall, hedge or screen planting does not ten (10) feet. (6) If the combined height of a retaining wall and fence exceeds six (6) feet, then the fence shall be • separated from the retaining wall by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. Agenda Item (7) If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. (B) RLD Zone, District I Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (B) apply to side yard retaining walls abutting a public street within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District I. To the extent not in conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. There is no maximum height for retaining walls in this area. (3) The base of the public side of a retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least two (2) feet wide if required in connection with the minor plan review approval. (4) A retaining wall shall not be erected along the rear ninety -six (96) feet of a lot. (5) A retaining wall shall not be erected on public property unless an encroachment permit has been obtained. (C) RLD Zone, District V Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (C) apply to rear yard retaining walls abutting Gum Grove Park or the wetlands area within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District V along the following streets: Avalon, Catalina, Crestview and Surf Place. To the extent not in conflict with these standards, the City-wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall may not exceed a height of six (6) feet. (3) If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least three (3) feet wide. (D) Nonconforming Retaining Walls. Lawfully erected retaining walls. existing on the effective date of this paragraph shall be deemed nonconforming and may remain as is indefinitely unless damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent of the replacement cost. In the event of such damage, the wall shall be restored in conformance with this section. If a nonconforming wall is removed Agenda Item from a lot, each future retaining wall on the lot shall be in conformance with this section. (E) Miscellaneous. All landscape buffers and landscape terraces shall be equipped with automatic sprinklers. Height limits shall be based on measurements made on both sides of the retaining wall." Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. 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 thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2002. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS AB STAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS John Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Joanne Yeo, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney Agenda Item _ • ATTACHMENT 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 02 -1, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS REGARDING RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE CITY Agenda Item Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls RESOLUTION NUMBER 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 02 -1, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS REGARDING RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE CITY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of October 9, 2002,the Planning Commission - considered and approved Zone Text Amendment 02 -1. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. Section 2. 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 02 -1 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 it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; § 15268 (Ministerial Projects) because the proposed zoning text amendment is ministerial in nature; 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. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2002 to consider Zone Text Amendment 02 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of October 9, 2002 indicates the following: (a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. (c) Currently the City's zoning ordinance does not limit the height of retaining walls. However, the zoning ordinance does limit the height of fences, walls, hedges or 5 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls screen plantings placed on a retaining wall. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic enviromment of the community. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 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. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, the City's zoning ordinance currently does not limit the height of retaining walls. However, the zoning ordinance does limit the height of fences, walls, hedges or screen plantings placed on a retaining wall. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 to the City Council as set forth in the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9"' day of October, 2002, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners • David Hood, Ph.D., Chairman of the Planning Commission 6 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING RETAINING WALLS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding a new Section 28- 270.01 to read as follows: "Section 28- 270.01. Retaining Wall. "Retaining wall" means a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials." Section 2. Sub - paragraph (D) of Paragraph (2) of Section 28 -2316 of Article 23 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby deleted. Section 3. Section 28 -2316 of Article 23 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph (3) to read as follows: "3. Retaining Walls: (A) City -Wide Standards (1) A retaining wall less than or equal to thirty (30) inches in height is automatically permitted. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. If such a wall faces a public street or place, said wall shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least eighteen (18) inches wide. (3) A retaining wall shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet. (4) A guard rail shall be placed, when necessary, on a retaining wall in accordance with building code requirements. (5) A fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be placed on a retaining wall provided the combined height of the retaining wall and fence, wall, hedge or screen planting does not ten (10) feet. (6) If the combined height of a retaining wall and fence exceeds six (6) feet, ' then the fence shall be separated from the retaining wall by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. • Agenda Item (7) If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. (B) RLD Zone, District I Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (B) apply to side yard retaining walls abutting a public street within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District 1. To the extent not in conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. There is no maximum height for retaining walls in this area. (3) The base of the public side of a retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least two (2) feet wide if required in connection with the minor plan review approval. (4) A retaining wall shall not be erected along the rear ninety -six (96) feet of a lot. (5) A retaining wall shall not be erected on public property unless an encroachment permit has been obtained. (C) RLD Zone, District V Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (C) apply to rear yard retaining walls abutting Gum Grove Park or the wetlands area within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District V along the following streets: Avalon, Catalina, Crestview and Surf Place. To the extent not in conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall may not exceed a height of six (6) feet. (3) If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least three (3) feet wide. (D) Nonconforming Retaining Walls. Lawfully erected retaining walls - existing on the effective date of this paragraph shall be deemed nonconforming _ and may remain as is indefinitely unless damaged to the extent of more than fifty . percent of the replacement cost. In the event of such damage, the wall shall be restored in conformance with this section. If a nonconforming wall is removed Agenda Item _ from a lot, each future retaining wall on the lot shall be in conformance with this section. (E) Miscellaneous. All landscape buffers and landscape terraces shall be equipped with automatic sprinklers. Height limits shall be based on measurements made on both sides of the retaining wall." Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. 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 thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2002. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: - COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS John Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Joanne Yeo, City Clerk • APPROVED AS TO FORM: Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney Agenda Item ATTACHMENT 3 Planning Commission Minutes of October 23, 2002 & September 18, 2002 (Study Session) Agenda Item 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of September 18, 2002 5 6 7 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning 8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2002. The 9 meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the 10 Flag.' 11 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 15 Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 16 17 Also 18 Present: Department of Development Services 19 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 20 Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney 21 22 Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director 23 24 25 AGENDA APPROVAL 26 27 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented. 28 29 MOTION CARRIED:_ 5 — 0 30 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 31 NOES: None 32 ABSENT: None 33 34 35 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 36 37 Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. 38 39 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral 40 communications. 41 42 43 44 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. \\DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez \Carmen data\PC Minutes12002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 1 0 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 3 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002. 4 5 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Western City Magazine Articles: "Balancing Housing and 6 Growth Pressures With Limited Resources: It's Time for Leadership," and 7 "What Californians Think About Growth and Development." 8 9 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as 10 presented. 11 12 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 13 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 14 NOES: None 15 ABSENT: None 16 17 18 SCHEDULED MATTERS_ 19 20 3. Clarification of Ambiguity — Garage Structure Size 21 22 Staff Report 23 24 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 25 Planning Department.) He stated that as requested by the Planning Commission 26 (PC) at the September 4, 2002 meeting, he would attempt to provide clarification as 27 to the definition of an accessory structure as it relates to garages. He indicated that 28 there is a provision in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zoning standards that 29 allows for accessory buildings or structures, including private garages, to 30 accommodate not more than three automobiles. He stated that this provision is 31 intended to limit the size of accessory or structures separate from the main structure 32 to a maximum 3 -car capacity. He reviewed the definition for "Accessory" and 33 explained that Staff has always interpreted this to mean that an accessory structure 34 is a separate detached building. Mr. Cummins stated that there are provisions to 35 allow these accessory structures within the required setback areas subject to various 36 PC approvals. He noted that Commissioner Deaton's question was whether the City 37 should limit the overall size of a garage in general. He reviewed several 38 recommendations made by Staff on the best way to address this issue as follows: 39 40 1. Amend the definitions section of the City Code to define a garage use as an 41 accessory use within the zone itself. 42 2. Add language to require discretionary approval for any garage constructed on a 43 residential property to accommodate more than 3 vehicles. 44 3. Staff recommends that the PC require a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process for 45 these requests. 46 \\DATAFILE \USERS \CAivarez \Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 He reviewed the options available to the PC as listed on Page 3 of the Staff Report. 2 3 Commissioner Questions 4 5 Commissioner Shanks asked how the 4 -car garage on Ocean Avenue noted on 6 Page 2 of the Staff Report would be categorized. Mr. Cummins stated that as Staff 7 currently interprets the Code, garages that are attached to the main structure on a 8 property can be constructed to accommodate as many cars as the homeowner 9 desires and are not subject to the provisions for accessory structures and garages. 10 He noted that this property was actually comprised of two Tots combined into one. 11 12 Commissioner Comments 13 14 Commissioner Deaton recommended that the PC consider requiring approval via the 15 MPR or Variance (VAR) process for parking in excess of 3 cars on a property. She 16 stated that this requirement would provide the PC with the opportunity to review a 17 project before it is constructed, and would also allow for pubic notice to surrounding 18 properties. She recommended that these items be placed on the agenda under the 19 Consent Calendar minimizing Staff work and eliminating the need for a public 20 hearing, yet still provide a means for allowing residents to remove any item from the 21 Consent Calendar for further discussion. Commissioner Deaton then recommended 22 that the wording defining an accessory structure be revised to make clear whether it 23 means a free - standing structure or a part of the main structure or a part of the free - 24 standing structure. 25 . 26 Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification of the 3 -car garage per lot provision 27 using the combined lots on Ocean Avenue as an example of whether this would be 28 considered one lot or two. Mr. Cummins clarified that what he had intended to state 29 was a 3 -car garage per unit. Commissioner Deaton interjected that as she 30 understands, the lot line for the property on Ocean Avenue was redrawn to create 31 one lot, as it is illegal to build a structure over a property line. Mr. Cummins reported 32 that this was correct. Commissioner Sharp asked how the lot line was changed 33 without PC review. Mr. Cummins stated that lot line adjustments are handled 34 administratively through the Engineering Department. Commissioner Sharp stated 35 that for previous requests to create two lots out of three Old Town lots a subdivision 36 map had been required. Mr. Cummins explained that for division of one piece of 37 land into several lots a subdivision map is required, but to combine two lots into one, 38 a lot line adjustment is all that is required. 39 40 Commissioner Shanks clarified that what Commissioner Deaton was recommending 41 was to restrict the size of a garage or accessory structure to accommodate no more 42 than three automobiles. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that this was correct. 43 Commissioner Shanks noted that the only place where this has occurred in on "The 44 Hill." He inquired of the Associate Planner if there were other cases in Old Town. 45 Mr. Cummins confirmed that there are a number of these cases in Old Town. 46 Commissioner Shanks commented that he believes that having the PC review these \ 1DATAFILEIUSERSICAIvarez \Carmen_data Minutes12002 \09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 cases makes it awfully complicated and may appear like the PC is getting "awfully 2 picky" over something that does not occur that frequently. 3 4 Commissioner Ladner asked how the home on Ocean Avenue could have a 4 -car 5 garage as opposed to a 3 -car garage. Mr. Cummins explained that currently there is 6 no maximum on garage size as long as it is attached to the main structure on the lot. 7 8 Commissioner Sharp interjected that one of the biggest problems in the City of Seal 9 Beach is parking, and if someone wants to have a 4 -car garage and take 4 cars off 10 the street, he believes the City should be happy about this. Commissioner Deaton 11 stated that she is in complete agreement with this, but she still feels that a review 12 process is necessary to help prevent as many problems as possible related to 13 density, retaining walls, and structure heights. She noted that this allows for a 14 process to redress a problem when there is one. 15 16 Chairperson Hood stated that the problem, as he sees it, is not the number of cars in 17 a garage, but the fact that a garage was whittled out of the earth and the earth 18 remained on the lot creating difficulties for the next door neighbors. He said that in 19 many ways, what is being discussed is underground garages. He noted that 20 historically the restriction on the size of detached garages was to prevent over - 21 building on any lot. He stated that the real issue is the grading and what happens to 22 the earth when it is dug out to make a 3 or 4 or 5 -car underground garage. He 23 asked about whether a new grading policy is to be established to prevent this 24 occurring again. Mr. Cummins reported that the City Engineer is currently working 25 on a Grading Ordinance for review by the City Council to specifically address the 26 concerns that arose as a result of the new home up on The Hill. 27 28 Chairperson Hood asked if had the draft Grading Ordinance been in effect at the 29 time that this property was modified, would the neighbors on either side of the 30 property have experienced the same discomfort and inconvenience as they are 31 currently. Mr. Cummins stated that if the City approves an ordinance that requires a 32 discretionary permit for importation of dirt or creating a new grade above the natural 33 grade, that homeowner would need to acquire discretionary approval by the PC, 34 which would require notification to the surrounding neighbors. Chairperson Hood 35 asked how much could the grade be raised without having to come before the PC for 36 approval. Mr. Cummins stated that this was still being determined. He guessed it 37 might be one foot to eighteen inches, except for homes within a flood zone. 38 Commissioner Shanks interjected that half of the homes on The Hill are at least 39 one -half foot higher than the sidewalk level. Mr. Cummins stated that the ordinance 40 would be using the natural finished grade used when the homes were subdivided. 41 42 Commissioner Sharp stated that with the City's current financial difficulties, he does 43 not believe that this will be of great benefit but will create a lot of extra work for an 44 already overloaded Staff. 45 \\DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez \Carmen data \PC Minutes12002 109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton stated that with all due respect to the Chair, this was not a 2 grading issue. She emphasized that this was about a review process; about density; 3 about citizens having a say in their own government; about law suits. She inquired 4 of Mr. Boga if under Section 28 -203 "accessory" means a building, part of a building 5 or structure, or use, which is subordinate to that of the main building. She noted that 6 she sees nothing in this text that indicates that this is a free - standing building. Mr. 7 Boga agreed that the definition of "accessory" is not clear and concurred that the 8 interpretation of this section of the Code is difficult, however, after careful review by 9 counsel's office, they are in agreement with Staffs reading of this definition. He 10 noted that when you take this definition combined with the other provisions of the 11 Code, this basically translates into a limitation of 3 cars applying only to detached 12 garages. Commissioner Deaton then noted that there is a section in the Code that 13 discusses clearing up any ambiguity, and she believes that at this time clarification 14 of the ambiguity should be provided and forwarded to City Council for their 15 determination. 16 17 MOTION by Deaton to direct Staff to provide clarification of Section 28 -203 of the 18 City Code with a more clear definition of the word "accessory" and forward to City 19 Council for their determination. 20 21 Commissioner Shanks clarified that what Commissioner Deaton was requesting is 22 clarification of the definition of an accessory building. Commissioner Deaton stated 23 that what she wanted is a clarification of the definition of the word "accessory." She 24 noted the dictionary definition and stated that she wanted to make sure that there is 25 no ambiguity that could lead to possible litigation. She stated that she did not feel it 26 would create a lot of work for Staff to create a Consent Calendar item. 27 28 MOTION dies for lack of a Second. 29 30 31 4. STUDY SESSION #3 - Retaining Walls 32 33 Commissioner Sharp asked if the Engineering Department is working on an 34 ordinance to present to City Council, what input would the PC have regarding 35 retaining walls. Mr. Cummins explained that the Zoning Code would have to be 36 amended to address what the maximum height for retaining walls would be. He 37 stated that the Engineering Department is not involved in this, but is working on a 38 grading ordinance regarding importing dirt onto a property. Commissioner Sharp 39 commented that in his opinion, the grading and retaining wall issues should be 40 addressed together. 41 42 Commissioner Shanks stated that he had read the minutes from the study sessions 43 on retaining walls held approximately two years ago. He inquired as to what had 44 come about as a result. Mr. Cummins explained that a study session on this issue 45 had taken place in November 2000 and had subsequently taken a back seat to 46 issues related to finalizing the Bixby Project and other higher priority projects. 11 DATAFILEIUSERS 1CAIvarez \Carmen_data \PC Minutes12002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Staff Report 2 3 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 4 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on the study 5 session of November 2000 and explained that one of the main issues related to 6 retaining walls resulted from the illegally constructed decks along Crestview Avenue 7 for homes whose back yards overlook Gum Grove Park. He noted that there is a 8 huge grade differential between the park and the rear of the properties abutting the 9 park. He said that currently the way the Code reads, a retaining wall could be 10 constructed and filled in with dirt leaving a view from the Gum Grove side of a 11 massive block wall. Mr. Cummins also reported that there are several stub streets 12 that run from Ocean Avenue to the beach with fairly substantial grades. He stated 13 that the PC had directed Staff to create a report on retaining walls currently existing 14 in the City and at that time had determined that they did not want to see walls higher 15 than 10 feet. He pointed out that currently the Code deals only with fence height but 16 there is nothing that specifically addresses the height of retaining walls. He 17 explained that Staff had researched many building - code definitions, public 18 works /engineering definitions, and standard practices for retaining walls, and all of 19 them referred mainly to structural load and what a retaining wall will hold. He said 20 there is really nothing that provides a good definition of height of overall wall. The 21 Associate Planner then proceeded to present several photographs of retaining walls 22 found throughout the City and noted the individual features of each wall design. He 23 explained that for the stub streets along Ocean Avenue, the PC had determined that 24 it would be appropriate to have landscaped buffers installed along these streets 25 rather than solid block walls. He interjected that Staff is recommending that the 26 buffers not extend into the rear 96 feet of the property, which is the portion of the 27 property down at the beach level. 28 29 Mr. Cummins continued by stating that for the properties along Gum Grove Park, the 30 PC had recommended a maximum height of 6 feet for retaining walls with a 31 minimum 3 -foot terrace in between each 6 -foot section of retaining wall. He 32 explained that this would allow property owners to have more usable recreation area 33 in the rear of their properties without creating the massive block wall look. He 34 emphasized that there is no other place in the City with such a large grade 35 differential as the homes along Crestview Avenue. The Associate Planner then 36 reported that for the front setback area Staff had recommended retaining walls with 37 a maximum height of 30 inches to be permitted by right. Any wall greater than 30 38 inches would require a Minor Plan Review (MPR) to come before the PC. He stated 39 that for homes with a grade differential from street level to house level, they could 40 terrace 30 -inch retaining walls with landscaped buffers in between up to the natural 41 grade. He noted that if the resident preferred to have a straight up and down 42 retaining wall, this would require a MPR. The Associate Planner reported that foi 43 side yard setbacks, the recommended height is 30 inches by right, and more than 30 44 inches up to a maximum of 4 feet would require a MPR. He noted that a maximum 45 6 -foot fence could be constructed above the retaining walls. 46 11 DATAFILElUSERS 1CAIvarezlCarmen_data1PC Minutes12002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 The Associate Planner then discussed the issue of guardrails noting that there are 2 Building Code provisions that require guard rails whenever one property is elevated 3 higher than a neighboring property. This would prevent people using the yard areas 4 from falling off onto the lower elevation. Staff had recommended that guardrails be 5 required for retaining walls taller than 30 inches. He continued by stating that Staff 6 recommends that for those areas of town where Code allows, the maximum height 7 - for any combination of a fence and retaining wall should be 10 feet, and this would 8 apply primarily to those homes where a retaining wall is needed to retain dirt. He 9 then reported that it had been recommended that any existing retaining walls be 10 grandfathered in as the City cannot retroactively demand that existing walls be 11 revised to meet the new standard. 12 13 Mr. Cummins then stated that Staff is requesting direction on the following: 14 15 1. Is the standard for a 30 -inch retaining wall, by right, acceptable to the PC? 16 2. Is it appropriate to have the 3 different areas in town addressed separately in the 17 Code? 18 3. Does the PC like the concept of terracing as described in the Staff Report? 19 - 20 Commissioner Questions 21 22 Commissioner Ladner questioned the dimensions for a retaining wall /fence 23 combination as listed on Page 5 of the Staff Report and asked if it was correct to 24 state that this would allow for a 12 -foot high fence. Mr. Cummins stated that the 25 fence cannot be taller than 6 feet, and in combination with a 4 -foot retaining wall 26 would reach a height of 10 feet. 27 28 Commissioner Sharp commented that for the homes along Crestview Avenue 29 overlooking Gum Grove Park there is a rear easement area. Mr. Cummins reported 30 that there is an easement on the Hellman side of the property line where power lines 31 are located. 32 33 Commissioner Shanks stated that he has no problem with a 6 -foot retaining wall and 34 other than a small area where there is a steep incline, there would be little reason to 35 build a wall higher than 6 feet. He noted that terracing the retaining walls along this 36 rear incline would look nice, but would provide the property owner with little extra 37 space. He commented that there are other areas on the hill other than Crestview 38 with steep inclines where terracing of retaining walls would also be warranted. 39 Commissioner Shanks also cautioned that the PC should consider the pending 40 development of Gum Grove Park and what changes to the landscape this might 41 produce. He commented that he did not consider the view from Gum Grove Park of 42 the homes above to be a priority for the homeowners along Crestview. He said that 43 he agrees with the 30 -inch height for retaining walls. He inquired as to what the 44 previous provisions had been. Mr. Cummins reported that currently the Building 45 Code only defines retaining walls as those walls larger than 2 feet retaining earth. 46 11 DATAFILEIUSERS 1CAIvarez \Carmen_data \PC Minutes12002109 -18-02 PC Minutes.doc 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton commended Staff for the work completed on the Staff Report 2 and asked who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping on the stub 3 streets along Ocean Avenue. Mr. Cummins stated that assuming the landscaping is 4 on private property, it would be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the 5 landscaping. 6 7 Commissioner Shanks asked if there were any stub streets that have not been 8 walled up to a certain height. Mr. Cummins stated that he believed they are all 9 walled. 10 11 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to direct Staff to draft a Zone Text 12 Amendment for Retaining Walls to include the following provisions: 13 14 1. A 30 -inch retaining wall will be permissible, by right. 15 2. Establish different provisions for The Hill, The Gold Coast, and Old Town to 16 coincide with the grade levels within each area of town. 17 3. Incorporate the provision of terracing retaining walls on steep grades. 18 19 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 20 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 21 NOES: None 22 ABSENT: None 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARINGS 26 27 None. 28 29 30 STAFF CONCERNS 31 32 Mr. Cummins apologized to Chairperson Hood as Staff has not yet provided a report 33 on the bike lane along Lampson and Basswood. 34 35 36 COMMISSION CONCERNS 37 38 Commissioner Sharp asked about the construction activity along Seal Beach 39 Boulevard (SBB) south of Westminster Avenue. Mr. Cummins reported that 40 sidewalks are being constructed from Bolsa Avenue north to the John Laing Homes 41 site. He noted that infrastructure improvements to the street are also being 42 completed. Commissioner Sharp then inquired about whether any work is 43 scheduled to begin on the 1 -405 Freeway overcrossing along SBB. Mr. Cummins 44 stated that construction plans are on hold pending the outcome of the proposed 45 widening of the 22 Freeway. 46 \ \DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez\Carmen data \PC Minutes\2002 \09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton requested a brief history of Gum Grove Park. Commissioner 2 Shanks stated that he would be happy to provide this information to Commissioner 3 Deaton. 4 5 Commissioner Shanks inquired regarding the construction activity along Marina 6 Drive and Fifth Street. Mr. Cummins stated that he was not certain about what the 7 project entailed. 8 9 Chairperson Hood asked if the Seal Beach Historical Society is planning on 10 providing a publication on the history of Seal Beach. Commissioner Shanks 11 reported that other than the one already in print, there are no immediate plans for 12 another printing. He indicated that enrollment in the society has decreased making it 13 difficult to adequately address many projects. 14 15 Chairperson Hood again requested that he be provided information on the bike lanes 16 along Lampson Avenue. 17 18 19 ADJOURNMENT 20 21 Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 22 23 24 Respectfully Submitted, 25 26 27 28 - - - `li 29 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 30 Planning Department 31 32 33 APPROVAL 34 35 The Commission on October 9, 2002, approved the Minutes of the Planning 36 Commission Meeting of Wednesday, September 18, 2002. Z: \Carmen_data \PC Minutes \2002 \09 -18-02 PC Minutes.doc 9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH z PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of October 23, 2002 5 6 7 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission 8 to order at 7:33 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 2002. The meeting was held in the 9 City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.' 10 11 ROLL CALL • 12 13 Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 14 15 Also 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Lee Whittenberg, Director 18 Quinn Barrow, City Attorney 19 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 20 21 Absent: None. 22 24 AGENDA APPROVAL 25 26 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 5 -- 0 29 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 30 NOES: None 31 ABSENT: None 32 33 34 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 35 36 None. 37 38 39 CONSENT CALENDAR 40 41 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2002. 42 43 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as 44 presented. 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2002 1 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 _ AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 3 NOES: None 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 7 SCHEDULED MATTERS 8 9 None. 10 11 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS 13 14 2. Zone Text Amendment 02 -1 15 Retaining Wall Standards 16 17 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 18 Request: To consider an amendment to specify the height and other 19 development standards for retaining walls within the City of 20 Seal Beach. The current code allows retaining walls to be 21 any height, so long as they are retaining natural earth. 22 Further, the fence code currently allows fences to be an of overall height of 6 feet in most areas (10 feet abutting major roadways). The provisions provided for in this Zone Text 25 Amendment will incorporate the changes recommended by 26 the Planning Commission at the last meeting during the 27 study session and will include provisions limiting the height 28 of retaining walls and landscaping provisions. 29 30 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 31 02 -42 32 33 Staff Report 34 35 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 36 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 37 noted that what is presented to the Planning Commission (PC) this evening is the actual 38 Resolution recommending approval of Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) 02 -1 with the 39 language recommended at the last PC meeting for inclusion in the ordinance. He noted 40 that a memorandum providing further clarification of language relating to the height 41 standards for the retaining walls along the Gold Coast has been provided to each 42 Commissioner. He also indicated that the Engineering Department requested that 43 additional language be included stating that an irrigation system is to be required for the 44 landscape buffers along the Gold Coast retaining walls. • 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2002 1 approved by City Council, it would allow up to a 4 -foot high retaining wall, and then a 6- foot fence on top of that wall to be constructed along the rear of those properties in that 3 area. He noted that in the past there have been occasions when cars driving too fast 4 along Lampson Avenue have lost control of the vehicle and driven through a block wall. 5 He said that this would allow residents to construct something that is a little stronger. 6 7 Chairperson Hood stated that because there is a difference in grade between Lampson 8 Avenue and the adjoining properties, residents are concerned about whether they would 9 require a Variance or Conditional Use Permit to replace the rear property walls. 10 11 Commissioner Shanks asked whether by definition a retaining wall must retain at least 12 2.5 feet of dirt and if the wall is higher it no longer qualifies as a retaining wall, but is a 13 fence. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the retaining wall is that portion of the wall 14 structure that is necessary to retain a lateral load against it, and anything that is 6 15 inches above that ground surface is not considered a retaining wall, but is considered 16 part of a fence that is allowed on top of the retaining wall. 17 18 19 COMMISSION CONCERNS 20 21 Commissioner Sharp expressed his concern that in approving CUP 01 -9 for River's End 22 that City Council imposed the same conditions of approval as those imposed on other 23 eating establishments in the City with outdoor dining patios. Mr. Barrow stated that a draft resolution with the standard conditions has been prepared for presentation and 25 approval by City Council at the meeting of Monday, October 28, 2002, and 26 Commissioner Sharp's concerns can be noted when the resolution is presented. Mr. 27 Barrow stated that with regard to going back to resolutions approved for other dining 28 establishments, each case is on a case -by -case basis and it would not be necessary to 29 go back and revise those resolutions in the event the conditions for River's End are 30 different. Mr. Cummins interjected that Staff did include all of the standard alcohol land 31 use conditions. He noted that the only change was that the minimum fence height for 32 the patio area was changed to require a 4 -foot high fence. Commissioner Sharp stated 33 that because the standard condition for service of alcohol in outdoor dining patios is to 34 have an attendant on site at all times, another concern he has is how River's End plans 35 to handle this, as it has two patios. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff understands these 36 concerns and the conditions do include the standard conditions for service of alcoholic 37 beverages in outdoor dining areas, and would apply to both patios. 38 39 Chairperson Hood asked if the presentation on Grading Policies, Retaining Walls and 40 Environmental Review of Projects is still scheduled for the December 4, 2002 meeting. 41 Mr. Whittenberg reported that this date is tentative, as City Council will be reviewing a 42 draft of this document at the October 28, 2002 meeting. He said that if it is introduced, 43 a copy will be provided to the PC for review. He indicated that with the action taken on 44 ZTA 02 -1 on retaining walls and what will happen with the grading ordinance, Staff 45 believes that the issues related to this type of discussion will be resolved. 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2002 Chairperson Hood reported that he would be out of the country from December 19, 2002 through January 18, 2003. 3 4 Mr. Whittenberg stated that because of holiday schedules, Staff generally attempts to 5 not schedule meetings for the second meeting in November and December. 6 7 8 ADJOURNMENT 9 10 Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. 11 12 13 Respectfully Submitted, 14 15 16 kw__ ._.• ... 17 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 18 Planning Department 19 20 21 APPROVAL 22 The Commission on November 6, 2002, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 23, 2002. 5 ATTACII ENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF OCTOBER 23, 2002 Agenda Item 1 October 23, 2002 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 02 -1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to restrict the height of retaining walls within the City REQUEST To consider an amendment to specify the height of allowable retaining walls within the City of Seal Beach. The current code allows retaining walls to be any height, so long as they are retaining natural earth. Further, the fence code currently allows fences to be an overall height of 6 feet in most areas (10 feet abutting major roadways). The provisions provided for in this zone text amendment will incorporate the changes reconunended by the Planning Commission at the last meeting during the study session. BACKGROUND II In 1996, the City Council considered this issue when looking at the unpermitted decks along Crestview Ave. The Council directed staff to address the issue at a later date. The Planning Commission has held three study sessions on the item; the most recent being the last meeting, September 18, -2002. At that meeting several options were discussed and the Commission directed staff to come back with the appropriate language for a Zone Text Amendment to address the height of retaining walls within the City. Staff has taken the direction of the Commission and drafted the attached proposed Zone Text Amendment. • DISCUSSION The proposed text amendment would specify the height of retaining walls within the City. Staff has drafted overall City standards and set out two separate areas, which have unique characteristics to be addressed independently. Those two areas are: • Rear yards abutting Gum Grove Park, the Hellman Property, and other vacant lands north of the existing RLD housing in District V. • Side yards abutting stub streets along the "Gold Coast." There will also be general City wide standards. A recap of the standards to be imposed: Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls ❑ City Wide: 1. Retaining walls less than 30 inches in height are permitted by right. 2. Retaining walls between 30 inches in height and 4 feet in height are permitted, subject to Minor Plan Review. No retaining wall taller than 4 feet is permitted in any situation (Except along the rear yards of the houses which abut Hellman/Gum Grove Park). 3. Fences shall still be allowed up to the maximum height as allowed under Section 28 -2316. 4. No one segment of fence /retaining wall combination, under any circumstances, • shall be taller than 10 feet. 5. A retaining wall /fence combination taller than 6 feet shall have a minimum 2 foot landscape buffer between the top of the retaining wall and the start of the fence. 6. Retaining wall sections may be necessary up to 4 feet in height, subject to Minor Plan Review. When more than 4 feet is required, a 2 foot landscape buffer shall be required between each 4 foot section. (e.g. when an applicant needs 10 feet of earth retained, they would apply for a MPR, and design the wall to be 4 feet in height, then 2 foot landscape buffer, then 4 feet in height, then 2 foot landscape buffer, then 2 foot retaining wall height). 7. Retaining walls facing public streets or spaces and greater than 30 inches in height would be required to have an 18 inch landscape buffer at the base of the wall. 8. If required by Building Code, a guard rail shall be installed on top of any retaining wall. 9. The definition of a retaining wall will taken from the Uniform Building Code and adopted into the definitions section of Article 28 (Zoning Code) of the City of Seal Beach. 10. All pre - existing non - conforming retaining wall /fence combinations will be grandfathered and not subject to this chapter. All new construction, including replacement, would need to meet the restrictions of the proposed ZTA. ❑ Side Yards along the Gold Coast: 1. Retaining walls are permitted along the stub streets, subject to Minor Plan Review, when taller than 30 inches. - 2. Automatic sprinklers and a minimum 2 foot landscape buffer shall be required, along with an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works, if necessary. 3. No retaining walls shall be allowed along the rear 96 feet of the property. ❑ Rear Yards abutting Gum Grove Park/Hellman: 1. Maximum height of retaining walls shall be 6 feet, subject to Minor Plan Review. 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls ❑ City Wide: 1. Retaining walls less than 30 inches in height are pennitted by right. 2. Retaining walls between 30 inches in height and 4 feet in height are permitted, subject to Minor Plan Review. No retaining wall taller than 4 feet is permitted in any situation (Except along the rear yards of the houses which abut Hellman/Gum Grove Park). 3. Fences shall still be allowed up to the maximum height as allowed under Section 28 -2316. 4. No one segment of fence /retaining wall combination, under any circumstances, shall be taller than 10 feet. 5. A retaining wall /fence combination taller than 6 feet shall have a minimum 2 foot landscape buffer between the top of the retaining wall and the start of the fence. 6. Retaining wall sections may be necessary up to 4 feet in height, subject to Minor Plan Review. When more than 4 feet is required, a 2 foot landscape buffer shall be required between each 4 foot section. (e.g. when an applicant needs 10 feet of earth retained, they would apply for a MPR, and design the wall to be 4 feet in height, then 2 foot landscape buffer, then 4 feet in height, then 2 foot landscape buffer, then 2 foot retaining wall height). 7. Retaining walls facing public streets or spaces and greater than 30 inches in height would be required to have an 18 inch landscape buffer at the base of the wall. 8. If required by Building Code, a guard rail shall be installed on top of any retaining, wall. 9. The definition of a retaining wall will taken from the Uniform Building Code and adopted into the definitions section of Article 28 (Zoning Code) of the City of Seal Beach. 10. All pre - existing non - conforming retaining wall /fence combinations will be grandfathered and not subject to this chapter. All new construction, including replacement, would need to meet the restrictions of the proposed ZTA. ❑ Side Yards along the Gold Coast: 1. Retaining walls ar permitted along the stub streets, subject to Minor Plan Review, when taller than 30 inches. - 2. Automatic sprinklers and a minimum 2 foot landscape buffer shall be required, along with an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works, if necessary. 3. No retaining walls shall be allowed along the rear 96 feet of the property. ❑ Rear Yards abutting Gum Grove Park/Hellman: 1. Maximum height of retaining walls shall be 6 feet, subject to Minor Plan Review. 7 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls 2. Minimum 3 foot landscape buffer between each 6 foot tall section of retaining wall. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission, after receiving both written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing, recommend approval of ZTA 02 -1 to the City Council. Should the Commission disagree, it has the option of recommending no change to the existing text or some other alternative to the existing text. Should the Commission follow staff's recommendation, staff has prepared a proposed resolution recommending approval of ZTA 02 -1 to the City Council. (f)(A/Or( - �/G— Mac Cummins, Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager Department of-Development Services . Attachments: (3) 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Minutes of September 18, 2002 & Draft Minutes of October 9, 2002 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission — Study Session #3 — Retaining Walls 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 02- 1, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS REGARDING RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE CITY 4 • Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls RESOLUTION NUMBER 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 02 -1, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS REGARDING RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE CITY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of October 9, 2002,the Planning Commission considered and approved Zone Text Amendment 02 -1. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. Section 2. 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 02 -1 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 it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; § 15268 (Ministerial Projects) because the proposed zoning text amendment is ministerial in nature; 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. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2002 to consider Zone Text Amendment 02 -1. Section 4. The record of the hearing of October 9, 2002 indicates the following: (a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by. the Planning Commission. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. (c) Currently the City's zoning ordinance does not limit the height of retaining walls. However, the zoning ordinance does limit the height of fences, walls, hedges or 5 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls screen plantings placed on a retaining wall. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. , Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 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. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, the City's zoning ordinance currently does not limit the height of retaining walls. However, the zoning ordinance does limit the height of fences, walls, hedges or screen plantings placed on a retaining wall. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 to the City Council as set forth in the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9 day of October, 2002, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners __ NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D., Chairman of the Planning Commission 6 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls screen plantings placed on a retaining wall. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 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. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Specifically, the City's zoning ordinance currently does not limit the height of retaining walls. However, the zoning ordinance does limit the height of fences, walls, hedges or screen plantings placed on a retaining wall. This amendment would establish height limits and landscape requirements for retaining walls in order to ensure that such walls do not impair the aesthetic environment of the community. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 to the City Council as set forth in the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 9 day of October, 2002, by the following vote. AYES: Commissioners ___ NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners • • David Hood, Ph.D., Chairman of the Planning Commission 6 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission 7 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 02 -1 Retaining Walls , "EXHIBIT A" PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8 ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING RETAINING WALLS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding a new Section 28- 270.01 to read as follows: . "Section 28- 270.01. Retaining Wall. "Retaining wall" means a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials." Section 2. Sub - paragraph (D) of Paragraph (2) of Section 28 -2316 of Article. 23 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby deleted. Section 3. Section 28 -2316 of Article 23 of Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph (3) to read as follows: "3. Retaining Walls: (A) City -Wide Standards (1) A retaining wall less than or equal to thirty (30) inches in height is automatically permitted. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. If such a wall faces a public street or place, said wall shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least eighteen (18) inches wide. (3) A retaining wall shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet. (4) A guard rail shall be placed, when necessary, on a retaining wall in accordance with building code requirements. (5) A fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be placed on a retaining wall provided the combined height of the retaining wall and fence, wall, hedge or screen planting does not exceed ten (10) feet. - 1 of 3 - 709037.1 (6) If the combined height of a retaining wall and fence exceeds six (6) , feet, then the fence shall be separated from the retaining wall by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. (7) If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. (B) RLD Zone, District I Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (B) apply to side yard retaining walls abutting a public street within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District I. To the extent not in conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. There is no maximum height for retaining walls in this area. (3) The base of the public side of a retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least two (2) feet wide if required in connection with the minor plan review approval. (4) A retaining wall shall not be erected along the rear ninety -six (96) feet of a lot. (5) A retaining wall shall not be erected on public property unless an encroachment permit has been obtained. (C) RLD Zone, District V Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (C) apply to rear yard retaining walls abutting Gum Grove Park or the wetlands area within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District V along the following streets: Avalon, Catalina, Crestview and Surf Place. To the extent not in ` conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall may not exceed a height of six (6) feet. (3) . If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least three (3) feet wide. - 2 of 3 - 709037.1 (6) If the combined height of a retaining wall and fence exceeds six (6) , feet, then the fence shall be separated from the retaining wall by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. (7) If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least two (2) feet wide. (B) RLD Zone, District I Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (B) apply to side yard retaining walls abutting a public street within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District I. To the extent not in conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height is permitted subject to minor plan review approval. There is no maximum height for retaining walls in this area. (3) The base of the public side of a retaining wall greater than thirty (30) inches in height shall be screened by a landscape buffer at least two (2) feet wide if required in connection with the minor plan review approval. (4) A. retaining wall shall not be erected along the rear ninety -six (96) feet of a lot. (5) A retaining wall shall not be erected on public property unless an encroachment permit has been obtained. (C) RLD Zone, District V Standards (1) Scope: The standards of this sub - paragraph (C) apply to rear yard retaining walls abutting Gum Grove Park or the wetlands area within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone in District V along the following streets: Avalon, Catalina, Crestview and Surf Place. To the extent not in ` conflict with these standards, the City -wide standards of sub - paragraph (A) apply to such retaining walls as well. (2) A retaining wall may not exceed a height of six (6) feet. (3) . If a set back area contains multiple retaining walls, such walls shall be separated by a landscape terrace at least three (3) feet wide. - 2 of 3 - 709037.1 (D) . Nonconforming Retaining Walls. Lawfully erected retaining walls existing on the effective date of this paragraph shall be deemed nonconforming and may remain as is indefinitely unless damaged to the extent of more than fifty percent of the replacement cost. In the event of such damage, the wall shall be restored in conformance with this section. If a nonconforming wall is removed from a lot, each future retaining wall on the lot shall be in conformance with this section. (E) Miscellaneous. All landscape buffers and landscape terraces shall be equipped with automatic sprinklers. Height limits shall be based on measurements made on both sides of the retaining wall." Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. 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 thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2002. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS John Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Joanne Yeo, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: . Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney - 3 of 3 - 709037.1 Attachment 2 • 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of September 18, 2002 5 6 7 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning 8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2002. The 9 meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the 10 FIag. 11 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 15 Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 16 . 17 Also 18 Present: Department of Development Services 19 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 20 Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney 21 22 Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director 23 24 . 25 AGENDA APPROVAL 26 27 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented. 28 29 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 30 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 31 NOES: None 32 ABSENT: None 33 34 35 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 36 37 Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. 38 39 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral 40 communications. 41 42 43 44 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 \DATAFILEIUSERS\CAIvarez \Carmen data\PC Minutes12002 \09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 1 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 3 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2002. 4 5 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Western City Magazine Articles: "Balancing Housing and 6 Growth Pressures With Limited Resources: It's Time for Leadership," and 7 "What Californians Think About Growth and Development." 8 9 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as 10 presented. 11 12 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 13 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 14 NOES: None 15 ABSENT: None 16 17 18 SCHEDULED MATTERS 19 20 3. Clarification of Ambiguity — Garage Structure Size 21 22 Staff Report 23 24 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 25 Planning Department.) He stated that as requested by the Planning Commission 26 (PC) at the September 4, 2002 meeting, he would attempt to provide clarification as 27 to the definition of an accessory structure as it relates to garages. He indicated that • 28 there is a provision in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zoning standards that 29 allows for accessory buildings or structures, including private garages, to 30 accommodate not more than three automobiles. He stated that this provision is 31 intended to limit the size of accessory or structures separate from the main structure 32 to a maximum 3 -car capacity. He reviewed the definition for "Accessory" and 33 explained that Staff has always interpreted this to mean that an accessory structure 34 is a separate detached building. Mr. Cummins stated that there are provisions to 35 allow these accessory structures within the required setback areas subject to various 36 PC approvals. He noted that Commissioner Deaton's question was whether the City 37 should limit the overall size of a garage in general. He reviewed several 38 recommendations made by Staff on the best way to address this issue as follows: 39 40 1. Amend the definitions section of the City Code to define a garage use as an 41 accessory use within the zone itself. 42 2. Add language to require discretionary approval for any garage constructed on a 43 residential property to accommodate more than 3 vehicles. 44 3. Staff recommends that the PC require a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process for 45 these requests. 46 11DATAFILEWSERS1CAIvarez1Carmen data1PC Minutes12002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 He reviewed the options available to the PC as listed on Page 3 of the Staff Report. 2 3 Commissioner Questions 4 5 Commissioner Shanks asked how the 4 -car garage on Ocean Avenue noted on 6 Page 2 of the Staff Report would be categorized. Mr. Cummins stated that as Staff 7 currently interprets the Code, garages that are attached to the main structure on a 8 property can be constructed to accommodate as many cars as the homeowner 9 desires and are not subject to the provisions for accessory structures and garages. 10 He noted that this property was actually comprised of two Tots combined into one. 11 12 Commissioner Comments 13 14 Commissioner Deaton recommended that the PC consider requiring approval via the 15 MPR or Variance (VAR) process for parking in excess of 3 cars on a property. She 16 stated that this requirement would provide the PC with the opportunity to review a 17 project before it is constructed, and would also allow for pubic notice to surrounding 18 properties. She recommended that these items be placed on the agenda under the 19 Consent Calendar minimizing Staff work and eliminating the need for a public 20 hearing, yet still provide a means for allowing residents to remove any item from the 21 Consent Calendar for further discussion. Commissioner Deaton then recommended 22 that the wording defining an accessory structure be revised to make clear whether it 23 means a free - standing structure or a part of the main structure or a part of the free - 24 standing structure. 25 26 Commissioner Sharp asked for clarification of the 3 -car garage per lot provision 27 - using the combined Tots on Ocean Avenue as an example of whether this would be 28 considered one lot or two. Mr. Cummins clarified that what he had intended to state 29 was a 3 -car garage per unit. Commissioner Deaton interjected that as she 30 understands, the lot line for the property on Ocean Avenue was redrawn to create 31 one lot, as it is illegal to build a structure over a property line. Mr. Cummins reported 32 that this was correct. Commissioner Sharp asked how the lot line was changed 33 without PC review. Mr. Cummins stated that lot line adjustments are handled 34 administratively through the Engineering Department. Commissioner Sharp stated 35 that for previous requests to create two lots out of three Old Town lots a subdivision 36 map had been required. Mr. Cummins explained that for division of one piece of 37 land into several lots a subdivision map is required, but to combine two Tots into one, 38 a lot line adjustment is all that is required. 39 40 Commissioner Shanks clarified that what Commissioner Deaton was recommending 41 was to restrict the size of a garage or accessory structure to accommodate no more 42 than three automobiles. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that this was correct. 43 Commissioner Shanks noted that the only place where this has occurred in on "The 44 Hill." He inquired of the Associate Planner if there were other cases in Old Town. 45 Mr. Cummins confirmed that there are a number of these cases in Old Town. 46 Commissioner Shanks commented that he believes that having the PC review these \ \DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez\Carmen_data \PC Minutes\2002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 cases makes it awfully complicated and may appear like the PC is getting "awfully 2 picky" over something that does not occur that frequently. 3 4 Commissioner Ladner asked how the home on Ocean Avenue could have a 4 -car 5 garage as opposed to a 3 -car garage. Mr. Cummins explained that currently there is 6 no maximum on garage size as long as it is attached to the main structure on the lot. 7 8 Commissioner Sharp interjected that one of the biggest problems in the City of Seal 9 Beach is parking, and if someone wants to have a 4 -car garage and take 4 cars off 10 the street, he believes the City should be happy about this. Commissioner Deaton 11 stated that she is in complete agreement with this, but she still feels that a review 12 process is necessary to help prevent as many problems as possible related to 13 density, retaining walls, and structure heights. She noted that this allows for a 14 process to redress a problem when there is one. 15 16 Chairperson Hood stated that the problem, as he sees it, is not the number of cars in 17 a garage, but the fact that a garage was whittled out of the earth and the earth 18 remained on the lot creating difficulties for the next door neighbors. He said that in 19 many ways, what is being discussed is underground garages. He noted that 20 historically the restriction on the size of detached garages was to prevent over - 21 building on any lot. He stated that the real issue is the grading and what happens to 22 the earth when it is dug out to make a 3 or 4 or 5 -car underground garage. He 23 asked about whether a new grading policy is to be established to prevent this 24 occurring again. Mr. Cummins reported that the City Engineer is currently working 25 on a Grading Ordinance for review by the City Council to specifically address the 26 concerns that arose as a result of the new home up on The Hill. 27 28 Chairperson Hood asked if had the draft Grading Ordinance been in effect at the 29 time that this property was modified, would the neighbors on either side of the 30 property have experienced the same discomfort and inconvenience as they are 31 currently. Mr. Cummins stated that if the City approves an ordinance that requires a 32 discretionary permit for importation of dirt or creating a new grade above the natural 33 grade, that homeowner would need to acquire discretionary approval by the PC, 34 which would require notification to the surrounding neighbors. Chairperson , Hood 35 asked how much could the grade be raised without having to come before the PC for 36 approval. Mr. Cummins stated that this was still being determined. He guessed it 37 might be one foot to eighteen inches, except for homes within a flood zone. 38 Commissioner Shanks interjected that half of the homes on The Hill are at least 39 one -half foot higher than the sidewalk level. Mr. Cummins stated that the ordinance 40 would be using the natural finished grade used when the homes were subdivided. 41 , 42 Commissioner Sharp stated that with the City's current financial difficulties, he does 43 not believe that this will be of great benefit but will create a lot of extra work for an 44 already overloaded Staff. 45 1\DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez \Carmen data1PC Minutes12002\09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton stated that with all due respect to the Chair, this was not a 2 grading issue. She emphasized that this was about a review process; about density; 3 about citizens having a say in their own government; about law suits. She inquired 4 of Mr. Boga if under Section 28 -203 "accessory" means a building, part• of a building 5 or structure, or use, which is subordinate to that of the main building. She noted that 6 she sees nothing in this text that indicates that this is a free - standing building. Mr. 7 Boga agreed that the definition of "accessory" is not clear and concurred that the 8 interpretation of this section of the Code is difficult, however, after careful review by 9 counsel's office, they are in agreement with Staffs reading of this definition. He 10 noted that when you take this definition combined with the other provisions of the 11 Code, this basically translates into a limitation of 3 cars applying only to detached - 12 garages. Commissioner Deaton then noted that there is a section in the Code that 13 discusses clearing up any ambiguity, and she believes that at this time clarification 14 of the ambiguity should be provided and forwarded to City Council for their 15 determination. 16 17 MOTION by Deaton to direct Staff to provide clarification of Section 28 -203 of the 18 City Code with a more clear definition of the word "accessory" and forward to City 19 Council for their determination. 20 21 Commissioner Shanks clarified that what Commissioner Deaton was requesting is 22 clarification of the definition of an accessory building. Commissioner Deaton stated 23 that what she wanted is a clarification of the definition of the word "accessory." She 24 noted the dictionary definition and stated that she wanted to make sure that there is 25 no ambiguity that could lead to possible litigation. She stated that she did not feel it 26 would create a lot of work for Staff to create a Consent Calendar item. 27 28 MOTION dies for lack of a Second. 29 30 31 4. STUDY SESSION #3 - Retaining Walls 32 33 Commissioner Sharp asked if the Engineering Department is working on an 34 ordinance to present to City Council, what input would the PC have regarding 35 retaining walls. Mr. Cummins explained that the Zoning Code would have to be 36 amended to address what the maximum height for retaining walls would be. He 37 stated that the Engineering Department is not involved in this, but is working on a 38 grading ordinance regarding importing dirt onto a property. Commissioner Sharp 39 commented that in his opinion, the grading and retaining wall issues should be 40 addressed together. 41 42 Commissioner Shanks stated that he had read the minutes from the study sessions 43 on retaining walls held approximately two years ago. He inquired as to what had 44 come about as a result. Mr. Cummins explained that a study session on this issue 45 had taken place in November 2000 and had subsequently taken a back seat to 46 issues related to finalizing the Bixby Project and other higher priority projects. 11DATAFILE \USERS \CAIvarez \Carmen_data \PC Minutes12002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Staff Report 2 3 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 4 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on the study 5 session of November 2000 and explained that one of the main issues related to 6 retaining walls resulted from the illegally constructed decks along Crestview Avenue 7 for homes whose back yards overlook Gum Grove Park. He noted that there is a 8 huge grade differential between the park and the rear of the properties abutting the 9 park. He said that currently the way the Code reads, a retaining wall could be 10 constructed and filled in with dirt leaving a view from the Gum Grove side of a 11 massive block wall. Mr. Cummins also reported that there are several stub streets - 12 that run from Ocean Avenue to the beach with fairly substantial grades. He stated 13 that the PC had directed Staff to create a report on retaining walls currently existing 14 in the City and at that time had determined that they did not want to see walls higher 15 than 10 feet. He pointed out that currently the Code deals only with fence height but 16 there is nothing that specifically addresses the height of retaining walls. He 17 explained that Staff had researched many building code definitions, public 18 works /engineering definitions, and standard practices for retaining walls, and all of 19 them referred mainly to structural load and what a retaining wall will hold. He said 20 there is really nothing that provides a good definition of height of overall wall. The 21 Associate Planner then proceeded to present several photographs of retaining walls 22 found throughout the City and noted the individual features of each wall design. He 23 explained that for the stub streets along Ocean Avenue, the PC had determined that 24 it would be appropriate to have landscaped buffers installed along these streets 25 rather than solid block walls. He interjected that Staff is recommending that the 26 buffers not extend into the rear 96 feet of the property, which is the portion of the 27 property down at the beach level. 28 29 Mr. Cummins continued by stating that for the properties along Gum Grove Park, the 30 PC had recommended a maximum height of 6 feet for retaining walls with a 31 minimum 3 -foot terrace in between each 6 -foot section of retaining wall. He 32 explained that this would allow property owners to have more usable recreation area 33 in the rear of their properties without creating the massive block wall look. He 34 emphasized that there is no other place in the City with such a large grade 35 differential as the homes along Crestview Avenue. The Associate Planner then 36 reported that for the front setback area Staff had recommended retaining walls with 37 a maximum height of 30 inches to be permitted by right. Any wall greater than 30 38 inches would require a Minor Plan Review (MPR) to come before the PC. He stated 39 that for homes with a grade differential from street level to house level, they could 40 terrace 30 -inch retaining walls with landscaped buffers in between up to the natural 41 grade. He noted that if the resident preferred to have a straight up and down 42 retaining wall, this would require a MPR. The Associate Planner reported that for 43 side yard setbacks, the recommended height is 30 inches by right, and more than 30 44 inches up to a maximum of 4 feet would require a MPR. He noted that a maximum 45 6 -foot fence could be constructed above the retaining walls. 46 \\ DATAFILE \USERS1CAIvarez1Carmen_data \PC Minutes12002\09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 The Associate Planner then discussed the issue of guardrails noting that there are 2 Building Code provisions that require guard rails whenever one property is elevated 3 higher than a neighboring property. This would prevent people using the yard areas 4 from falling off onto the lower elevation. Staff had recommended that guardrails be 5 required for retaining walls taller than 30 inches. He continued by stating that Staff 6 recommends that for those areas of town where Code allows, the maximum height 7 for any combination of a fence and retaining wall should be 10 feet, and this would 8 apply primarily to those homes where a retaining wall is needed to retain dirt. He 9 then reported that it had been recommended that any existing retaining walls be 10 grandfathered in as the City cannot retroactively demand that existing walls be 11 revised to meet the new standard. 12 13 Mr. Cummins then stated that Staff is requesting direction on the following: 14 15 1. Is the standard for a 30 -inch retaining wall, by right, acceptable to the�PC? 16 2. Is it appropriate to have the 3 different areas in town addressed separately in the 17 Code? 18 3. Does the PC like the concept of terracing as described in the Staff Report? 19 20 Commissioner Questions 21 22 Commissioner Ladner questioned the dimensions for a retaining wall /fence 23 combination as listed on Page 5 of the Staff Report and asked if it was correct to 24 state that this would allow for a 12 -foot high fence. Mr. Cummins stated that the 25 fence cannot be taller than 6 feet, and in combination with a 4 -foot retaining wall 26 would reach a height of 10 feet. 27 28 Commissioner Sharp commented that for the homes along Crestview Avenue 29 overlooking Gum Grove Park there is a rear easement area. Mr. Cummins reported 30 that there is an easement on the Hellman side of the property line where power lines 31 are located. 32 33 Commissioner Shanks stated that he has no problem with a 6 -foot retaining wall and 34 other than a small area where there is a steep incline, there would be little reason to 35 build a wall higher than 6 feet. He noted that terracing the retaining walls along this 36 rear incline would look nice, but would provide the property owner with little extra 37 space. He commented that there are other areas on the hill other than Crestview 38 with steep inclines where terracing of retaining walls would also be warranted. 39 Commissioner Shanks also cautioned that the PC should consider the pending 40 development of Gum Grove Park and what changes to the landscape this might 41 produce. He commented that he did not consider the view from Gum Grove Park of 42 the homes above to be a priority for the homeowners along Crestview. He said that 43 he agrees with the 30 -inch height for retaining walls. He inquired as to what the 44 previous provisions had been. Mr. Cummins reported that currently the Building 45 Code only defines retaining walls as those walls larger than 2 feet retaining earth. 46 1 1DATAFILEIUSERS1CAIvarez1Carmen _data \PC Minutes12002109 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton commended Staff for the work completed on the Staff Report 2 and asked who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping on the stub 3 streets along Ocean Avenue. Mr. Cummins stated that assuming the landscaping is 4 on private property, it would be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the 5 landscaping. 6 7 Commissioner Shanks asked if there were any stub streets that have not been 8 walled up to a certain height. Mr. Cummins stated that he believed they are all 9 walled. 10 11 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to direct Staff to draft a Zone Text 12 Amendment for Retaining Walls to include the following provisions: . 13 14 1. A 30 -inch retaining wall will be permissible, by right. 15 2. Establish different provisions for The Hill, The Gold Coast, and Old Town to 16 coincide with the grade levels within each area of town. 17 3. Incorporate the provision of terracing retaining walls on steep grades. 18 19 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 20 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 21 NOES: None 22 ABSENT: None 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARINGS 26 27 None. 28 29 30 STAFF CONCERNS 31 32 Mr. Cummins apologized to Chairperson Hood as Staff has not yet provided a report 33 on the bike lane along Lampson and Basswood. 34 35 36 COMMISSION CONCERNS 37 38 Commissioner Sharp asked about the construction activity along Seal Beach 39 Boulevard (SBB) south of Westminster Avenue. Mr. Cummins reported that 40 sidewalks are being constructed from Bolsa Avenue north to the John Laing Homes 41 site. He noted that infrastructure improvements to the street are also being 42 completed. Commissioner Sharp then inquired about whether any work is 43 scheduled to begin on the 1 -405 Freeway overcrossing along SBB. Mr. Cummins 44 stated that construction plans are on hold pending the outcome of the proposed 45 widening of the 22 Freeway. 46 11DATAFILE \USERS \CAlvarez \Carmen_data1PC Minutes12002 \09 -18 -02 PC Minutes.doc 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002 1 Commissioner Deaton requested a brief history of Gum Grove Park. Commissioner 2 Shanks stated that he would be happy to provide this information to Commissioner 3 Deaton. 4 5 Commissioner Shanks inquired regarding the construction activity along Marina 6 Drive and Fifth Street. Mr. Cummins stated that he was not certain about what the 7 project entailed. 8 9 Chairperson Hood asked if the Seal Beach Historical Society is planning on 10 providing a publication on the history of Seal Beach. Commissioner Shanks 11 reported that other than the one already in print, there are no immediate plans for 12 another printing. He indicated that enrollment in the society has decreased making it 13 difficult to adequately address many projects. 14 15 Chairperson Hood again requested that he be provided information on the bike lanes 16 along Lampson Avenue. 17 18 19 ADJOURNMENT , 20 21 Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 22 23 24 Respectfully Submitted, 25 26 • 27 28 29 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secre ary 30 Planning Department 31 32 33 APPROVAL 34 35 The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission 36 Meeting of Wednesday, September 18, 2002. . • I\ DATAFILEIUSERS1CAIvarez \Carmen_data \PC Minutes12002109 -18-02 PC Minutes.doc 9 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of October 9, 2002 5 6 7 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning 8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 9, 2002. The meeting 9 was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.' 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 14 15 Also 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Lee Whittenberg, Director 18 Quinn Barrow, City Attorney 19 Mac Cummins, Associate Planner 20 21 Absent: Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney 22 23 24 AGENDA APPROVAL 25 26 MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented. 27 28 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 29 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 30 NOES: None 31 ABSENT: None 32 33 34 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 35 36 Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. 37 38 Mr. Doug Korthoff stated that the worst mistake of planning is finding out that your 39 plan did not work. Referring to the Hellman Mesa, Mr. Korthoff stated that one of the 40 Native Americans went to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) when the 41 original permit for development on this property was to be granted. He said that the 42 Native American representative pleaded with the CCC that Native American burial 43 sites and cultural resources be respected. He stated that the CCC had responded 44 and granted three conditions, one of them being that there would be Native 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. Z: \Carmen data\PC Minutes\2002 \10 -09 -02 PC Minutes.doc 1 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2002 1 American monitors on site and that they would have the power to stop bulldozers if 2 any cultural resources were found. The CCC also required that these conditions be 3 included with every construction document so that everyone would be aware of 4 them. He said that before any grading was allowed to proceed the CCC split off a 5 mini - permit for completion of an archaeological investigation, which found nothing 6 and the gross grading was allowed to proceed. He noted that during the gross 7 grading the hill was bulldozed and 20 graves were found, 2 of which have been 8 disturbed. He stated that this was not in conformance with condition 19 of the CCC 9 permit. He said the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was notified and 10 they contacted the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) after the bodies were unearthed. 11 Mr. Korthoff said that there is a City responsibility for enforcement of the CCC 12 Permit. He reported that a "cease and desist" order is in effect stopping the entire 13 project because the developer ignored a prior letter from the CCC. He stated that 14 technically the permit is in question, and there is a potential penalty that could lead 15 to revocation of the permit. He said there is a solution to the problem if the 16 developer agrees to redesign the project so as to work around the graves leaving . 17 them intact. He noted that this would make everyone happy. He emphasized that 18 this is an issue that deserves serious attention from the Planning Commission and 19 everyone in Seal Beach. 20 21 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral 22 communications. 23 24 25 CONSENT CALENDAR 26 27 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2002. 28 29 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: "Housing Affordability in Three Dimensions: Price, 30 Income, and Interest Rates" Milken Institute Policy Brief 31 - 32 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: AB 1866 33 34 4. Minor Plan Review 02 -6 _ 35 608 Ocean Avenue 36 37 Applicant/Owner: Christina Filander / Ross Tesser 38 39 Request: To construct a deck into the required setback area. 40 Under the provisions of Section 28 -401, applicants may 41 apply for a deck to extend up to 10 feet into the required 42 rear yard setback area under the Minor Plan Review 43 process. The property applied for and was granted a 44 Minor Plan Review earlier this year, and is now amending 45 the plans to show a change in the floor plan. 46 Z: \Carmen data \PC Minutes \2002 \10 -09 -02 PC Minutes.doc 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2002 1 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution No. 2 02 -38. 3 4 Commissioner Shanks asked what the timetable would be for knowing how AB 1866 5 is to affect the City's General Plan. Mr. Whittenberg stated that information would 6 probably be available by the first Planning Commission meeting in December. 7 8 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as 9 presented. 10 11 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 12 AYES: Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp 13 NOES: None 14 ABSENT: None _ 15 16 Mr. Barrow advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02 -38 begins a 10 -day 17 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final 18 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 19 _ 20 21 SCHEDULED MATTERS 22 23 5. STUDY SESSION — Retaining Walls 24 25 Staff Report 26 27 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 28 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 29 stated that Staff has attempted to provide a Draft Ordinance based upon the 30 discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2002. He also 31 noted that Staff has provided a Draft Staff Report to be finalized at such time that a 32 public hearing would be held on the Zone Text Amendment for retaining walls. He 33 stated the report outlines what citywide standards would be for side yards along the 34 Gold Coast and rear yards abutting Gum Grove Park and the Hellman Property. He 35 indicated that public notice fro tonight's hearing was not circulated as Staff wanted to 36 provide the opportunity for the Planning Commission to review the document. 37 38 Commissioner Questions 39 40 Commissioner Deaton referred to Page 2 of the Staff Report under Discussion on 41 the side yards along the Gold Coast and asked for a definition of a "stub street." Mr. 42 Cummins explained that these are the portions of the streets that run between 43 Ocean Avenue and the beginning of the beach sand. She then asked if Item 1 on 44 Page 2 of the Staff Report were, the .same as Item 3(B)(2) of the Proposed 45 Ordinance. Mr. Cummins responded that they were essentially the same except that 46 in order to construct a retaining wall higher than 30 inches, the request would be Z: \Carmen data \PC Minutes\2002 \10 -09 -02 PC Minutes.doc 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2002 1 subject to a Minor Plan Review (MPR). Commissioner Deaton stated that she would 2 like the text as it appears in the Staff Report to replace the text used in Section 3 3(B)(2) of the Ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg referred Commissioner Deaton to Page 1 4 of the Ordinance, Item 3(A)(2). Mr. Cummins stated that in Section 3(B)(2) the 5 language "as high as necessary" was included because other sections of the 6 Ordinance do specifically limit the height based upon the location of the property. 7 He noted that for the side yards along the stub streets no limit to the height of 8 retaining walls is proposed. Commissioner Deaton stated that she was in favor of 9 setting a limit of 30 inches for walls along the stub streets and anything higher would 10 require a MPR. Mr. Cummins noted that the rest of the citywide standards even with 11 a MPR have a maximum height of 4 feet, whereas on the Gold Coast a MPR would 12 still be required, but the walls can be as high as necessary. Commissioner Deaton 13 expressed her concern with this wording, as she does not want to see another 14 incident of a property owner taking soil out form underneath the home and having to 15 construct a 20 -foot retaining wall and then stating that the retaining wall is needed to 16 hold in the soil. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the issue of changing the grade of a 17 property is an issue that is being developed through a grading ordinance that City 18 Council will review at a study session scheduled for next Monday night. He clarified 19 that the MPR process applies not only citywide but to these specific areas. 20 Commissioner Deaton then congratulated Staff for their work on the Proposed 21 Ordinance. 22 23 Mr. Whittenberg reported that in anticipation of the Planning Commission approving 24 of tonight's presentation, Staff has scheduled a public hearing on this matter at the 25 next scheduled meeting. 26 27 28 PUBLIC HEARINGS 29 30 None. 31 32 33 STAFF CONCERNS 34 35 Mr. Whittenberg reported that a memorandum has been provided regarding the 36 Installation Restoration activity at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) with an 37 overview of what is happening at this point and another regarding an ongoing 38 groundwater and soil contamination issue at the corner of Seal Beach Boulevard 39 and Pacific Coast Highway. 40 41 Mr. Whittenberg then introduced Mr. Alexander Abbe from the City Attorney's Office 42 who will be replacing Mr. Terence Boga. Mr. Boga will be moving on to full -time City 43 Attorney activities for the City of Westlake Village and has a conflict with City Council 44 meetings. 45 46 Z: \Carmen data\PC Minutes\2002110 -09 -02 PC Minutes.doc 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2002 1 COMMISSION CONCERNS 2 3 Commissioner Deaton inquired about the clean up activity at the NWS. Mr. 4 Whittenberg stated that cleaning of certain sites is already complete and others are 5 in progress, while others are undergoing studies to determine the level of 6 contamination and what may or may not be required. 7 8 Commissioner Shanks referred to the newspaper article from the Orange County 9 Register September 25, 2002 edition regarding action by the Laguna Beach City 10 Council to control "mansionization" within the city, which he had provided for the 11 Commissioners. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff has acquired a copy of the 12 Council Agenda Report from Laguna Beach and it is available in the Department of 13 - Development Services for review. 14 15 16 ADJOURNMENT 17 18 Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. 19 20 21 Respectfully Submitted, 22 23 24 .� • __A. 25 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 26 Planning Department 27 28 29 APPROVAL 30 31 The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission 32 Meeting of Wednesday, October 9, 2002. Z: \Carmen data \PC Minutes\2002 \10 -09-02 PC Minutes.doc 5 Attachment 3 September 18, 2002 STAFF REPORT To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager Subject: STUDY SESSION # 3 - RETAINING WALLS SUMMARY OF REQUEST Conduct a study session regarding the appropriate development standards for retaining walls and direct staff to proceed as determined appropriate, or receive and file. DISCUSSION The issue of appropriate development standards for retaining walls came about as an outgrowth of the public hearings regarding Zone Text Amendment 96 -1 regarding the development standards for deck structures on properties adjacent to Gum Grove Park/Hellman Ranch. The Planning Commission conducted a Study Session on November 17, 1999, received public input, and requested staff to return with additional information. A summary of the additional information presented to the Commission on January 19, 2000 is provided below: 0 Height limitation of 10 -feet on the "public" side of a retaining wall 0 Staff has re- evaluated the comments of the Planning Commission from the November 17, 1999 meeting and is now proposing different standards for different areas of the community. Staff is suggesting a set of standards for the "Gold Coast" because of the stub street grade differences; a set of standards for those residences with rear yards adjoining the Gum Grove Nature Park/Hellman Ranch, due to substantial grade differences in many instances; and a separate standard for the remaining areas of the community, which have less severe grade differential issues. O Prepare proposed ordinance language for review by the Commission 0 Staff has prepared draft language for the Commission and public to review and comment upon prior to formalizing any formal zone text amendment language. If the determination of the Commission is to proceed with any of the suggested regulations • Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Comnussion Staff Report • September 18, 2002 regarding retaining walls, staff will prepare the appropriate Zone Text Amendment proposal for future public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. D Prepare photos of retaining wall installations that would be permitted by the proposed regulations, along with photos of what can currently be constructed under existing regulations 0 Staff has prepared as Attachment 1 a location map and photo review of different retaining wall installations, indicating those that would be allowed under the proposed regulations, and those that would no longer be permitted. _Cuirrent City nevelorrnPrit Stmtdnrd c rP • RPtninino Wails Provided below is a general summary of the existing development standards of the City regarding retaining walls: Provided below are sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code regarding retaining walls: Zoning Ordinance: "Section 28 - 2316 Fences, Walls, Medges and Srreen Plantings. 2. General Fence Provisions (D) Retaining Walls. Where a retaining wall is located either on a property line or within the lot, a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be placed on the retaining wall. The height of such fence, wall or screen planting shall be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting but in no case shall be greater than eight (8) feet as measured from either side of the fence." stuff Comment. The height limitations refer to a "fence, wall, hedge or screen planting" on top of the retaining wall. This section does not limit the height of a retaining wall, it limits the height of a "fence, wall, hedge or screen planting" on top of the retaining wall to 6 feet as measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, and in no case greater than 8 feet from either side of the fence. The Zoning Ordinance does not include any limitations regarding the permitted height of a retaining wall. Building Code (1997 Uniform Building Code): Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 2 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 "SECTION 224 — W Walls shall be defined as follows: Retaining Wall is a wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials." "Chapter 16 — STRUCTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SECTION 1611— OTHER MINIMUM LOADS 1611.6 Retaining Walls. Retraining walls shall be designed to resist loads due to the lateral pressure of retained material in accordance with accepted engineering practice. Walls retaining drained soil, where the surface of the retained soil is level, shall be designed for a load, H, equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing not less than 30 psf per foot of depth (4.71kN /m /m) and having a depth equal to that of the retained soil. Any surcharge shall be in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure. Retaining walls shall be designed to resist sliding by at least 1.5 times the lateral force and overturning by at least 1.5 times the overturning movement, using allowable stress design loads." Staff Comment- The Building Code does not limit the height of retaining walls. The building Code requires retaining walls to be designed "to resist the lateral pressure of retained material in accordance with accepted engineering practice." "Accepted Engineering Practice" Plans for Retaining Walls: In reviewing the issue of "accepted engineering practice with the City Engineer, it was indicated the City would utilize the standard plans for retaining walls provided in the following documents: ' Standard Plans, California Department of Transportation ' Standard Plans for Public Works Construction, American Public Works Association, Southern California Chapter These documents provide a number of standard plans for retaining walls, ranging in height from 4 to 36 feet. A sample of some of those standard plans are provided as Attachment 3. Retattung Walls - PC Study Session 3 3 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 In reviewing all of the above information, Staff is unable to provide an adopted and established City standard to limit the height of a retaining wall, other than the limitations of the "standard plans" set forth in the Caltrans and APWA publications. Standards are set forth within the code for wall heights within certain areas of the City on private property. Those standards are set forth in Section 28 -2316. It should be noted this portion of the f nde contains the previously discussed Section 28- 2316.2.D, which states: "(D) Retaining Walls. Where a retaining wall is located either on a property line or within the lot, a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be placed on the retaining wall. The height of such fence, wall or screen planting shall be six - (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting but in no case shall be greater than eight (8) feet as measured from either side of the fence." Fristing Retaining Wallcwithin SPo! Reach • Provided as Attachment 6 are photos of several existing retaining walls located within the City. The majority of these are located in the "Hill" area, primarily due to the existing topography of the lots in that area. The photos show several different types of retaining walls, as stand alone structures or in combination with a fence or wall incorporated into the design of the retaining wall. Staff Recommendations for Considnrntinn by the Planning Commission 11111 # 11 1 1 I0r J'I10Ir /'r I 11 1101;11 111 1' d 1/'n I r 1 1 Works A csnriotinn • In reviewing the above referenced standard plans, it is the opinion of staff that the standard plans of the California Department of Transportation (DOT) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) are not particularly applicable to the typical residential and commercial developments that occur within the City. These standards are primarily for major transportation and public works project, such as bridge abutments, freeway overpasses, etc. As an example, the retaining wall heights set forth in DOT Standard Plan B3 -1, Type 1 Retaining Wall, provides standards for retaining walls between 3.9 feet and 35.4 feet. The standards for retaining walls between the heights of 1,200 -mm (3.9') and 2,000 mm (7.8') would be most applicable within the City. The standard for 3,000 -mm (9.75') would be most applicable to those areas that are allowed l0 -foot high walls. This comment would apply generally to all of the above referenced standard plans. It would appear the following standard plans of APWA would be most appropriate within the City: Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 4 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 O Standard Plan 616 - Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall Type 7 O Standard Plan 618 - Masonry Retaining Wall Applirnhle nesign Criteritr Staff is of the opinion the following major criteria would be appropriate for incorporation into new development standards for retaining walls within the community: Front Sethnrk Arens • O The maximum height of a retaining wall within a required front yard setback area permitted by right shall be 30 inches. This would clarify the intent of the City regarding retaining walls within a required front setback area. In conjunction with existing code provisions, this would still allow a 42 inch high wall within the front setback area, it would limit the height of a retaining wall within the front setback area to 30 inches, where current provisions would allow a retaining wall of any height, so long as it the minimum height necessary to retain the soil at the existing grade level, and then a 42 inch high wall above the retaining wall. Non-Front SPthnrk Arens O Retaining walls less than 30 inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted by right. O Retaining walls at 30 inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted by right, but would be required to have a minimum 36 inch fence or guardrail on top for safety purposes. O Retaining walls greater than 30 inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted subject to Minor Plan Review, up to a maximum height of 4 feet. Approval shall be considered when the wall is landscaped and does not create detrimental or incompatible situations with other uses permitted in the vicinity. This would allow a 4 foot retaining wall and, in addition, still allow a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting shall be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting but in no case shall be greater than eight (8) feet as measured from either side of the fence in accordance with the provisions of Section 28- 23162.(D). Further, this would allow a maximum 10 -foot wall on top of the retaining wall in accordance with Section 28- 2316.2.(H), as measured from either side of the fence. O If a retaining wall /fence combination exceeds 6 feet within a street side or rear yard, the base of the fence shall be stepped back from the top of the retaining wall a minimum of 2 feet. Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 5 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission StafReport September 18, 2002 ❑ Stepping of retaining walls would be permitted subject to Minor Plan Review, up to a maximum height of 4 feet for each step. Stepping would be allowed provided that the minimum horizontal distance between the top of the downslope retaining wall and the bottom of the upslope retaining wall is equal to or greater than the vertical height of the downslope retaining wall. Approval shall be considered when the wall is landscaped and does not create detrimental or incompatible situations with other uses permitted in the vicinity. This stepping provision could allow a series of 4 foot retaining walls, separated by a horizontal distance at least equal to the height of the retaining wall, and, in addition, still allow a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting to be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting but in no case shall be greater than eight (8) feet as measured from either side of the fence in accordance with the provisions of Section 28- 23162.(D) at the most upslope stepped retaining wall. Further, this would allow a maximum 10 -foot wall on top of the most upslope retaining wall in accordance with Section 28- 2316.2.(H), as measured from either side of the fence. ❑ Retaining walls 30 inches in height or greater that face a public street or other public area shall be provided with a minimum 18 inch landscaped strip along the street side base of the wall to accommodate plant materials to visually screen the wall. ❑ Existing non - conforming retaining wall /combination walls shall be exempt from these standards except when the subject non - conforming wall is proposed to be reconstructed by the property owner. • 4 • II I I i 111 • % • 'I 'I II 'I I / 1111i• II P/ ' II i I •I 'III' III Stub ,Street Sideycrd Areas - R•sidpntinl Tnw fl ncity (RTJ)) 7nne, Dictrirt 1 (Geld Conct) • ❑ Retaining walls shall be permitted on the stub street property line, with a minimum 2- foot wide landscape planter area with City- approved landscape plans and automatic sprinklers /irrigation system provided within the City right -of -way in accordance with all standard encroachment requirements of the City. A retaining wall not to extend into the rear 96 feet of said property. ❑ Staff Comment. This would allow for the continued provision of retaining walls directly along the stub street side property line along the portion of the lot which allows the location of a residential structure. The 96 -foot dimension preserves an existing utility easement that runs through the central portion of these lots. Staff does not feel the "terrace" concept along the stub streets is appropriate, as several of these lots are in the range of 35' -45' feet in width. "Terracing" along the entire side yard in this area would severely reduce the buildable area of the parcels, Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 6 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 adversely impacting property values. Staff feels the retaining walls can continue to be provided along the stub street side property line, and that the provision of the landscaping areas will adequately screen the negative aesthetic impacts of these substantial walls along the public right -of -way. ��,� ii i i i• i� i �i 'i . - :'iri i _ 'i -:' *, -, i i. 0'1 . 11 , it 7nnP District 5• ❑ Retaining walls not exceeding 6' in any separate height section shall be permitted on the rear property line adjoining Gum Grove Nature Park, with a minimum 3 -foot wide landscape planter area with City - approved landscape plans and automatic sprinklers /irrigation system provided adjacent to the rear property line and between each separate 6' high terrace section of a retaining wall. ❑ ,Staff CommPnr: This would allow for the continued provision of retaining walls along the rear yards of the subject properties, with provisions for landscaping at the lowest section of the wall and between each terrace level that may be constructed. Staff is of the opinion the "terrace" concept along the rear yards is appropriate, as these lots are in the range of 100' -150' in depth, with the majority being 125' deep. "Terracing" along the rear yard in this area would not substantially reduce the buildable area of the parcels, in fact, the leveling of the rear portion of these lots could substantially increase the net buildable area of the parcel, depending upon the existing slope topography at the rear of the property. Staff feels the retaining walls can continue to be provided adjacent to the rear property line, and that the provision of the landscaping areas at the base of the retaining wall and between each of the "terrace" levels will adequately screen the negative aesthetic impacts of these walls along the Gum Grove Nature Park area. Front ,CPthnck Areas (411 7nnes of the City, inrhiiling those nrenc dLseusserl cPparotPly above) • ❑ The maximum height of a retaining wall within a required front yard setback area permitted by right shall be 30 inches. The distance between separate retaining walls less than 30 inches shall be a minimum of 2 feet. ❑ Staff Cnmrnpnt: This would clarify the intent of the City regarding retaining walls within a required front setback area. In comparison with existing code provisions, which would still allow a 42 inch high wall within the front setback area, it would limit the height of a retaining wall within the front setback area to 30 inches, where current provisions would allow a retaining wall of any height, so long as it the minimum height necessary to retain the soil at the existing grade level, and then a 42 Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 7 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Sesszon # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 inch high wall above the retaining wall. This provision would have the effect of reducing in height the grade differential between a sidewalk/public parkway area and a private property from a currently permitted 42" to 30". The low retaining wall separation distance would allow for appropriate landscaping within that area to reduce the visual impact of these low retaining walls directly visible from a public street. Non -Front SP thnck Arvns• ❑ Retaining walls less than 30 inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted by right. Total height of retaining wall and any wall or fence on top of the retaining wall shall not exceed the base zone area fence height limit or ten feet in any case. ❑ Stnff ('nmment: This would allow the construction of street sideyard, and interior sideyard and rearyard retaining walls of up to 30 inches without any discretionary review by the City. Total height of retaining wall and any wall or fence on top of the retaining wall shall not exceed the base zone area fence height limit, or in any case, 10 feet. This would have the effect of including within the permitted height limits for fences along side and rear yards, the permitted 30 inch high retaining wall, and not then allowing up to a ten -foot high fence or wall on top of the 30 inch retaining wall. ❑ Retaining walls at 30 inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted by right, but would be required to have a minimum 42 inch fence or guardrail on top for safety purposes. ❑ , Staff Cnmmpnt: This would allow the construction of street sideyard, and interior sideyard and rearyard retaining walls at 30" in height without any discretionary review by the City. Total height of retaining wall and any wall or fence on top of the retaining wall shall not exceed the base zone area fence height limit, not to exceed 10 feet in any case, but a minimum of a 36 -inch guardrail would be required to be provided on top for safety purposes. This is intended to clarify that if an individual determines to not place a fence or wall on top of a 30 -inch high retaining wall, that a minimum 42 -inch guardrail would be required for safety purposes. ❑ Retaining walls greater than 30 inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted subject to Minor Plan Review, up to a maximum height of 4 feet. A fence, wall, hedge or screen planting on top of said retaining wall to be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of the retaining wall contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting. Approval shall be considered when the wall is landscaped and does not create detrimental or incompatible situations with other uses permitted in the vicinity. Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 8 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ❑ Stnff Comment' This would allow a maximum 4' high retaining wall and, in addition, still allow a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting to be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of the retaining wall contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting. This would limit the overall height of a retaining wall /fence on top combination to an overall height of 10'. Currently the Code allows up to a 10 -foot high fence or wall on top of a retaining wall. This provision would have the effect of reducing the potential height of new retaining wall /wall installations to a maximum height of 10 feet. ❑ If a retaining wall /fence combination exceeds 6 feet in overall height within a street side or street rear yard, the base of the fence shall be stepped back from the top of the retaining wall a minimum of 2 feet. ❑ , Staff Comment: This would require the stepping back of a fence above a retaining wall a minimum of 2' when the overall height of the combination wall is over 6' along a public street right -of -way. This is proposed to lessen the aesthetic impact of a wall combination between 6' and 10', by providing a landscape area to screen that portion of the wall combination over 4' high. ❑ Stepping of retaining walls would be permitted subject to Minor Plan Review, up to a maximum height of 4 feet for each step. Stepping would be allowed provided that the minimum horizontal distance between the top of the downslope retaining wall and the bottom of the upslope retaining wall is equal to or greater than the vertical height of the downslope retaining wall. Approval shall be considered when the wall is landscaped and does not create detrimental or incompatible situations with other uses permitted in the vicinity. ❑ staff Comment: This stepping provision could allow a series of 4 foot retaining walls, separated by a horizontal distance at least equal to the height of the downslope retaining wall, and, in addition, still allow a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting to be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting but in no case shall be greater than ten (10) feet as measured from either side of the fence in accordance with the provisions of Section 28- 23162.(D) at the most upslope stepped retaining wall. This provision would apply in very rare circumstances where there is a substantial grade differential between adjoining properties or between public and private property. The stepping provision would create a series of landscaped "terraces, designed to minimize the aesthetic impacts of those rare cases where a substantial grade differential exists or would be created by any new development projects. either public or private. Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 9 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ❑ Retaining walls 30 inches in height or greater that face a public street or other public area shall be provided with a minimum 18 inch landscaped strip along the base of the wall to accommodate plant materials to visually screen the wall. ❑ Staff Comment: This stepping provision would require a landscaped area adjacent to a public right -of -way to when an adjoining retaining wall is 30 inches in height or greater. The intent is to provide a landscape buffer between the retaining wall and any adjoining public property, in most cases a sidewalk area, for aesthetic and drainage purposes. ❑ Existing non - conforming retaining wall /combination walls shall be exempt from these standards except when the subject non - conforming wall is proposed to be reconstructed by the property owner. ❑ Stnff Comment: This provision does not require any modification to existing retaining walls, modification in accordance with the new standards would only be required if the existing retaining wall or retaining wall /wall combination is proposed to be reconstructed by the property owner. RECOMIVIENDATION If the Planning Commission determines it is appropriate to consider amendments to the rode regarding development standards for retaining walls, it is recommended a Zone Text Amendment be prepared and scheduled for the required public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to establish those desired amendments to the rode The Planning Commission should provide direction to Staff as to the desired components of any proposed text amendment. a..__ Mac ummins, Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager Development Services Department Attachments: (7) • ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map and Photo Review - Retaining Walls within City ATTACHMENT 2: rode of the City of RPM BParh, Section 28 -2316, Fences, Walls, Hertges and Screen Plantings Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 10 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 3: "Standard Plans", State of California Department of Transportation, July 1997 and "Standard Plans for Public Works Construction ", American public Works Association and Associated General Contractors of California, Southern California Districts, 1997 - ATTACHMENT 4: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt, November 17, 1999 ATTACHMENT 5: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt, January 19, 2000 ATTACHMENT 6: Retaining Wall Development Standards, various Orange County Cities ATTACHMENT 7: Photos of existing retaining walls in Seal Beach Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 11 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION MAP AND PHOTO REVIEW - RETAINING WALLS WITHIN CITY Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 12 1 ' fir. v OCI) W. /EAf1 TRAILER ►ARK i 4 4 . 1 g • 1. RIVER3EA R0. • \ i r 1 � i ?.WELCOME L0. ., 3.COTTOMM001 111. t w M CO MDO Ai:" w > 1.1% SIPINKAKED r ATAL RESAT TA / . ' Ill ra > ir 'N, A_ - . • it...., y > � D ' ,�, _ � FATMOY V � � • 47 ., n'afts>, _ , 4 • A .AV NUE 1 * ,41, Wi 1 0 •14, . r 7 � r Ab° rilr* ..4 oz...% d 44 '. M O Q. 4'0, e4414444$ , fie C 0 .. \ f ',//? 4 1 4/ AGE O(:::, o , � O. A 4 'Q / ar � e C i 1 1 i ' O CF " tO • v•••4 .,-`‘'';'5i:•..:-,1f-i4s11sA'.•‘- le . s:..f -...:,-.•,...•..z \-',- s';',* tk trW44ikn '',4 ' \-\ • • troti_:,,,,,\•%‘•,-.Z.t.,,,,L.V;\ .,:,,:z.,,,,,,,,,..,k,":<:`,:,',.:-. • r ilml i C t ,.:. ,.' 7e,k,,..,,.: ,,,n1;% .- . - .,,,,,,-- ,,,.......- -.„,,,..„:;,,,,y...x . . - , .. :k; tk,...., , ,. ..:,...-., 4m.) -.:- - - --,,,,,...-4\ \ , -,\- N - .•-',.• ,- ,<•. - -,...., - sv-,...- ...: -,,,-..- ..... :•-----.,- • •::, - -,--;:;; -. •,,', \;•:•k ' z ,,• ., .1`,..!4.: al) '' s i \''''''''''`:•:`:, ''''''''‘\\''' '' •'''' ' "• - ' ' r ' V \\:•' ,S' •.‘•••‘• i." ''' '."-s '''...''": ''''•\\..' ' '..\','\"\ k-- .■ ''''' : : . - ' '' '''''' .' . "k'k•A „ , ' g:4 ..., , - ,,,,, , ,: 1 :\„,,,,,.,,,,,....„.„:- k\,,,,,,...,........-,..-_-,.,.-,:..s ../... -- ..t ve-....-,:._,.. -.. -... - - - - ....... .4..:, ;:.,: ..,.,....,,.., ...„--,•• .. -...,,, • : -- . .. ,---.. 4 "kk . 1. - ,,,..,--- -,$.:,,,,, ... \‘.4. 7 .• - ,.,-- •,:,,,. :- ' -, A• -' ' " ' ''''. '''" '"' 4 - . - Y .z. z0,:k. ,.\\,. CD ,-,....,,,,m,, , -,-„,-.. ...,-;:,;..,•>•,•:' - ,, - ',• .,..--, .. ''T . '- • -,-...- , ..„..- --, k-c. r ..1 - :‘,.',- - '-.Z " -- . :74:.:z- ,. i . r,- . ."'.4 ..,:: . • . :••••,:- ,:,„ •••... .-:'' •-, ", • .: ' ' ',',.,' ,„ V ' ' ›. Ilimmi l ' ',..' • ••,.. 4 , ''..,...;.`",..?:.' 4 ,f..,,......,-,-.. :::- .: ,--. , ,,,. -. .'," '... ' —r- w.., -- ' 1,11. " „,,,- „ - : •;:, . „,, .< ...... 1 4 , .. . :;.,. .- ; . ; `... ..; -' -5.c ..'” • ' ,„,' k ,,,A„> - . , , .- - .... ., ; . , c-, , .. .,.:. s. s . - .,s . ' ' :, -:-.'" --,........; k....... , k• - .,. - ,.. 1 %*•45 "....• c t -!:, .--,x.. - - .- -' - --,- ',.--,-; ``.'- ..--- .: -':-... -. ----'Pv-%. im IA■ 0 rmf 4.; ,--' ' - " - • ' • • ' , s . .,,,N ,:-• 0 "%7,itap=ur.:--: ''.'", ?" ''• '. , '. -...,- ..„. ;."-:'.• - ''' ' i '-,-.'' --.:::7,k i „, k g , - - ......, .. -__.... ... ' %..1 . ::. \ -- Z CO 7 ...4 ,',... '1 .4. . : ... • ... ' - , .. ."-.‘ -,,.:::. ' ,,,,'s - ,....-:-:--;...-.. ; . - . ,.. -; : .4: - ,-,. 0 CCi 4., , , ,.„:4-. ..4 .,4. ,•.: ., •": ••• • - ._ `", ''''''' •;$:..; .. • • -- ?: I :,....,. "f -:":.:,•''' . '-' - ..". - " . '' .."Z: ',':: . ..'" : • ' ' , '' "''''.. , -. .‘ MIM . . , . . •• . .. , . • . :' •::;:••":,..-■ :.,, •.• . ' ,..,-",, , , - '....; ...`.;". ' • ',"; ."' : -. - - 0 , `:, , . .., . , - `,.., •••. ' .,. ' , . "' I.,. 4., vi• 't,„. '"\.. . ' ... . '. ,:',......... ;•`,....:.:%:•_, ,. •.,:". ... ,, ',. ., „.. ••••• ,.'".„.',' 4 ,......'‘"•• ',...' ' ' '''' ''. ' '. ' - • 0 .... ..c........r.1" '....• f:,. .‘• .. ""' " ' • ` • '' , , :y .k. „, .".r,."" i:i•••'•'• ".•„:::„"... q,... '''.: ":::.<,:',":":' " ' .- r .....i . C:11) 4-1 . -* -- -- '", - ;.• ,.. ,..,,••'.-.-.:; ,„ I- , " • 1. 7..." , ' , • -,-* : - 1,4 - - t - 70 it. ,. . - - - .... rs ,.. A.. 4„ '4 ,- '''',.." ' `• / "'It-, -, ;1; - ' "/ . ' ' V=■ % .1' -- -,- If ., ' ---01t..,r' .'. ...., ,- , tt t1,... t ..,_:;-,,„ ; . ,7: -- -1. •---!:- - ,41 ', '.0 it -,-. ' -' ** ...- ':-.1k::>.•*- —.4 .. -._ . -- ...... %).. s. ;, _ , 0:2 -.. -,- _ ,., ,. , , .,,.. .„. .,..., „,,,,, .- - ..,c,..„,..,„„:„,...,-,- ,...... - - z ,. ..c-,' 4 :.., 7,,.17.:.„:3,,v- t.4„.. - 1.„ -- ---..-- 7s!;,:.\,-...., 4.4 ' .-s , 1 I -_ . - -. .,_ -h›.4444,4..- x . .-4-_- -.---,.----;,-.--- I-4 ,-- ..„: ...,..„.„...„ 4, ,*, z' :'s., ,,,... ,, ''. romms1 ‘A-n 7 51; • ..- ,,I...A . , --.4,„,--77z,z.,..‹-,,--..„-:,...,,,,,/,c-lt4 0 - ,,L Ci) . . - ,,„ ,. . :-: - t 1,-...,4------,,,,,-,,,,:5,3r7.,,-,A;‘,..-- ..t„, CZ: - - 1., „.43,14.. -,,---- .... -,,,, w ... • ....4 -7,----,:.,..z....„,„ , , . , --,.;,,, --- ,. --..„ . xf . _... .., ..,0,.........!"-■•" kt ."'"'• , ' - ' ' .* .."' ' '.. — , • , n . Am, , enj 7,,,,k.....;',A.'"7,-: t v, v7": „.' . , . 1_, ' ‘,f.' . . . ' . M CZi if''^'t-- '..r7I..÷-',7*A..' -44"—. ; <' ..*--- . ; I:'*.-- 40 0 co----a,.L...;‘,....„..:,,,,°,tr ,. „ !,,;,- - 71.- z d.) 4- ..,7- -.,......--.:----.. - .__ • ',,,.....--., ------ . ._:,-.,:, ___ < - ;-4 to -.:-:410-....i..._.,,--.:-..... rg % 1 ,04:.z., -,. - ;;;;; -. ' .4 - 3 0 L1121 0 4riall0,1,117..k:' ; • A. ' ,i0 t'* ' ' 73 "N.Y. -7-':::::',4:"', C) • 1.4 O ..;. -- ;.''''""-'-`";.-,,-;,;`,-- '-.;( 0 , - ,...,P• ‘,--......t.-4- - '' ..cito 0 - — . <'`It;- :T''''• ; :-.'...*--*.- :;?:' .'''''' " ..:',:•,. , *1 17.i •:':.;,.,,:::..' -..-..---„,=•,' ...,' '•--i 0 ...r4;4,1-_,-...!. „rt.*. . ....„,- ..,..„.„..,--K :-.... )1 . f - alit siii. ik . ' , .1.-7.t. 1 ,"' . - , 'A...,* ,,-. ;.e. .-; .:-.; '„. 4, '`' ' . • ' 'qt`t <;,..,.„ - V., ":`= ‘.''-iAit, 41 j ‘ c...- : :,72=.4.,V..,'-*5:17-'-'4 “:'.--=,4%`; :s.:,•`:.;:.:;v,.2..„-.--i...,_*.>;:z..:-.],e,it- '-- 1, . .... , ....... ....- ......,.... ......:,..t. --;.. ,1; ..‘.' 4 ,, , 4, ' 1 `. ''.4,1 '''' 48s -..e<4. "I''... '. —it • ' Mit rs,,.,2z?;kr.r.."--„,.. , ‘4tc -4, 4__ - 1,-.7..— . ..4,,',„,-....--,r ..--;,.,'„,.‘• ', --."-,ix • ..,....„-; ;', t sik x—,, ii - . ,, ,,, , ,-1,,, ,, i.„-, :ii • ..;,..- ...i...i .;•,,tr,:;..3....,„...,..11,4,„ ;,itz.,,t,,,,,,..7„.v.„‘r...„,...,_ ,,,s,:t.s.,••.;.,,,,,:,,,, .,,4 -404. ...- ,‘.,„..4,.- - -. '‘..,1. , 4 -•<- - , ........:";:--. 2-1:7*-.4....._ •-:..-..' .... *.3. ,* -."' -. ...K• n,.- ::::„ ' .•k., ' ,.. ..t--',,.....r..-4-1.,-,;...s.,";....„„kil ze....!t: ..-:,.. --,*.--1.1,4;of - 4■•" 4 .411""Zi"::- - 1 7.: • :q ytt.: , iNets.... •,-- ' 0 ---- .4....-A rr 0 44 t • TNIN4 • �� Ct P4 , . . ,.. . . , . Z emei < > " >� - 3 it t • v C ' - , O r' o Ct '-:33_,%'--vsivs..1,-1•••- ,,, di , : , --. - . _ - _ -, --,--- -, -, 0 Wow -- -....,....e-g. F o INN ,� C. K y , n , . H ....'" .. 0 r } - a^ w . : :::;>, �.w ' ` L , ' ; ▪ •pt6 �/ " . , �L - #,t 7 ' •.s:.. :, ;:, 5' a•::yg s ?j �:,�. � 5' h J '} � •. :! d6: �.: \��si L •� $'.` jS.SKi.+�y� � F' w 3 �J 7 .3:%•!:',.'' 41M14 *.•••;•4'••••• C, o»' 4. •, `: ' <m° t : . a •?. • •(.' ▪ >Y t^fY ? S9+ " 0 ' 74,, :� � ,C► s sw A . ., •yam < . 4 E ,� �� >� �yc .�`' �,' '' � a: - r < $. � ....k...:*: sf `F. ' ' s s3f, f¢ `c k X • ....- - : , .,,, * A. = ': - • ,,.. :i,,, ,•,;''' e4:4, . ,, , -• 7 ,--:•-• '--.--. • .: '117. . . : , ', ,. ,' , '-' • .. ... _ "...1,,........ . , ' •• - .... • „ .. . • • . , .. r . .. t •"..--;...,.,.7.-, it, --, -;-...,.,.. >0...,, s . ---'....‘" .-;.--:•,-,--„.; ir. . - • ?..'. • . •.•.- k; -t- ' • ; - ' - • • c: ... .. : . .51 % -' . • ,k-At ' Zs . .. • ••,... '' ••"'-‘,..,:;,•.:. ••■••,• S.:- k • . • . ; ..?:-.4 .': • . ** ••• % 14 ,66t,' s t y - , - 4, 4 .' ' — , ' :•f; ;., -, • ";k T -. ' ..-.>"7,,, _ ': .- ' • - v,...•:,••••-t...-.7,`;" -,;„, ,. :,..,- — -. .,.• '',... ;,.-, /•■■■Ii g • . • " Pt ' - 7 - ..' .--:-.: -..`., :', Ct .** - - % r::: *....: ..•......: •....5. , - .-.- •;-- ---.•"-:.,----is- :-.. _:= ..4 -. ;„........ -. . • • -....1 ....-..' i ■ ` - ••••",":`,.. ..,./- t . s'i. , .- ' : - "";•.1 <IC . •• •-•..,• ..'..'. 4,'., :.1 ..'.4 -. ' .- :.' $7..li .;:...:,,. ....,:: .......:.:.......:, .;:..: ........::::.',..,.. 4.: :.:.,-', ,.. ,-,..:........:,:_.- .... :i4.... .. ;,, . -. _ 4..,., '2; - 1*" '. ).e.,.. . 0 ,:. :-.,::........- .,..,.,,...:...*.,:.:., ....-,_.,..,....,,,. ,....,":... bz' H :......., ....,......:..:t.. , . .. .,....„.., ,,,... a-:-.:...,....:.:-:.:-...:...::.,..7„....,,,,....;,.......,-1.-...... . -„....!-,..--;,:-;,-..7t,'''2.:--.!;-;, ?..i., - ..--,, ... . •-::i.-4-3,-.- ....,.. ..... i,....„, ,..,.,..,...5..ix.,..„5.-.,....%,,.......„..„,... ..,... _. .. . . „.;,...,,....,... 0 u...:,..... - ..:: --... „-, ...:....... .....1 .,.....,..- • 7■"4..d F.4;. '. • .•-• ' ••••••• .: '' • 1----% <",% `• ..............:.::.:;' ..' . '.....' ` 1. ..... • i: ,.. r -,--ii;:z‘:".-;,•••--,,,,f--- ..11, , • r."4_1 0 F ' ...." /...:: s. " "...-'...",‘,....1' V. .."::"' -../- .....'.....^.. .* ... . -.' l`r\ ,.. . .'7...;::. ..::. - . ......-f'1;: .: '''.••:::;, ...\• ' -: ,z-4' '::<7'.,!:-",,,;,...,..'?...,::.,,7! .....,• i'.z. .., - ..."--- 0 C51 r.i.■4 .: ....... .......: „........„.....,...)........ i.. ...- ...- .. ..,:,-,,,-- ' --- • ''' . , . % ,.. •• • • ... •,..• • .... ,,,a''....;,..,,K,....,,-," ,,..t. ', ti) .....(cz .:,.......• .'::-..-:..;•::-.:. -.. -... :.- ' ,<- ..: --, < - - -,--,',-- , .......:-., ,:.- .....:„.,„:„..1.• .,,„..?,..,r,.,.: -- ,,,,.. . .. ..:::........:..,.-: .: . .._, ,.., -, C) 'is.^...-''..:....'. — .....-... .:.i' . .., - ,. .:. .:: :J.:- ....:.„,"•....': . -,......,--.;-;: xr.;..,)•*'-'40-,,,r,.;,,,, „ ...;.> ..‘,;-. ,,,k, :•:,?; ,.. , - • -, .?J,-1:::- a. 4 ..... ....y.:...,•.;...... , .,,....,........... 4.e.-:.,....X.‘..4k,,in. : ...,:. ..„.. 1 • • -- .. '.. '..........; 4.,.. ,......• . :„...::, a:17V.: • • • ‘a. .• " .! :-.. •.:. 'I.,. -,,,,.."' e. AP.r,.,*;•..., . 'Pr .'.- '1` .` 4... -• . ..'. ' 4,,.'". -.- • .. • • •••::•,•!. • s .'`.> .7.Z.': ". ..,.. '*if '- r '',.. -i?.''.4..'. .. '..Z'' 1.;;;•'. . . ` --- . Oti IM CJ ' ....,.• ......., -'.. 4. • ,... : :. , ':::•'.7;:.:>'....:/; .., ''' '......,:1S.‘&;;•;:Z3:3..• ''..- ,V , A•:. ' ::'.. .4't : . ? . . s :'''' ' ..;/,''''s. ''''•:.4'..a.'■-•-i.., 1Z, ."'.‘ .- ';f ;MM4 Twm ' ..... . .. • # • .- •' \ ...0.4 .... 4 . • • v- ' .. : ...;:::.-:%": , ..:567--• ::", 7,. .allyi,s, ,s'. -. .k: . 10 Ct (..) CO ›.1( 0 ,,:•.......:.. i ... :: , ... . , . . • ...I v---4 c:t OD ;...4 = III Ct 4J bO p c,,Ld cd Q.) P4 ;•■.4 +.4 Cl) c) Tti 0 at) }te r° 1mI , . ilimmi F f ' 4 < Q:4 ? ♦ ♦♦ J: 4„,4 rc:i 1 < } } 0 f < Z g w ` > ;k:-;-,, } rn!(� rX !:. - a * '"* Ir ^' 1.t....' ' F . J Q CC3 -4-..a Z 0 a f •i a h � Y Y • �♦♦'i�•; � �. F es♦ 3 . 1:1:1 !:)i) O TT - Y `�M.♦♦; `� w 1. : \ < R "l .. .. tt (.0 0 x3 rruj '-'n'.'...,-141.,:it..7 =`. .. -:-.-:, ' . ,„igv, -.:-' -‘,,- , ' - F Yyr ;..♦ ♦ ♦2 '411NE=e VI) ,7*'!.si.;i•::Si .":-..::.‘7. .,, ' ,;'.. ; .." ::. ... • •• .4" . i'!4Iik 'ti .., 1‘ '' '..... . ''. ' - a.) a • : '1.: .,: -,.-- -, -: it . c '- . ' ,.....,„...,., r4 r - -t-: ',k,, -," O S..•ntin'�•�• ,. • ti', , i vy .: y .; ..,. _ _ • { > ti • • V ___000 k 41•11 cc vow \ . �^. f h .: .�. F � 1 Y{> �.• : k O 3 K J. k Z J ' L Z cc V r ^ J yY f} . Q iG4 � Q % y�i: r F ,....,...,...;.:.......;„.:-.: ,.....,....... ct ,:,-4.4-_-__--:,-,---, f7 -- ...,-, ,..;:. . : "ms 'o O bp rm0 .1.. '.4`116'. �iI .1 3 .. 7 5� ' ,� ; �i , � I CC • �J %�i i ! R .�+ �` _:. �y . t• � •fit 4 11J ` s ` V : F le �. ' .Jale Y id a r, (it) 1:::4 ,.:,„...,„ ., ,- ,,,,;,,,, 4 -:-,' ..' } v 0 a.) TJ i,\4- \.-.,---, ,.,k,,-,,, -,,:,-.:., .--,.. -..,.- - -=,-„-; 5.:,. ; , ,s. ..w „ „,_.....t,:„....„, . .1. i ., 5.„..,, .„ 7, -4,.: CA -. v,--..-_,-..-,....9 .':::.t: t ' "".-'1'* ' - it, -7. , '-'r -, e x ' .•■".'" ' *,' ' .' • f 4- .:. 4 ,., , ,,..,. (18111,3 .1,..., 4t. ,, . 4, .,.1k......, :1...., , :V:i. ; ao *1\1, " ." ', " ry . 4 xK k SX K q , y \ 11t S N : S A t JG „iiiiel J : ' J • ° < . ,,s •t it 4 • Q M^`» ? � ,a < \ - - •� .. • S .... , . K > .. ` v , r vw . _ w '.�¢ F ,'r w . • ss _l • Illimc:il ca/u) : ,,114.4.i.;..;'k y B Z 0 W " 0 x Ln Z ww ,,�j :-r--4, w < ... JAM •N ... r. - :; �K V . • w r t } » y4 e M : t }:i }.".rxv l J:3- . \ ''.:7—'1... - .,F .. M Wh +3 ,...-, .... „1.....?..,....... ..Lit 40....„ , — ," . .sm. .. , .\ •' •• r s ' . ; n i ?. " ''''..„4,„,. In �:'� i. } :. ✓ - • + : }: : t om . ,,. : , % 4 • - ' F:'s,}F y a4ti .'t K. • ��. . 4 x,y� 'mil ;* x• �w� ._ " < Ct • cl:4 ,-. cl 0 0 E....4 aC) , rmil .. , . , ,,, ' - • - ” • (1) 0 ,,,.„, ...,‘;”4 , - ." ' • _ ,Z . ,'.., ks -Zt`,..,et.:1Z,-; --""ta'..4`' I . .. ...t...„.„ ,....1 •s s Z't.'.sts,Zs4,..„ iz ''.s ' kt ' • .' , ., 7 t: 0 _ .: t..,,— . r. ,,...<.......-.- 'fi ',.•.':. t'.z1.:,,,,,.. • • ".. , %.< ...." . :::: . y'' ' ''' - i .' ,:",;,.k.' \:\s,■`%''''4,'",' '.. .. ''.1'. '7' . --r.:-.-: 3t:t„ - '',,.">‘-,\:, .::::.:„..f..'f,:.: .- •:s.',,t'';...- -,-:. • r, : -k .., :'•'', :,,'t,'- . , ' ; ' - • Tromi{ • • • „ :*,- , ,r -.-- - ',- ‘, '-i,z.‘:,,,?,...,k-, limmni 4: ...:.,..., - -v ...-_.,- - ' --,:. .$.,,,,,...,-„,,N,-;:,,,,,-,x :,.::....;:, :.,; l'',;''-r--,--.- -- -;IAN't;It-",i'k 'i •I ' :, .` ci) po ,i.K.::::.: .......,...: ,..,-.,.... _:::4,,,,,,,:,:„,,,,vi - I; - 1— .:::;:c:.P' - :-:'';,.. ''...7* :i-: th-z,-.4aZt•••4•,,i .:,.... - . -4. ....- - -..• :-.::%Q'...,':,,,,,,,,, ,..---'.,•:. , - -.11 - ...- " \',,,,,,,x,\ ' , .. , ,1,, ::.• - , •-. Z 11■11) "*"........... ( ,11) • • - * ' ' ,,..,.- r-- „''''' - - ',...‘ - . • zz — - ,.. . ..,:4•ip>.....; . , - •... ,..,• .- . • i„ ,....t....,4,....„ , ..,,•„ ^s:• • ',..t • . • ' -* ( 0 ::.::. ... .:. .;.•••-. •••••••.,4 4 ` --,- ,, %?, ,-..,1,, ', ' ,:•;. % ‘,', ; `, : 4 „...1 elm ,.......-:?:;.--......:.:,..-.I...., - ;...1( E:4 .. ,..:-.........,,A.,....::...........„;:?;.3, •••• ,. ...:,-.e• •-• ••••• * -..• - --E.:. •.-,...4,,,,, ..•11 ': *,".;',.. .:,".1: . ' 1°' 1 (1) ::%:: •::: .. v ,- . 1 ,„.• .., -,-, .,,....k•-,i.\ ..r. '..";,..`,;, .“, :I; t" "::..::K..i..'''::..:.::** * e, ;AA's; ,. 0 , r.....;;;;,....... „..,...... - %, , . ,....., ...< .,,f, . < CI) .T.ii ,•e.•:,,,....,•,::. ... - - , . .‘ , •-••.• sill •,-,..4.• ••=.• < ..-,,,--,.. , •,... , . ,,.. Z <.......ix,::•••••,:•:,::' -' , i . ,• - --•/• s ..-- - ,-,-- - ' - -E.,. , ;.- , ,:--- .,,,k, - '1 4 * s 'A:.:4+'>k's"■ " " 0... - • • - - • . ''. - --,-., ,,,,..... ,4 „,,, . , ,i, , 4 + ,. ,....• .• ...... • . . L.....,„ •,- •z--;,...` ",,,•,..:?„,. :.:•., , • -,.;.. f E A < . r■i "IC: , •••. -::• r.' • :..... -- - !*. -• --,.., :iz.• '," : .:-• ' - . . - ' - 0 ..,.%.:5•:.:..........:::.:.i...: , . ., ..-- .,. ..... .,.,. is , :,..,e- •,.;... - ?.. ilimi "mum( ;■11 . ,..A':.e........' ••"-:•. .. 4''''' ' • ...,... ---- •0,..IN',... ;.' ''', -.4,.A.,:;- . .t4:G. '''..•'''. ."' '.• .„--••••"'" /44 ., , :\-‘,, ' ' . -';„ - - 1 ...... 4 0 CI) ••• . . . . . ' ---, - 0-.:••• • •••••••••••• ' -., - ••: --,,,,, . 4,1„..., . . :: .,..,.: .s. •• C.) c7j -41--) ...::_r•:.: .:...-..„. ......,...7-. ,4 . -,. it- . —:,. . , 6..k ,.....„, „.. , ci) ...:::,.....-:. :.! ....,..„ ,-.- ,. • „,.4,,...,. , - , .,..::::. ,..• 4 ..., ,,,.......-:,....4„ -...-..........„.:::' ,$.., s:: , ,,,o.„,,,,,s.,,,...., A ir- r.. • . ,.--.,rt -,„z. .....,-,,...--z,.,--,:`,7. ....- _4(k,v‘ .. -, aitN- - . , ' , l• . ....• % *0 ''-'. t-....--., ' .4 ''',,,,,,....•••• k.,',44\, ,,,k.. ‘.. 4,,.;i','„,; ' ' ' ' • ' ac' ti) +.4 gi.1.4 •: -., ,,.., ,,,,....-, 4..,.,- _„. 1, -.--- - - ..- sz:•,_\w' . Z. `;,`,.4.1.••,; '.. -Th.-, s‘, ii. 445, '4 a' :',4;:sk,....VP2Z",ttz-Ct4c4' • -'' .....-•"' --..: ' ' s'S ' 4th,n.s.. ,' • `'. ■''' ' . ' .i..71%;,..... f . ...‘. :,.' . s, >'.kk'k. ,\ .3.'"%,4'' •••• • riM4 ..., Na. ,...e:4,..41,;`.....-- '''... , ,,,, ..` ".• .0'," ..,;. • r"I14 '..,.. ." aft., . "...n. s ...1:., s ...' . •••• AO • 1/1.1.4 1 7::::$ C713 OD ; 11.111 = •,.. -4-- Ct •,.. . P41/41.1 mill . .7) 0 r 12. 4 ) 0 0 Ci) r-t- c'D ,..„...1..., --,-...,-, ... , . . . _ w . . ... :, ..0:., . .."'... # "'''''. -. ' -- - -,,, . •- .....;-: P.IL k't .--"•:.*-,...',$-;‘..-r,.,..-- , ;;;- -. '3;:-:;` .. ,;,,e,-I'''.4''',41ft(- . - . ,- • . ' ss.'s .-.;.'"/- ! :i., .- , .x. - . f r, ;.:*—.;:-•'''''.tf.:«*--;..;.7,t•'›- P , .*,,,,,:— • ... e ,,,, . ;;:4 -.:' . : ' ".- . s, ' - -1'10 ,Arl.', A.,,,, ..-.'t....,:...'s - . "•<.° "...`... :W..: r 1.. :;: . : "'a ' , e 'i.:. . - '.."1: los. ... .• - - - "' . . - . 1 '- , ^ :':..:. -.Lk-4 % . ; -- . ...‘,... ,,,,: , ..3.. . , i .„; .#-* --." 71,,,. ..- ''.>"*.; . \ CD ...i. I...,..,,,, . . ........,,,„....„..:..:„....,:. e4 ...,..,..,..,.z..4u...„.;:,„.,.....7...,... . „. : ..s , (03 -::.•'..,:, . . Air .' .*.r: .....6`,"*%.""".•••• •, • . •••■• -.K .,,,,z— -.t.s , s. $ ,. .... ., ---- .t.. .,.. -.., ..,-....,,.,...-..— h.,.... .., - ".— -..:4-... -.;,... '4: ''.< -4 . '4'..:'2.' — *Z'sta's;• ,-- CITI .'''. • . . - s k% . < :. '... .., I' ' ::,';': . . 0...k • ..-, . . . ....... z 3z, i -- *....,...-:,.. ,.., -• ..::,..-:... -; ,-.1..-. ,..-....-,...,.,--, -- s.:-.: \: ,4.••:"z:.;,•":•:- %;•;•".'''„..• ..., ...,,, f••-•;-•••' --..,,,,,,,,, „,"*„:7* -• • • „'s ',.-, „,,,Nk • 4-1. .4'.6 . - •"' „,,yp .,:, t''''''....^k.,4.--1,4.W•'. 11.1 ;3'''' - . • i. ' ''''S'; _^ • <e. •4, - ,-.--- . : :.:, :.... .;... .....,„.....45,,,,,...:- . „ , ,,..,.--,..—.„. - .........,..., 0 .;:i - •-..- f , , , - - ..:t -4-4-- t-i • . •,-..--..-., .-,12--.7.- t •.:‘,...:,‘ ` • 0.—t .., . 0 ,. -13 E -,;,-4 . . • . .f,. . .- ;, _ . . .-.•.---, . . . = 7 7 :'"•' . .i4: ,:-.7 -:' ,!'- I.- :; , 4 , 4 . --. - ...: . .. .... ‹, - A.: .; . ......... ,„,,,.....„!: ,..i....„-..•,.......,:;,,,.......s.. : .,....1,-+ ., . ..---- - - .. 1 ..,.. .:. -k,,.. .1 --:-.' ,-... ,........ :... -; ..k y 4 ' •• • . ' '.• -.),.. :. •::::;. '''.. , „.._ , , .. . .. - -, ,. -, , , z,...,- ..-- • ..i7 **** - 4t.4.14,. t•-:: .•:.'...:V.:E4... ' > -,,,,,IA : :,. ..., .. - .. . ,s:. ... i 1.0-. • 4r....... ..;,.' liir 4.4, „...--.7 ' ". Z.::: * .:,:...;;:■;;I:' pp )..A ::,,..,,..!......-.....„,--......,,....:..-c.................„..............:.!.ii.::...-: 1..,;:....:::::::4..z.... F.■' # ' • . - ,,,, - . — .1. AD.—. s_ .f --7.-....,-- szs.::::---..7i ..11 ,....,,„7. -. , - --, - . .. .,... - . 1. IF "Ir , ',;:k.,..• -..., .t.,.*". - • .'-i,...:tsi:',.::: , 4. 'Ik , ,,.' ,, . ...: • ' • "7: s ' ... ...... ::: .. ' e:j1,..ii.‘;‘%;..., . Nr %. „i.. .•-..,3,. 0 - - :.,:......-.f,---• :::....:(.4)-&.-;:.:.......'::-::: . . . . ..--F.:4.—.:..,,,,,....&4:;,...............z....: . * _ . , .,. ;. .,... .:: ...' 1- ''' • • ' ". :: :...- --, : ns..:•'•1:•'..:,..: •-:.'• )."11 ''' - , k ' .' ' : ..... •::.;•......:—......*:•C k' " ' ' 0 ". ' _ • - . - ' ', ' .■ • sk.t. '4: • s 4 CIMMP. i • • ,, .. ,. . , ....,.. „ ,..„.7::--.....,.k.,,,,, . ... , — ...- :A ‘...", $:::1,./ . ' "-, s.. ..„:". -. '‘,.. ...... 4' . ..4i.......,..: IR......., .1,.. .. :-.-...... • ,...;.....,.....„ ......ilpt 14.t..,..„,.....„,t,.....,................ „. ....?..f......,„K...„,9.4 :.......-..:::......,:.::,;.:,..6As.i..1...,. ,, s.11 ipant,,,,,........-. . . .,,,, . .... -... - ....'•7..,,'.'::.4' ... - ..-.. ........ . b .... . _ . - . .,... ... t : :., '..,".157„.. '-.,%„,1,.. .. - .. ...- ...- -.7.,.......„:;?,-.....1, ..= ,,,:. 1.• / '.,,,j " . •-Vx.,..;,,,... ..01k4s.• .. . ...i. '..:' .• ••:`',..?'4.*„, '.::::rx,.. .. \ " • , t , ra :"" 1. < .:,. • , — ,•:<...;s-,. •••:. ( ..?•: ...t.. - ..,.. .. . ; 405Y • 1 4F4pr. f•" *....W‘k... ..-,•.. • .• .. • ..,^1, :"..:: ;..1, r..." 4,1...A...< „7:...r.,....., ...,. . '''.• ,.. ,•••,\• ,.., ‘ ':';',t ...4 .1'..'..•,,.. . ,.:,.'i.. —:•,.' ."4,.zt P -.1 ... i:of .., .::... .. .s.,:.:-:,-.,..-::.--:'1- ..,;;;'.'1.3%.;. '4*V I 1 sr..ti • .. . .„.,. .... .... , , .4., ,.. ,.. .,, 0 0 , — , .c.'••.\‘ • • . tz $ . .. ... ., s ,.. ...,•{.• ''''. ,••"t..z.. "•At.•••••*. : s ,,,.,4 .. " ';: N •ep,..;,, . ,„ ... • ••• — ,.., -1 • *„, -.., •', , — •st x se..., - .... - .6 ,. :„. k..t.z. • ....,. , ,, , „..,;,,„._ , ..,.. .,„ , , . ...It' •A;,....'i ". 1, ,." <,"••■•cs.,':N.,, ''' 0 .: i ....,:. k . *-*/...?.."'"‘rs -,............"" ' ^ ...7" .1-,!:-f":41.''','...... '''' ..,''''''''''',. .t.• *'...,471''''.'6';'-; :<:'..:".' .4:1 fai $211i C7- .• . ,,,.... .,. • ‘,.‘,,, • . • , • 7 — . --- Il Z -:;,- • ... - 44-s, ,,,:,-, .::: .,‘,.. ,.f.;ii.ttlk- ,s-7-4•-,4,-,,,,,, Cu.) '' --; - - - • : ,.i .; it".44.! . ',,e, :` , """i--i - :.,.; ,,:;.'4 : . •• ;-.-:-_.; . - ..i.1:.,. \.;.'.1' .•:• s•-„. .:7,1 4: .4. :4. , .. ' • (DI 1 71 z • ,..,,,-.; _ , „ .,..1. :.= 1.; .-„: . ...,:-,--,,,,,-, - .,:..,_ , i.' ••-,,,, - - 4 - ---'... •-. CD .1_1 --, '-' : :' . . .. *,*4 . . , ,v,*;t:' .:. 4. . . ,.. .. ... . . , '....:1Z.--- ' - • • ' . -1"' -,.. <:-,-..- .:,--0-,:. i 't • • ':,' - '' ' .s'i •.4!:!,,.% :::1.4 -.- '". - :,' '-.',,-;=4:-,:.,.',!',:,.J::,-;::,,,,,,,-:^,,., 0::: --. 0 s : • . , f',z1- • . - . hit..:z. . - . . • - : --. . : .. ,.: ; - •c: '5, -,L. :::-..:(1-'; :,-,;:.:k„.- :7.... ‘, ' • , - -, . .• , ; ,,..z,''',-:k ...... it.: i.'. **-', : , - - - - - - - - . . :-. . -'-' . ., "" . 7' -. :.t.:.. - -,. , -, ;N.-. .,--. ' 0 P 0 ....„, , - - 6 6 , 'it, • ;:.:11ftli, .: ../ 4 • • , .. ... . .6,. ' .• ''' ''''':.!: .. . • . • .... . :1......./rtf. .,::: . .4 ..... 6. ' . ','. .. )".14 • , 0 . ''''. ' ' f■ t\' S: : . V4. e .r.'.. ''' : • ,,,,,, S • .:,:' ' .. 6: ...*.Z, ''.."..'"." ..',. '.'ie"..t. ..; • cp ::, - . ,., .. vi,,,, .k ::13,...,....,... . .: - -,,:-.: .„,.,:_. ......- .. ,.....,..,..,.... , ...,..., ,.. ...... E ,.--;.•, - . , ' . : - .-• • 'V= 1....-"1 : . . i > ? -. -. , s. i 3 1 5 1 I , ' . - - ,,-, - -'' ,,,- .. --- ..:ks ,.,-;', -,-:_. si, •'-,-•,!L' '-ff,'' •;:. 0 IV A . , , - -41 .4.1.b4s.:. ...,.. _. - -.;'. .,.., ..1-;:s5,..7‘.',;:i'.,...:-.:.!,,i.,,,i- 0,..i • r:J ,.,..• . . . s -,,,,,-..,, l'$r- • '.., • - ' - .5•:,...-. --;...;,."?...6,-,.e'-'...--,,,.':-.:_-.4..z- . .. ....k: ---= , . . .', ';:: - ....N . .... , v —. . . .-.I. .. ,. •.',,. -,,,,,-., : _-,1.-;: .,- .. -.. - : - s . . s, Lva..‘ 1. - •-..- ., - .., .,., .*.v.,...\‘,,,. , -s 1 :' 11 ,.''.,. =s . ' ' . .. ,T kr 1 .. ...:,,: , ,:.;.:.•.:.i,,,„,..,,,,1`, c..7' c z ,-,-, ......, _ ,, , ..... . , - . „... „.......:.•„:„...-....,..‘, •, - ..f; .-.,. • - -, = 7, -.:: .7t. , • - - - ,-- . %,.* ,-. • -..'%. .-.,•,,,, --I ,.•.•_ .,- . . :. -_,...- , .....,...-,st. .. . -. - i -,.-.. ......--. •,...-‘,.%:.,:\::,:••,. 474 .... . . . , • ,- ....., • . ,..-• , ..,. ...,.. :::•,,,,,,,,,, , - • ,,,, • • „:. - . . .-: - . --., • ,..\\,::::: A.: ..,.• ..•.- .... - -.•-....,..„ . ,-...,--- •-r,„\-v,„ -,,,,,\ 4:,,-. cp ., .. _ _ . ....:, : .: .:, . ...........,...... _.:, 1 ..., .--.--.., - : ' . '.-- ,I •-•• • ''' — ,b..,,...:_-Wkals,,X\„\::,,,k;', MI■A - . .. . . ' ... ?s: .:. ...". .....:.: • N•Kji...4.."4:: v.,.-...;.i..z 4\.;;..::.-::::,:--' 1 e-+ CD )1 7".:$ . x 4, im(i \ r Xr . h r o P■L c { 4 + s y z l \ i t { F. , . ...4; :,• }.; yr •A • } .. gi •'. % P \\ ne ---. ' . : - - - • .-"-',....,;7tv,:- „ .‹, i .„-, , ,m4, - . N '...,,:.:z.::,:•::.....: • :. ■„0.d p .;,.._ ., --,;:.... .,10,,,,,,.-1-sk‘,_,,,-::2:..,* ‘,z,,1-.‘.......:::;.::::s...:::::.....::,:-...::zt-i';':.:1.-::::::: 0 --:_i-. .,,,.,, , r wf . . �r \ � . .k2 '�: r • :11::',61T.tt-i,.rsi.:: 0 > 7. Y Xi a Xi R 4 ya �• �. .,„_ .,. - .* 4 �\ <roy . > t ,..,,, .. ....t 1,....k r _ p x \ 7 a $3 4 r k \ �\ n- .•.,...,,,,�. � r • Pimi CD • , . CD emmmt- ,. * 1.--.; 7;,„:::-.; - - 0,,mi • gID e_f_ 0_, • .,;- ,: ;t7 -..-:-:- i -,-1'4:::11 ' I3 - ;- it. ..z 'sQr4 E • .,.... y '....,, , — , ,-,,,,-..-,: ...:!,-i...i-,•,;',... 1 -.!...,...;-...---,_,,,, :..-;.: ...1. ,- . - s , s':::1.: si....!!„, ..,A,1,-,.. , s y ;11,,.—...F.6... • ,.. -... - mi. ' -;: ',.. - '. ; v v.' zs;' :,,F :':!, I:, .'.!'' ' l'Z . ;, 4 : •:„ !*"7. .. 1,:;1 ..1 $11) (fq • Cog) .-Z, , ‘, t . . 7 + , . \ ' ' ...." 4. ",:..t.,. , ?' ,,,,,#;...4 '..;„,.., '.. ‘, sr .. '', ',.,.. , ,,.. • ! ' . umsk ' - - ' , , , ' .. ^..'•`2.' '... 4 '??. ' \ N,'''.,` ...4 .jr...9 ' 5 ;e".: . . ,,./ s A ....F.. ..s.„,": ' +5:'X • ' '' '''.1, ''''''441:'‘Ik' '''.' ' * 414^. '.? '' ' ' ■ ..: . ::.• "; • ' 4 ,‘-2,-,, -,' - • ' ;,11:ti+;4:,-,**-tiaf'..,,,..t.3_-zo',:er,..-.,:,_,-1---f. kx.k. - :,, k.st f.-+ ,--• --, ' 7 k.--,.T.,-,.A.:-. • .,i,- E5 .., i'i :,41 VI 1-..1,0,:-v-,..:Ail,,,,=:>-,i.,- , ,.- z 2213 phD -,,,, ....,,.,..,,.,,,,,,,....t.„..,ks, -, , ., . i X/ ; , t,...i...F;.. „4,, --%, ^1§ t- '',,y` ......;?.1-:ei . , , 40 ....„1,...„ .---,.. --,,,, ,.„..,?...,,:,....".. F-- < ,- ..k.::..,14,.-4-1.0..›.„--.... --_. - 71,...,1, , ..: .....w: •,11 i -_ , , .,.., ....,, ' ..,4..... ,,I.....,,.. ,.."..:„.„..t.-,......,., ,...;:et;s:, ".-.,*.• - p • ? :. • ' ' '..,.,.•:1..Z..* (7) (7) ,.--,-; , - .:; -.,4„ix,,,..„.-4,..F,,,,ftit.,v.,,--,1..,.. ,,,,I, • ::-. - :..7A:k, ..c.ii , , , ,., -.....,,,.. ....,, .. i ....... ,,.. „.:::qt,,,e, )■awk ,c. . - / —: •,:;1,.- 7t, ,,,,--,,,,I, . :- -; Iss — • ■1•1 .-..- ,- .. ,.- ..,-,,,o.., . . c..4,..- ..... . $,., 1. - 4 •.. - . * - -. $ _.1 -.• .. • (1) _)..,. - - <•'. a -.- ).,-,-,,-;.:. ---. - i..- ., ,..._,•---.-...„ .-.._ .- - - 11 1 -.-- ' ' , s 0 .\ .L. „, ' : I,— t kc.• t '', ' O C • '-_,',34,": - s : -, . ; ;.„ ' . : .- ,--./.15.:- .;•• ..!...> r 0. „.. .....:,. ......,_ . _ ..„,, .... ,...,, , . , iiiii • , ' ' • ,, -- ",',': , *.,-.., : • '' k --- ,51:.; x - y ii--A. .,, ? *•;, INgik , ,,,-. z . s., ' . • i •10 • 3„'.4',:t.,..... ."-4 , '' -I4 I ;,..: • . . ' 4.4 .- ...b..„ • • . .'., . - .. 0 t` ',.• , ,) ,--„ , : '"', . . 4 s•;',' - ' ' -',''' '' -7 - ' t''''' • ' ' - ' • .; - . - • • ,,-...,.--..k,:‘ , „-.I::.„- „...,,,. -.^.- 4.-..:,..„:- .,:-.... = .., .. v. "... (—mt- ......,..-.? ..,,..:. ----„..„- .,... nrie.v, .... --- ,--- ,.. ,.... ---,__ ...... . --, .... -- ... . .. ,.-, ,-. Mi < 4' ..' 14,.......44,. . ..,, .., .<.,7 ,. s•sZt. =MI .o. ''-, . . -: ? ., , '-, • ‘: ', . 7`5. '' ''. 41:142..* ''''.” _ ' • ''' ' ';...: . .:9T;^..1 ''' ''.:;;i141$,ZR:f ' ' -', ' ; > ' 7.' .. '2. * '. t%4:14.?•el?.1.; ." ...;.%::,;6 '..• f $f *:.. ''.....74 k '::` ...2.,.,.., - ,,._,,<,.....,,,,,,s4„,. 1,...:, ....,.......t.,:..:43..t.:44*: il :$4:1.. ,, ss,. • - e+. i'.:.?!.:74-:... •: "'..` . .: ; , ....,-,',- • 1. . .-7t '%, • . z..:,.... • — ', l' . -.• :, -':;,:';Z'',- sl 4 ' <" ..•; ''', „, -..,,,,r,..-„, '-'e, -'., -; • , - , C4 • -.' i: CD t MI C . O U Ni ' ,•::,‘,::::: ' I / �,, \ - K + 'l."" Y C _ Zt _ � , ~ c .- z,-,L � r:: • s.�ts �" x " # ! :;111.. y P.A o Y „ A �y . SI! t �•. � � a 'i. : ; � < ^' C■A I'M< . > 9 \i r :-. ' '':, a \ s^ ' » . A y ,y •!"jr. M \\ r S' .f ^ i.......- p r,-- -- r 1 - . :;:z. p t x y r Iii Z �� Pi , T . W t ! s y R..a .,::: , ---'7: s. G — - - ° , + 4 ' " t • 3 0 '1 rn 3 $, f;:f; x k �> , l P Cili CD \� ,:.....r. Y r • CirC? , C/D c—t- ,..... IL, Id .......- - . . 1 73 ; ,..„. : .t. ...,,,,- mitt , ti „ .„:..:;:;,-:.:.• Th. -‘ ,., f-,.,.....,... ,,..._ -.;,,,,...„,...,_,..„....,..,.„ , .. ,,,..,,..r,,,,,-.., ..:. ..., - .. .4* ...,,..„,t -', Isltr ‘'-?. ' e..a , :•••• , ..„.,- ' ...c',.1- . •.,tot • CL i 1 1: 1 111k 0 lk "q '''1.:C.‘, ' • ' q.. x . ' ''.":•.,, .:.• " , ' 4 1si,'" k';%; 7.,,,c ' ; .. . " . ' : „; i - ."5, 3' ;';',.' ',..,.., .:•'• `.,,..‘ '".., '4 k . :: ;:- .,;'-' . -1-":‘4. - . , , s s..,.< ..,.41"-c -, , ..,, . i ' - • ...,. :,..i -. t. :: .2 • 4,- .,,„..t.,-,,.,',--‘,7,-----:= COO .1„. ... --, ::,.....,,,,,,.-N. :.,,,. .: , ...... 4.•,.. 4 . ....,.% t, , \ • .• , ..Z. tt` '5.,.f.,: .14 " : ''k teva ?•v•r•`%+A.I. -1 .. ,,4s,i”' Z,I;•..,,..7- .,........ : A ' ''. • : .,),` g;.;s .. ..,••• t ' ••':% • ..•• ' ': ' „it • ', - : ,•74%; , -„itc 4''•* ...' , -.....,4"4"..“ O • "t .. ,.' ...)'at•,<.:,:.* -, ."... . • • ..: . '''.. As....,1 * :„X lc,' --t.... p!.,,, ; ; A ... ',,, Cn . - - 4'"'..- -s----*- i f 0 ' \'‘.-1. 1 13 i e -:, .3.:,?:.r.1 it . i -- - ,,,t77:`. f s • i ---.. :„ • .-...4::::::':7. t ".',4:1'} '''''',% .'• y .; 4 .,• '!...',1:) - Z 4( , Z1 CD .,_, ..;...0:. % .. ...1--A (........, ,,...,..,, ,.,...:..-.-... -„, --,.- . „...-,,N. „. C • - '6,.' - : • ' .-.4t ' ) : •• . ,6 .' ...X . . 1 .''' ..:',..., ' ' ...A' .. ' * 3,....::.:.,*.:.1...:;•• 3:./- . -- •:. - -, . -: -.-..! ,- .:..z.s.r.'-,i- -4, ,kz!, ; ‘ ... .-..,--1--P.,,i.:i.,!.. :, ---'.:',---,--.-,.. - i.› . ;;••! , ;: • - -, 4,-„,„, 14,..„.; --II k,:q ,..., ......:::.:,..14....II:,:,..:-........E.. ,„ ?. --- -_-7 : ',..-. : .,-, i T ''''c' " ''Fi;iir' k i I 5...::::',.:;Iii;.::iii:: .‘'...:ii.:':,:i''. cn (0-1) ...,-.. ,..z...„...„... ,. .....,..., .:. , 1: „.... • s,.e.„„:.• ....I.;49.ts.,.... ' .,... .icsige:,........„ <";,1; ' ;'1,.■ '' ':",:,': ,..' . 4 : :.•:.:7*. er " i. ' Zta "--' '"....\• .s A ..." • 4 ''...c ....' .. ..:•V:i44r.'*.V . .)11M1111.111i Pill :: 4 ., 0 - .,,,k,,:k,.:f e ..::..:. 1‘,-..-.......y.: -....1- -,,-7.),,,,i,;,::": :).., r■I ..,,t 11 ,..:1'....:::-..t„: . 7: ,,,,.• ,4 -; .,.'.3.,.7.. „i..::'..:' '. ..:::24':.; rj) , :;:;.,.. k , -....::,,_ ,, --.:: .-- ,-. :-:-...i. ---.-'..,..'":--'. P.A XI v,',* :- --, - .s...! , -,.,----L..-,-,,,,,. .. ..... -:„ ;.--,'s:al ,."%.: -§ ;;;.>:; .,'-,.'=:.-'*:".• -,,`,74'1. -t.-'.. -`.;,.--''''''.-:,•-••,''' ,:; fl" ,:---,:,,' :::1- .i.-„.,:,.;::.).:-..-..:-7t-;,, . --• ,,-t-=: :- -.z,..-..'.-•-•`.s- .s.,;'::-.'s14•'-:!ri ,'-' 11 ‘ .•.....„..,...7%,-- e;:',-,...:•----...: :,,:s‘\'‘'. -. .'t ' : , x 4 :-,,p ,- :- — :: - - • ' -,-., ',..- ,,..-::- ---.*f!::„-.:..,„%-itt:;;;, (I) Z ,,— ,;.,. ... - 3 - ;:-..- .....: -....:. ..-;. - . ,,. -- ::.. -'...1,-- •:..i.,:.::1,-;,;%c:i7i--4-':;N At --,-, .,' ',,:,tki•.>'.. ,s--.- :.:-''-, 4' - -.I P - ,,,,,,i:...----,$-.: .:.,,....,.:-.-..;;;;.\=!,-;,. oast --.,t 4:.:70.--- .. . ..,....-..., , , )I•••i • „, ' ,-_,„ , :..‘tt ..,.1, - -,3r. - •,.-- - - ..- • - , ---' • ,.. -‘-''' ' -. ' ' . - . '•'-.,••, • "....?.:«4-0,,,..-4. • ..:-. ...>;" '. ,.... i- ; -..?" -IF., .- ', It . , ' * • "..,<.a. . ,x ',. --.. ; :, , ...i,t•irf.gx .i. ,....,.., , .." , . , p >,'",'`, = •'• ' . ''. -' • -• 4,,.YY ' - s...:.":.....4:-':• v. ..'''''''':".1%.*.*. ' ' .-,- - .t. '.'. -,•,. ; ''' :-Ilk:;•::,. -..z.....-47.:...,;? -.---7t'..x. \.: , ONN■A • ;,- --- I t, -,, ,,,',.- .. " .. - -- .. - - , , -.. : 2. •*-e.-.:-,......t:.`..:Az.4.W % ';• , , - . . , , ‘2, 1".."'-.7r.• s;,>• -- ,....s .r... -Ife:-.i, - -.'s - ; ,-- - - - ":,, ,, .• ..c, .. . , -.e. Al ' '.E ' : ' "'• 1. ":7- .y - .: ' - .." .., -7 7. .4**:' • `"‘'' ' ..,. . •-•.' 4,-. ,,`,',,7 ' ' ?.5.6 .. • ;" 4 ' .. •" ' . It. '..'*'• ...v- 2 4. ' GC? ?• •;,- . ' v.,•,:-- , bA ! � � i �4 0 r O cti p4 x P 1.4 .......".'''...''.."..'-''. , 1-••■••■--d4 t : 4 0 ° '```‘ . ' N' \ \' k\ '' ' ' s ' tl, \ \ � �� sue• � 0 i.‘.`,,\\ \,' \ ,‘ \' \''' . F2:.:. e \\ ".. �� \fir , 0 ‘...*'.....•,.,''*\ \•;,..\\ - `. \ '`•" X,' ' - ....Z.,,,,,•.'„,......M....:..•:,...k.,...,;,,;•*.Z?:::::.fi'...,..4t:W.,..:..!:':'::.. .:,,:.;;:.:,,,,......,,::::... '..,...:;.'''' . '• ...,, , ,. e c a ' s r'� `fie ,x\ \ C5 I '''''4''b ,\., - . :- ..p:: ,., ,,,,,, 3.,,.,.:":::-:.;::::M:'-:.itii?'14.:::r:::.:'..:A...I.....„:..0,,,1: mini - i . K c> W \""""''''''""':' .." %F :' v Q�:�`:`,a Z22.i. ` ,,. :�2`:.,,,.Z.2`,A"` t -^fig, ..:,..:.4....: c \3 - V T • •nor . < x ,, t::a tt ,. „. : �* a ,.t ; 4'k ,c r u.Fv ,, ;'fit - CO O \\ y : > ` i �irrv. av,, f ` '� `. 2 ,{ b � an illimi Ylw wa ,u v., ,t v 1. c 2 a `2 .. ✓ 0 1 \ �\ .H ` . Jet. F f � \ � F� >K 5.� 'C �• �1 V im' 'T2, � A CM }�' �J k CA '"f µwe `\�ap.t "� t trey•• •`.:s' , r s i c ' `' 3; .n tR ,,t , ';v� K �t >+tJ. ..A CA lip/ . . '-'•::-,- x } �,' . Y r'/�1 i r r:) • a.) V L �, ,in,- . " ♦\ .: 1 ,... 1 " c cc Q � . O Y 4 , V / ;mmi ' ...„''' ' ......:::::111:. :iil,m., ., .. ,,. . ,,.., . . ...„.. ...:... .....,z ..........,. la glmi 0:: .Z \:;4 le w 4 0 /w] �w. +: '.i }.rv.':'. ., i•: + .•• £ ••: w' J , £ , r V�}�" � ti w ��, •, v s ct N, { , i , } "�,f - r i + i � ; �. '. .;, � LiM . ?�.Ma"Gi k.• ~ :, '•{ i i y �5a '.:'::: Y c ":;. > °,y;' iy y y :i % "H• :.�v:+ Y o-, • .{ {ate a; { '<-.,,:-..'",:,•:',:-:. -. CO ' ': • k .",' •,••.,+. A • .Lai• s,. Y •' . .: }?J`k+N`• •.J• a'. N. c:::4 V`a£ Y.£ y. s ;,,a Y'Y c• $ +W n �p 3ET.y ; :.;: °.Y •C.:. ,, � a a } ` A a°:. .rl. �. ♦. "t " n ♦ S 'k as »a• ya r:).1 P..1 ci) • • •-4 —4 1■4 Cirl Cd ,. a) -4-) 1:11) • ...-4 • 1-4 • ,....1 Id t/1) 0-4 • r-4 0 • •—•I ..... Ct 0 CZS .4..) (1) ;.. (1) CD r1. • •-.1 w rill • 1 r:4 CL) cA 0 En U.I I- CC 0 c , z 9 Z „ .....4. -I a. C/) 1 • 2 • 0 :s• iiii .:i , 44. 0 1 -r,i,-, En ''',7 ..: . •,,,''■ ,,''.‘-., % '`\`‘' 4 ( • - t ".,, ..... ir - .....%< 7 ' s .'s,,I. t ”.., , , '-. 4,4,1'c •' '.2\,V, .-2 i .• ' - '' e 4Z.,:. CV • - ; -,...,,,,,, , -, , - *1 A. ,:-.. , 3:>, ',„ ....'-....2.:.r.:::4,1,,N ,:....,,,,, jc-.4 - ,- - ...t ',\*, ;. :.f • r... • . i.,..- ..„ , .: f 1_, ,,. . 4,-, ....., ....,..,- .....,............„. I , •______„ . : .... ..,,,,,,,f, ' f.7,., 1., : :,:. • .-:::' ' ti '‘'''> ' ' S 4 -k '4:,i j 1 ',- ,:„ .. %: , : kifirril,..s14\;,* J -`; ••=',. -:: • ,.. ., ,, - , i -g ,',z.-• •• , .--;-- • . i : . , 77Ln, . I ik,,;;. ',. l'-• ... • ,,,.....„ . ,,,,,. ,, , •,; .,• , ,,,-„- -. - , • ,t.-. , ...i,..,,....„..,,, - , ,• t - --,-..;•1:-. _iv- t„..zkitlf,, • 4 . • 2-1- - ••••• '''. :, ' 7 a.' s • . - e ■• • ,. ft"::',..7.,l i :., *"",!..,,4:4....- :. .' - ''' f\- '...."'..'.'s-k -...,,, - . , ..hi.l..'"- . _ . ,:.,—.......;••,,,,;, i ,-.,.. ..,-..„: - ',. . ....A ."..--A ' ":4.'■■•-........s,4"...ollotv. .,„-f',....;.n.,,,,i;,,n . .-. ''..,4-7..141„......,.1. , • ---..;-. , ';.3.......0 . eir 1 '..‘ • , I:. „ t.i. ,.. t '" A---1.6, .4c-. - zi 4 ZA., - • - .... , ---'. • ':.....,•••• - 3., . •-.,,, - •• z • • • Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 •Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 2 rorle of the City of SPa1 Rench, Section 28 -2316, • 1 A . ■ • t • • . 1 I • • 1 ' . 1 ' 1 v Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 13 I Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 "Section 28- ?316 Fencec, Walk, Herlope and Srreen Plantinot 1. Specific Fence Provisions. Setback Requirements: (A) Front Yard (1) Interior Lots. On an interior lot or interior site of a corner lot, a wall, fence, hedge, or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located to the rear of the front of the building nearest the front property line between such building and the nearest side property line. Fxreptinn. Whenever a lot has a larger front yard setback than both adjoining lots, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback, provided that such encroachment does not exceed the greatest front yard setback existing on the adjoining lots. (2) Corner Lots. On the front street side of a corner lot, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height shall not be located any closer than fifteen (15) feet to the front property line or • within the required front yard setback if such setback is greater than fifteen (15) feet. (3) In cases where a building holds a greater front yard setback than required by the district and zone, a six (6) foot high fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be located at the required front yard setback subject to the provisions of this section. (4) A wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than forty-two (42) inches in height may be located in the required front yard setback from the point that a six (6) foot high fence, wall or screen planting is permitted to the front property line, subject to the provisions of this section. (B) Side Yard (1) A wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located along or within one (1) foot of the common line between the lots to the extent that it does not violate the front or rear yard setback requirements pursuant to this section. Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 14 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session if 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 (2) Corner Lots. On the side street or side alley side of a corner lot, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting, not more than six (6) feet in height, may be located along or within one (1) foot of the side property line to the extent that it does not violate the front or rear yard setback requirements pursuant to this section. (C) Rear Yard (1) Typical Lots: A wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located along the rear property line unless otherwise prohibited in this section. (2) Alleys. A wall, fence, hedge or screen planting may be located within the required rear yard setback up to five and one -half (5 -1/2) feet from the rear property line. Fxreptinn In cases where a building has a greater rear setback than required off an alley, a six (6) foot high fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be located to the required rear yard setback. 2. General Fence Provisions: (A) Additions to or enlargement of an existing fence is subject to design review by the Department of Development Services. (B) Nothing in the fence provisions shall be construed to permit the location of any fence, wall, hedge or screen planting in violation of Section 28 -2306 and Section 28 -2307 of this Code. (C) No fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be located over or across a City utility easement without the approval of the City Engineer. (D) Retaining Walls. Where a retaining wall is located either on a property line or within the lot, a fence, wall, hedge or screen planting may be placed on the retaining wall. The height of such fence, wall or screen planting shall be six (6) feet or less in height measured from the highest elevation of land contiguous to the fence, wall or screen planting but in no case shall be greater than eight (8) feet as measured from either side of the fence. Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 1 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 (E) Legally Required Fences. The provisions of this section shall not apply to fences required by State law to surround and enclose public utility installations. (F) Fence Height. The height of a fence shall be the average height between pilasters or posts to the nearest full masonry unit to six (6) feet or forty -two (42) inches. The height at the property line shall be measured from the owner's side of the fence. A joint fence on the property line may be measured from either side of the fence. (G) Pool Fences. The height of the fence enclosing a pool shall be measured on the opposite side of the fence from the pool. (H) Ten (10) Foot Fences. In the following cases, ten (10) foot high fences may be constructed where six (6) foot fences are permitted by this chapter: (1) Between commercial and any residential land; (2) Along the following streets: Almond Avenue Balboa Dr. from Pacific Coast Highway to Bolsa Ave. Bolsa Avenue First Street Lampson Avenue Marina Drive Pacific Coast Highway San Diego Freeway Seal Beach Boulevard Westminster Avenue Properties which back to the I- 605/7th Street Connector Properties which back to Beverly Manor Road (3) For Security in the Following Areas: Back yards of Hill homes adjacent to vacant Hellman land and Gum Grove Park East Flood Control Channel, College Park East • Edison Park West fence of Leisure World Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 1 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 (J) No fence permitted in this section shall be permitted to be placed in a manner which limits driveway access. (K) Nonconforming Fences. A nonconforming fence may be maintained and reconstructed in its nonconforming configuration until such time as the property upon which such fence is located is redeveloped. Upon redevelopment, new fences shall be constructed which adhere to the regulations set forth in this section. (Ord. No. 1194; Ord. No. 1242; Ord. No. 1380)" Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 17 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 3 "STANDARD PLANS ", STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, JULY 1997 AND "STANDARD PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ", AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICTS, 1997 Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI OH STANDAR PLANS . .. JULY 1997 t_:- ,,,_. , 4,..,_,...4,46 .., • µ .W • • 1 Caltrans -- air* , etric atfituftti 14 STD. PLAN B3-1 . . ...-----.. . . .• . 1.— . • E I 1 ice E — 0 • • & ___ I . - „ z . 0 - .; ; -.I ..- t . • — . t • . = < Of 7 n i .____ ,.. 2 • . ; W 2 • 21 i • •." X : c 4k le - C/ • f • = - i i -: •;- . z i' .,.. • o . = r I ... 1.... cc z , -. ; :. ::!•.• I - -. . .c X _ 1- --- --- 1 -1 1 ; : /••• ... .. ---- . 2 ku _ - e . - i r c - --:. .„.• :•---,- ` X t=ii N • -'',7 ---- ---.7 0 1::1 . . . ------'- 0 II L t - w X : • i • c ; i 7 & a i 1 - 7 • 1 i s ■ a i t ! t- ■ ' s:- Z S — ; t 0 E. :.•'-' ..... - • . _ : I . • • u _ ....., . c..-- ! _ w & - I . -' :d. , — -- I I - a LA x 2S • " : :: ----I 2 7 ' - 4. - Z 7 • .. - .. . : c - 9 _—_..., • r•—:,, ....----------- -- - 01 ! 1 tgn 0 i 2: ' a • ' • • a - 1 L 0 I t .; c T F S ; z - . i- <1 l 9-- . 4 - ...i : L. • E c 7: F . , .• ''' ! ' _ . • .:!i 2 2 E - 0 2 1.. ._ _. . E El • i - -,2 --..-L — _ — ....__._ _ _ - . t ., 2 ,c-- . . , . • '2 f • . a: ; „ 3 e. .... P.::.:7_ ,„.. ■ .7 T. -- = • :..,.-:„ . - • • , - ---7--- ,T- ----,------- - " , - r:', 6.-:e,=st.:. • k S . • .. ----L; 0 ----- -E5ec -• , • „• • 4 i i - 6.- 2 - r,"" . ` , 2 = • a ,.::.:.- 0 "Ii.... =--A---- _ , 2 .s.54.._...-tr -. cit=-k - K • id •X • i .._._,„...., I - a-a-as.- .. ; i 2 9 9 - 2 %.• ..FE c ,- = . , ' - 1•50k., x : , - z :::: 2 .--.,-..„-, -.4 0 4 ' 1 • = 2 aa■s----T.--,■ ==a . _a Itiq25e7 if5EF - . , 1 • --■-• 0-56ai;,2 .ty, a i i 4 _if ;- - 1 t pitgl . .5: iUFF 4 5 i : = . , 0 • . ----,----..... I i—J-1-----E--n u. op 2 RE . 4 __—_1_,. ..zt . t 2 p 1 ,, . - t .,.. __.-J .m=ma7 z kr M, . E AzeiEll- x I... Si . - TiTTI fir c c c . . ,a.---1.----.... ..i -.J 1'74 ,* 2 I ra: co ga, et . . • -I ..- .tt • :: :; ' rr = a rt. c c a t V , i ' al • • • • • .:;', ;- ■a■sl■—■..--.-a— 4 I 1 - 1 • t a 1--.----■■ S4,1 :Sa..; .....--j■- . 7. .-.-1------- ca = t'teief 11 Z 1 • STD. PLAN B3•2 •.. ■ ...: r"-...iim-•, , k l ', - . S ' " . • F - I 1 E i c4 en - E I : •. • • e -- i • - 1 —.=-. _____. c ..I 0 I._ .. } . ' 1 _. _ — — , : : ? ■Fi • : • • ' .... • .. 1 4 0 • - • ! • . - - . - t • • i - ' t, ; ; ' . -- - • • (... i - ' • •______ 7 • _ g s . • ' : • r! 2 : - l ; c -- . - L.: 1 „------- - • 0.; : • ! ...? t___ - _ !..-..- • '..-......„....... • 0 - - e I - : 1 — - — — - r - , ..122 1 s L j . ,..7 -. f 5 ..' m •• ' 1 . -..... #. 5 a - --______ 5 ..J ■ , :: - a : 1.. ■ ; 7 i L ., ..., E. . 1-1.---- '''••,. ..- - ..] _1 -‘ ': 1 : i 7 • 0 1 . i 0 - s t -- ii 2-... X " • = sF 1 • i 11 ! . f 1: sl it F 'z : 4 c • - : I , . ,• I .r. • •:. t ..., • E ::. i ---,. , • 6 t 1 i : ••• * i 1 8.: 7 E ' •• • 1 F - : •-• 4 IA ; 1 z .-_- — , -------_ . - A , • 4 5 r 0 . _ ••._ -.. ....--- • , L- s • . 0 ...._ _ - i ..... - 5- - . V1 . r ? r r••••• . ..! Is: --.. ..--- el.... .. — . ...". k..... r i ? • ' • 2,.........1 i...................._ r............=...........m........... . . z = • , \ -1 c . ' . \ 5 0 .. "E . —, > t ' . , I . . , 5 1 + 1 - • • - -1 ' ...) t : ? . —.1-_ -.., L.■.1 . ! . , _„___,.______ , . , ., . 1 . ...■...L : , ...a2.$ ::11 ., 0:1 ......-..—..--.45--..— —. ..... • . "; e - ..-, "pc :....- , • )5- I , ..c •:., 0 7 6 5 t . §EF EF E-::7:: . P, F , - . . . T Z - • - ■ . . • .• " • . - . E .. z .. . . . • „ - 1 1....1 _ .- 01... g ,- s. Z - E i r t : i. e . . - . - - " •-• - •- ■ - ; : 5 •• i•Z x• - - ". tup a ICCZ i i i i 1 i i" f, = f E.: E k •, z ‘ - i _ , 04 . - :If - 5 - ? I' . • .. .. ^ - - - - - ' I L. r ' '77 = - . - - _ . _ 1 r : : 7 .: 7 -: 6 .2 r• .. : .. , . . , • I.d.: — ' = . - . 2 : . - . co - - - t t- - - .1 I . . 157 ---.. STD. PLAN B3-3 _ I , 1 C") .. • . i - - I go i I s....____. - , •----__....- - I •-. .2- _ . 5 . • . -,-; 4C z - -• . - • ; - - - 1 -, : = • : • . .2 - 7 ' . 1 F c 1 r -, c- . - Et A. .... z - 5 ; I; 1 7 2 F. ! 1 ., • : 3 '''' = . •-•• - !. i a c 2 - s a Z 1 ‘ .:; : 1.•- ''' 3 ... LI -: g = , 1 - • r . .• * !I . 1 . I • c • - E ! 2 . 8 : Z - 2 3 • i 1 2 i g = 1. : t i i 3 _ 2 If E la CC ■ -`. / L .1--; 1 n e:T D : -: ; "-" i • •--- -'' • ,... - - 7 : 4 •--. 7 .: I s .' • _ -7- • • — _ . La. 2 ! • c • = ! r. I'. ' • a La.I - 7 S L' . 4 - i :" t VI I 4 C . i • •, --••••. cz, i : - 7 - z _ -.i ■ 7 % -....,_ • - X . _ -_ . - . . ■.. . 1 . . . Z... . . . . . . . . 11. , '1! 4? o I : • ; • er i e = : --.. :-. ;• , 7 •-• : E L:. :.• : : 7 _ -L---- 7 " s • - ! LI t a a 2 , ? ii E • ; I - -1-- - - - - Z I a • a 1 - - c i 8 1 • '' n I 2 1-- - e - Z 2 3. n -;" f- ••C . a — • •' : . . - L.7 .. r ,... = . - '•-::-.— --r - • "J - ...1 e t '''• 1 ul • • , L..1 C ; , -: _..1 - - - _ , _ z 1 : - .. : - - - a. I . i ! i I --- I e. t - = ! t ..,. e • .= 4. ' 2 • E - i 1 4 t I r. E 4 7 • 7 7 € I 4 ; _ . - , ri',...- - • ; s.. 1 3 :. 2 • r ' . . w , LL1 t. : - -•:. VI 4 1' 2 22- m ,..! c. ,4t • 1 : 5 : 74 • - • -.1 ! _ . a ._ Z a - U p e ' - , t 1 7 7:7 1 0 0 2 - .it 1 L . L . 2 : . P a • • s. . = 1 _ i .• - z t ; •• Z •,., • • .1: 1 E :: - ••• .. •• - -7 81 k.n -- 1-2 LT.Jz cc.9_zzgg 22 • .1 5 ; c ' -- LI ---1 ' VI . im■• C., 2 . uo- u z j - _ 4 •••• • • • ' ' • 8 g • S_____,__••ali.F. _,7,_____ o ..... LLJ . ! et a .2 . • • • • '.. t' - -J I o S • 1..- - .. _ _ . . , • ... = „....-; - 7. ; 711' Z- ; . a • .... i E - ; •-• WI i .1 . - Z.- i -• ,. E _ 4. 7 - ■ ; . V) x t .7.zel . . ' • . f ■ . i r 1 SA STD. PLAN B3 -4 C m I 1 I 2 3 , 1 ',-- ea g• N • • = e Ow _ -- - _; Z � 2 =•. oi,I :9 c. C- F- ■ C i 2 Q 8 1 c : 14295tIVTTJFe. - ? 3 ti: - --$ : - . S € a. — , . — t _ hs °6' €oc = �' -8 s 2 ' : _ _, - i - cv - r . p p - ■ e G=- - € , X X 1 - € I _ 9 c 5 � - - —� ice c'c' . : 1 c•: ' -•I ao:.- k-Et - -• • E v z - ` c € € G •q�i = _ - _ :: t I i _ ■ —I € 0 - . , s S _ IO -: Cep,. j° €= E e B. IW €!.a : .. - 6 - �.a :: �` as I 6 i = a 1 i q —t I ~ ,z s s. s • C ! keel is I !t'2 !S• � F ■_c_t� e y = t T z - `/ _-- • �C a - 1.:.‘ EE s: li Ef • :• - az - Ega E: z z . . l is i 5 i .• t = t . • —. - -: - r - r —'— r s o gig 1 x s z1 . -:' —• , -- : e 7-- p 2 E4 r �° W j �1 N. W ` \'' Q ii= --{ Q —j a it R Ei i r 1` c1 wa g g L _ _ — ___.t..., E F - — — € € i c •- :E. C :i • - a - - z f z 159 4 1 STD. PLAN B3 -5 �' .\ S4• 7s;.• , A` on cl • ,....‘i - Es - c s _ r — - CC-. .. : r. :."" Q W e 3= i _ v; g i- v' t. � 1 ' m srk8 c 89 s£ x 8 f 8 5 - 2 ."-)l + t "=••=a..7.- W' + .i' !/ J • r. 5 ..-., ; p ,=••=•=••• - I: 1 •-• 1..ti : '71. .:• 4 .-. 1-, 7. r. i a (,) Ili _ L t ` $ = ! m ▪ H Z B b z 8_aF 8a Iw3 ! . e ¢ a E -i vi, Ff ".3i 4— a I u-s 99 I Ef ,8 ? := i , = r. E . 9 f € ll Ca 0 _ •' s 7S `/ ; II' es= I b e i! f: o i ' , 1 = e ft = f f '• _�- a b _ a F � - g p 4 jl: i -Ooccee- E `: c . , . _ . _ - . E i e s `i Nt I ' 5 • ? a ul 4? _ : 1 E 1 Jill L• E i 1 • i F a s a F' —•— — — — — 5 —.— — — 1 r b g .. 4 J 'a� E r 1 ' 't. _ L g L1.• I , 11 N P g ?'a - t s • - ,s ; a _ : = e i ?2 s . ! i �$ / zl� . • p C ^ g _s - C ti �' bps °: �� R • - . � O /, --r O , s 6 ■ U N ' 6 ` e __ _ .. _/' — —� a -1■ p ° _,, • -,- C c Pr i! - -ii 3S ;_ . --" - -- -f E • ti is ` 3 .= It F -- 160 STD. PLAN B3-6 I'D ..'t c ,: , ? .....___,--- T t .1 ;--. -, _ . v \ I__ .. ,. , - - - .• 1 - ...- 6 ' T. ". : 7 ' - - !, .t• v, -_ i . . CD .i• E ei. t N--__..• E _, •;.i, •;. : ... i• - - f; E • i : : - •i.. - • • c - : Z : - ...1 r 3 • • c - L - - E . . Z , - • ■ , .: - • • t .• c P...fl•s D E't.i'-"E.- r . - i ! 0 • , ' a i. •■I 6 .1:1- ED:71 ,Ot; 1- - ••- - • 1 •-. d s 0 -;•: .1 !: !-• = - c.,..-1..• .- tt-. 4 c - ; • g -- - 4 ,...: 4t ; 11 1 . , --., • . :-:- 2! - l'i :1 l'E.1; Ec -.- t , - --i •7c ;; --- e i:21 .4.c • F.: 12i .12 CCLI z• r"-: ; s 7 •• ,..-, .1 - s . ---=-.. ' ' •.. " - LUZ ,e_ - ' I _ E t; ::. , . ...... z .:-.• .1 g.....- :- S: ccc,- c dt )••• ----• -;:; •-- Z> : , ;!,l'i .''. •,.....- o l i .. : .-,1- f i; Z,_ z a... , 0 -... 7 : : : -11. I ,' ' , - lalcoccor..,..1 • e 6 :-. - - . ..••• ,..... . 7.. ,----..--_ •• ' -.... - ,._:. , e . ,-: -=----- - -..:-_--• :.' -: • t E c • ".-- - • -,- . ^.. . - t ti , T t • A . ' 0 3 2 . I I I 0' ; r 1 ••• • P t . ? 1 1 . ! " .- . _ i I :: 7 , . - c I 1 • ` • / >. = c e 7 . • _ ...; .- • e 1 .1 _t _L.:- - e 1 ..I .. 4.- L..i, . N , , t F. ' 4 2 :.4 . .-. : . . I I-.-...m.- E . • : . .-4---- 1 Z t ...) i ..... •-• t , _4________ 7 -..... f.' .- - , .L . ■ - - ! ,;... . . , Z ... • • 1 .... , E E • 1 7 E t 7•i•-f 7 7 c z LKI. - c:. •2. . s ..: -2.. ? ' - s • .:.••: 7 i EEEEiEgEFT-7-- i - 7 . - '• • ••• - iEs;EREee.eal...EEF:E i i - 7.- - - - - . ___ 't ! .. - 2. .i. i. - - ‹ -- ..' .: = . - : - -• - ■ : = : i Ip!a• .'• .f.' :1 -... -. ...-, r .- ii : 1.-..... . r. - z . ; r. 1 f, . 2 r,...A. • C i 5,5 5 i i 2 ,,,, ; • :: - I!k: -7;r •E•f !f r .F • t; < = : 2 ..: • f 3 ? ... C,, -:. WI - II •'. i c E :" - : :. L. ..-, c• 7 F:1 -4 .i.ic•cit,.b = 7 - ,, ; 1 1 ,, I - ■ 7. A 6 . .. ;: 1 i J. 4 8 7 ; , !. 3.1:.„.1 _..... l a 'E '• ■ .. 1 -_ ...1- """ 5' f-r -• • ' • 1::-.: z - VI •••••• "--- --1-1--1-1z ,. er ,---...."- 7 e F 4 ... .‘ . Z i .„, • I- ,„,,, ,•0 " --4 • 7.. ..= ..5. ; . 5 ..., ! i• . I t: r . . . .., „••• 1 2 . a .. : . 5 s . ........ -. ... , -: .• • I-- CL •-: 7 31 Z i .1 : r r • t i ' -1° es. „---.._-- -E c e:i °'' . w. 3 _ r 2 c -r "• < '- ---:••■•••■= L ,-- tt.' Ul l r.tif5•:.:";:„sciel.1,,b : -c 2 s i = __•:„.:-.-.----• _.---4- ____1: _ .1 01 ----.•••'....--,...-555...,:_. , c ,,,.--r_...... -- ___. • Li • z' • . a . "7 ' ....„--_,;,,•/- S ..i -4-- 1. -I. 81 5. i IF:1 0 f f ---- .14=7..-..t - g`.. - .: t. . ._ - 1 W.. I .2 E l• : r ..' - --------I • CI - rrcZeli .i' 1 , gf.::••-% ..- , 2 ' '- .,.....k r. .11 @- Gri _ es. ,1- Li., . ;4._ - - •,,_- b g.A. , , , ..__ _ . _.-.11 I 1 v ., 0 , E : 2 t.., 0 9, .. • B- 2 , E I" - - - e .7• Ec -- - , _ _ a ." . 1 1 1 ... . 2 c ': : ::: 1= I _ • . _ E f ! I '7 i - - 5 • - i /: C• - - - c :' - .7. - •: 7 • • e : - .. ... "'■ ''.; - - f - I 4 t. t if I • .- .„. - •.. ` _ - -- -.. '.: t - is.e•E..- -.22 -• 1.0i - - .: • - - - 1 •C • 4 . - 1 : 1 - ! - ..- - ; ' .: ! ! -. -. •. , : 4 i E - i it-i• 1 A VaE•3•1 ;. F. F _ • t „ I IIII.E., . 2- -, •:. - , - 1 ee D• t t t . ' •■ D • • • - • .. i t t C : I C C 2. C .. ,..... C .. l ...-07...",.■ ..,:.,...,■...:‘,.....:.-:',2•..::,.-•,.....•.: E i ••■ ! I 161 STD. PLAN B3-7 - = _ CO W e`• . + ' - 1 I - - L - Q - c E • F ` i t. • = _ t • c e _ . € : ass c_ • $ _ W - 5 • a a i , a 60 Z� 3 Z r. c DM >- .•. f � = • S a sp .5 v - ; it ° a • _ _• _e= a W gC _ ill - a i:1' ° ;5 �; 3 f: !: A �� _ i €� r � qq O - e i J e C _ = ;1-, ■ o e^ f i f f f s - 4 4 • U £ R; f�S c a i C u: W y Ee• b ° E C •i e�$$r r • • . a Q o V CO 5 i3 Q 6 .. � ` t 2— T — • • • e 0 • z• a- 1� ' 4 2 W e., .5 Z 4 O :- 4. -- • �_ F i 6 N v _ E - x _ '�G !es =F Y = Si _ S 5: ¢'= ms`s �� 3 - - : �= j • • �.. a ` it. E c 0 . _ • z - -- ¢ • i' •s ,..ii, O 9 - `z m ? J Q s . a • t a C ¢ ¢ f L. - _- 4. s i - -_ c S 1 _ _ J -•123- _ a + ' • �� :� ..- y 3 41 1 L s c --It < • � ` ` Q E U •: v) I f z € c7 O F. < z = 1 .2 ' C - 7 ; E E - l O • it 7 2 E i ±: s _ • ;. :#- = - "" J c° c s -E a•• f - 1 . ? c n E • a i i e f: e sE o 2 • z ID 1 e z z s- Z .; 7 ; a� W z • r ' g � r n . y ` r w, El - 2 E• Z. • 7. • --' O (...c!...., ' _ • , - - - ' - _ E __S ' e s - _ c cc ° _1 = E i • 1 R., STD. PLAN B3-11 �, F a --} " Z > E Z ! i - .. ... : , , . 1 '.. 6 E SU CY _ L a r ao„ _Eli : - z E ! 6 - „. . _ g I 1 I -J J C. �= O i i : s e .e., ._ 22e - = t T 1... ., e -r t € —f ' [ 4 . i . • m: - 6 5 • T i - , i r _ E .- E` Z 1. ` : E: s : s a t; c a c' • l a: c 51 = E E ` ” " r L 1 r E` __, a = i �c —i Q e t Et -t : z am _ 5_ _ c { a ° aon .._ 22r .. J c _ c f € a '` •� ` • r C a ` : { a z e i? -• • - E. € - ,' 1 , .0 — • $.13 - - - F a 6 € - • . . I .___ -._ 1 1 — e ion ..."7:-Us __ 1. f _ 4 • • € I _ J R • I t• ten_- (F = -: € . •- p Z 1), I ` t i E a • w 1 1 — • • f e I i .. . 1 • F pF. i _ I g _ • - a I I i W .. R ' 1 t - t- . d N a 3 • a c c- 2 • f - - 1 € - E e _ _ - 165 STANDARD PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 1997 Edition Promulgated By: AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION Southern California Chapter ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA Southern California Districts PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS, INC. Published By: [. Building News 1612 S. CLEMENTINE ST., ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92802 - (800) 873-6397 COPYRIGHT BY BNI PUBLICATIONS INC I H•36 m Numb.. above C. bol 112 ) 'hake'e d ei nce I• Om ton c ` Cot rq 'e upper en of r„ core - H:3 0 m 0 12 ) 110 1 Surcharge — : 2 Layo ' e H:2 4 m Ilne� dos (8'1 `. Gutter El o• toe of slope 'nterse:'.on ` H.1 8 m l61 `, `I�O140330 .. •■•••••••■ (.4 0 18') ;1 m 1 2 m 1014 0 660 AI 300 mm (1' - 0') 421,2 I 0 m ( ( 8 4 0 36) 09 m (3 -3.) I 50 mm 12') Cl (3' -0') 50 mm (2') CI = short -snort ® c• 250 mm (101- 8ou n.nsd const 2 4 m (8') \ i i Ho 3.0 m (10 rhru % I ' 3.6 m (12') r. ' _ 300 mm 11' -0') 1 I EE ' 100 mms (4•) I E ' 50 mm (2'I ' i I i ' 1 I 1 I 1 Starter well �__ 'et� n v . C1 TrD I . i •� 1 , /emu • i \`�/ 230 mm 191 mm -� �` f 460 mm 280 mm (9') (7 1/2') ..717..„, .__ •• (16 1 (II') 2 mm (9') R- • • .-1564 .4) E •-• 1 200 mm (8') Toto+ 7 E _ N E El i200 mm (8') - Optional type key 0 , hl_ 200 mm (8') en = ELEVATION w/3 c I B 1 -w SECTION Use reinforcement for H. 1 8 m 2 4 m 3 0 m , (6') i wi (8') , (10.) Of won w I —1-- - 'al -- T — 1E_ I - 'T 6 _ E'lo . 70 0 r ' N i , ° E �'p E E - c.)ip E m i. I -" � — ---L.... Top of footing T N in . I in : —optional footing line ri A• I , E' N, _ _ E iy o' i i E r` ' t Layout tine e' as ' N n. , ON O 0 m — I ■-1 — - ( i_ 3'` NOTE ; '. 1 E'i 0 E j For Design dote. details and er n t I , - - - notes s.. Standard Plan 617 per' Unless otherwise specified O use Case 1 Bar cut -offs may be 'onto in Increments of 150 mm (61 TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BY THE REINFORCED CONCRETE STANDARD PLAN PUBLIC O '(S STANDARDS INC METRIC 1 GREENBOOK -TEE RETAINING WALL TYPE 1 610 - 1 REV +eps USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 2 TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL DIMENSIONS AND DATA Design 11 1.2m 1.8 m 2.4 m 3.0 m 3 6 m (4') (61 (8') 110') (121 w 1.0 m 1.3 m 1.6 m 1.9 m 22 m (3' -2 14 -21 (5' -21 (6' -21 (7' -21 C 0.3 m 0.4 m 0.5 m 0.6 m 0.7 m (1' -01 (1' -4•) (t' -81 12' -0 (2' -4 8 0 7 m 0.9 m 1.1 m 1.3 m 1.5 m (2'-2') (2' -10 (3' -61 (4' -2') 14' -10 O ears 15M 0 450 1511 0 450 15M 0 280 20M 0 240 25M 0 250 .5 •5 •5011 •609 .70 71/2 ISM 0 450 15M 0 450 15M 0 560 20M 0 350 25M 0 380 O bars •5018 •5018 0 5 022 •7018 .8015 CASE 1 kPo 75 90 110 Toe Press (psf) (1590) (1930) (2240) (25501 (2840) CASE 2 kPo 50 70 90 110 130 Toe Press. (psf) ((060) (1460) (1860) (2280) (2700) Speed Sleet (Ips/ft (17) 123) 12771 (46) (70) Footing Cone. m3/m 0.80 1.10 1.38 1.68 2 00 (CF /fl) (8.6) (11.8) (14.9) (18 11 (21.3) NOTE: DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR METRIC AND ENGLISH UNITS ARE NOT EXACTLY EOUAL VALUES. IF METRIC UNITS ARE USED, ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE METRIC VALUES. IF ENGLISH UNITS ARE USED, ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ENGLISH VALUES. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN REINFORCED CONCRETE METRIC RETAINING WALL TYPE 1 610 - 1 SHEET 2OF2 Lc.: -, Case 111 `'n29 r i ,/. `Cose - -. 2 I E - - ( li 1 ` �Cose 1 c rrc, ce i•:• e: 0 6 m 121° _ ,-'.•., ! Surcharge cv� Toe of Slope -- c r 5 „ - e_, E', L . Gutre• Ere. or / Toe of slope intersection —, O : _ a Use re nforceTe t— Tc for M- 4 8 rn tie , � 5 5 m I E r •- IOM 040 360 O i E OE li ! 2:. (•40 b; E N ) IOM0 80. - ' E E+te' or (•4036) -, in i.0 ° _ E E - toce 1 -6vlrt,[01 • '1' 2 :';!2.'” I Te :c C E iQ,C O n, O Short - '� `- . G` • = O �fi _ r: c E P Batter Bockfoce E T - Opt,cnoi Fcc',rc , N Layout L e C 50 mm cl 0 r 0 ' (2') ¢ E E ��O E- Stop cO O O E o - G C. fa. He / _ m r__ 3 0 m (10' I E / : 0 mrr, c! N _ - �? - � _ thru H= `' 5 5 m (16) 0 t2 "1 O m 11 - C" r%1 snort c � r _ T . r - 3 {: TT I[ '1 E E E i - � � �- Roughened construction joint c 750 f or M' \ IOC mmz 14' al O c C1 ' 6 0 m 120 ) o,I`c E o . �, E Storte• wal _ !;� thru re V o G I _ 7 9 m (26) E 15,01 (•4 To! 8 o f L i I rte/ • • -T for H_ 3 00 m 50 mr, II I • ►,?: 63 m ! - G 2 rrm ,e•) TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE (2'i r 1. ' (12') I — j G =300 mm (' ) Tyr) 35 oia G 1 for H! 3 60 m r 4 5 d.c 1 (12') H >3 60 m G G I ryy/q for M.3 00 m 1,0 ) (12) E , / W/3 for r23 60 m 112'1 I Oc I Cc'•Cnai Type Key C 6 w SECTION NOTE: For Design data. details ono notes see SIC Pion 617 Unless otherwise specified use Case 11 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BY THE REINFORCED CONCRETE STANDARD PLAN PUBLIC wDRKs STANDARDS INC METRIC _ GREENBO CCAwITTEE RETAINING WALL TYPE 2 611 — 1 REV 199E USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 3 E' @ c © o E '. --.1 , N \ 1 N 1 h 4 E \ E ea 71 E .O 0? " \ 6uo, (1 c S n en \ —7 E Q = E_ 6uo, (.6 -.G) n ti hi in to N S.... E n ;c 6uo, (.O-.9) E ;o g m ti tiev W d Z IO: O IO N N i o S-. 1111/11.1111MIE E E� 64101 (.O -.G) Eo ti o O .n 1 W )•Z v . c = 1 ° E E R. E m E0 E- o .- In 1 .. N m is CD S= "� N- x \ w E \ E EO E .; /• N Z 1 X :7. \ Fn._ E 2 4a Eo n E ( .n LIJ co z Q^ N. 'A (.y . Q h 1-- E Eo E go N Bf _. M m _ __ N n. 1 0+ u N_ 2= .n 1 — E \EO RI RI o \n;,.., I 6n I — el /f1 N _ 0 0 1. E Q N_ E 1- S m if . w Q. O a c_ E r m 01143 QE Pi= w .- $ � e • ` a In E I m a ° e oa S � aEt= o w.© 4 ° O ° u PEi E 9ve E ZcO: N 0 ., InE,m =P QED= AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN METRIC REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TYPE 2 611 - 1 SHEET 2 OF 3 _ 0 I i j E - 1 E -I - - 0 0 00 60 0 in,.., O Op 1np OO! r,O i l r a ° i - N m i' n - ` s _Ir, m n` n n101 _ N E�.1 0- O- 0 E - -- N Om gm - ti 0- N n � N I O st 1 cOOI o Om 00 00 00 0 VO m0 0 m 0 I cn0 m • rte-- .in .`I m ■ N\ sm 6m zv 2= NT NT Nm " Q` 0 0 Q -. N 0 s. N 10.. ma - Q h 1! E E ^ Eo Eo 0^ _N OcIo Ow OS va O O O O - m - Q. r N O N O 1 O I M1 9) hN 66 6 06 66 N 100 m0 cO • MN • In— Q N m wt. N\ 0 =m 3 i0 N N in N MN Q N ..1 h E^ 0— 0... 0 0— _ •- _ E:' E' E• - _nl 00 O N N° -°_ Q -0 00 m pQ 0c n n 0 0 ... m F- 141- m_ 0 N o NN 00 0 00 0 0 1 0 N O n Wm no Q n- .- N∎ ■ — r .. r,. 0. 0z N - P .. N = N ` N — Q . P .. N— M A- � 0 E'- E p E:' E ' _N Q. N m N.- m Z 1/16 O 1 OP 1 0m 0P •• 60 6 00 O h O _ O men � J Q M1— r - Nz P N ` O O mw m a O + s: MO NV N ` N` 0V O0 — . 2 N en M O • Z i E- I E - E -1 E: - _ N oi� ocu 0 c W W cn W o i 01 — 1 1 0 mrj Y1 66 0 60 00 op op wo i N� 1 Q ON N 1 . i hmI m en' mc0 M N \ T m 10 1,, mm 0 Q W I ~ W ,n o 0- Z Z ev 01 CV E r, - M .. E: E. _RI -0 - 71 7i ZJQ 0 , en'a O� � p m l E- ^ 0P co 1 OO 00 00 00 00 0 0 MO 0= O W u; J P Pmt mNl c0� rn� N ° 20 2M 2m mM — 10 ■ =m 00 eet = > `` W W I N O - a- n - rem � Pr) N NJZJ N — W I 1 JQ=Q 1- ; E. I E I Er I E O 1 ON — N " mi Nm O - O .. ro c Z = fll �` lA^ i h O N '^ �'^ 1 N\ O� �� O� ,y0 e 0 n � v0 N0 . n WLOi1(A(= N-1 0 Q PI M - =I 2 2: N ` —N NN 0 I O N- OfnJ Z Z O U J E... E .-, Er E- - _RI " ' � ° m o+ -- a WWZ 0 ob all O N l NQ M IAN 0 00 NO O 0 0 m • U� W I .I I N . � O. N N d1101 -N �� - W ■ O — — m F- Z - 0 ... O.- WI- W J i E ' E: E^ E- _- l Ow NW _ - J m N P- n- O Z� m 1 Pm I 0 1 , - O� I of 0, IAN 0 6 0 0 In 0 coo , 11 0 Nm 0 �OJa N ��AI _ PI:- N\ Q= W i - - i •O - 1 -�� — — r�: oN m 0_ PN _ c M.-. O� _ — � U�fn ■ O E...! ENI E.-1 EoI n _N nm r 0 i m QI- J mc0 NQ� P P ' m 1� N NV 0 O �� A m0 1` coN a 2WU • CO - -� 0- ON - — r in ..7.: — — — — tau- 2= i— 1 E ^ 1 E- E- 1 ° � — 0— - W I- E .. '- -- N P ,,m _ CAm(/) MIN 0 VII O O 1s-0 0 In 41 ti 0a ZW Z ■ NQ m� '`) 1 cON Pr) 1 N� O� 6 M, n100 MI= o N- m m 0=—.10 0- 0 0- _ = n n _ = O. ZQaU 3 > == E- NO E p NZ J ca r' =QZ .1 w w w :� ..g IS i` en u ZWU(A o o` o e o c c 0 o a a a _ _ N c� O }O = 3 c) co o o Oo uO O „Jct. Wa c.,a N N N N N Z Y • • C ti m v� V I u 1 ` ° ` - W W a Z J c °o p OW U> `` Z AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN METRIC REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TYPE 2 611 - 1 SHEET 3 OF 3 • "C tc .r 'E - E' Toe of £ c,e —1 -- i ( Use re nfc •ter-e- for 1 -e 3 0 r 03 . 3 E G . Lc.. _ Line -- Z E f,2 : i G ` E v, �9' r•r J ° E 0 o c ' E c 1 5 • I NI c; C ' c •r'), c = G G . = —71—L ,7 OG:.ng Gutte• Elev or E �- O ! Toe of slope Intersection b — E Optional Footing - 10M C 73C r C r• (.4 0 3E) ' • i '^ M E E v1 IOM 0 3E0 ( (04 O .E, 50 mm Cl C O ICr- - t I 1 1EL, Short U : o. l 1 / ! I _ t I C t t. • E Ci' • I`c • X QQ M Loyo..• .ire .Ic_� N 1 c - 0. ` -•c'• v Bolter Bockface ' E E.te • cr - fcze veri C:' E= 330 mm (1 -1•) for H:18 m (6') 5: m— CI (2 1 E n ry 3 4 2 mm j3"1 f or H 2 4 m ( 6 1 TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE • 750 mm (2' -6 "( for H 4 6 m (161 tnr 6 6 m (22') =,0 O • - RouQheneo Construction joint Stop -/ 100 mm: (4") Storter Won F [ E u ` c= / - (5M (•4) Tot 8 1.41 I i i 1 L /I i t - for H: 3 0 m (10 ) :C ._ 4- for y t G =300 mm (1 -0') IF ---H• 12') C"" E `' H• 4 2 m `\ 1 / G =450 mm (I' -6'I -rye r ;, 114') G 1 for M? 3 6 m '45 bar ago ' G I G for W/4 for H.3.0 m (10'1 NOTE: H) 4 2 m W/3 for H m (12') (14') Oplionol - For Design one Drainage notes one other aeto.ls Type see Standard Pion 617 Key C B w SECTION AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BY THE REINFORCED CONCRETE STANDARDIPLAN PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS INC METRIC DREENBOOK URA COMMITTEE RETAINING WALL TYPE 3 612 - 1 REv +ooe USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 3 0 0 .c E O N7 'al .c ' \ \ .1 , v' �D I A Ln 4 �. E (.9- S£ 1 / i E N. 1.9 -.6) W 6 Z 1 c y � ! E \ /1 1 �� _ 1_ • E ADD (.£- 01) W 1 £ 1 y E I . 2h O— ( 0 L) W 1 ` 1 Qy 1 / (.9- i 6) W 6 2 1.� r , ' E e. s 1 t v, - 1 _ � (.9- .Z.) W £ Z 1 i o— ( N E \ I, 1 1 1r cr (.0- 8) w t, Z 1 1 Z Q � �'' 0 _T.= \ _ 1.9- S) W L 1 1 t — (~ Q E I > rn 1 } W J v.v 1 1 j` W 1 9- r� W tr 1 1 1------1.:_. E `\ 1 1 , 1 E N ',- l.£ -.Ll W Z Z 1 E el— vi - .9- trl 1 • C�. � W b l N.. E 1 , � I — 1 -£- S) W 9 1 1 i S - .. l.£} trl W£ I 1 t E . C — E 1 - - N © (.0 -.£ W 6 0 1 1 E: ! O a e o r a Si 0 E E @ �— E c !a I ea„ 0r V — c 1P1 cc ' a. O r O - �D 1 a d O a 0 ~�4 V O O O I „ Z c ° r AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN METRIC REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TYPE 3 612 - 1 SHEET 2 OF 3 E- E� ECfEN - _ N °''' - - - � - O - 60 r.N M' 0 r 0' Q O , 00 0O 00 .na'�mN O t' N rr) Cv1 r`` C 2C0 2 - 2m M, 01 Ch m .. N- M N _ 0_ In 0 _ _ Jr n Eo - E• _ _ n O MN cc_, _0 01 - 01 C N ° I • 0 0 00 as M ,nC C N m GO` CQ _rn r n_ 'D iv ,DN xm 2= =m M � M UD{ O ww `. ... N- M N Z 0 < E- E E_ Cr cal o zD o - oz. _ _ WW r� O Oo - c No ru � O CC - m = i- 0 60 00 m O In, Oco a 0 00 Q r`° aON I (IC 0 �` M _ 0- M - �: N\ ` u n' u n i � M- N - NC N M N I- W W in 0_, O o O= E E - - Z E_ E- _ a No' Nm nip; °' -we, _ ZJQ Q 0, C` m7 to co, , o 00 ao NP2 o 2 >N M w C no O N N - C- N\ o� t 3m N u, N - C Q -0 Z - - = N_ ,.. N - - N JZJ E... E • Er p " _ N P - N- N- o _ z > o MC 07 g'..), N I Q Q inN 00 Om am C," M m rrf ,l , WQC= Z C MQ, N Nr� c-;._ N\ �� � O � O N m M 1j.1..... Cr) W o •"' - .• o.. ...). N pfnJ J o_ o_ o Q = Z 0 p E... E. E_ E - -I _ r- - No' 'Ai 77 ; O - WW w „D C ,r m0 ON rt, a 0 0 u,r M n 0 V= tD - N _ n - N m N -V) M._ N \ � l 2m 2 N C Opp N N c - a W W O_ _ n N - o . I. •Q] W WF N 1-- _ _ _ J E. E , E- N °,ra 0 - - 2 -L+- Cn N Q or O . _ W_ C - 0 .. - ZO 0 OO Ni i rAV ON N\ �a �Lo �� m � ADC N- 00;2 - V I E_ - °- 0... Z�V E - E;,., Its EcJ ON - N p1 .7- � Q O _ J WCC- O c co co ' o� , - I 2 ri, N 0 0 a O v, _ I M �D r, 6.21-1- L � F. F- LL N -o ` - My N\ M. - M Or W? Z ,n ` CN W��2 W E _ °- °- I- W I- cr E_ Eo oQ E iD O -N c- Q- rn N Wf9 O ,0 „, c' rs, In 0 0 N� MN Nr ,� Z O J Z LL n O�. Oti M - N \ m 2 : 1 CV o J J 0 - _ � ZaQ > == -I _ _ .7 O W - = N °- a \ E \ =QZLA- CO -g ? - E 0 N 000 f- ^ m m u N O W u d - 6- - c Z = 3 O L.) m o - G° O 0 d 0.1.- N =N c m ry ° c ZHI N i n ° UCnO 4, 4 ,_ Cu' mQ Z J 0 n o I- XOQ v, 0 CIW0> Z AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER S TANDARD PLAN METRIC REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TYPE 3 612 - 1 SHEET 3 OF 3 i+:12 m Hr1 E m H'2 4 m 14 ) 16 1 I I F 1 i Use Slr e a• «.. Li- I for desigr n rnolcctea , c, ; / T �� ' E V r NOTE: C . °' ., O V For Design data dera s or.c acres see 5'G Or E 7 - e 0 o ° ' Unless otherwise specified use Ccse 11 C G °" I a' C @ x I v.c w o — O ti:. x c Po �o 0 �c E E E E E c. E E J N � co ___9 N N To of J L Bottom 61 Loyout 250 mm _ footing ELEVATION footing Lrne (10.) a 15 15 M G ° E - Continuous 0 6 m(2') / 0 Q Surcharge 0 1 v = ■ r -:' . 3,/.? 2 '. Gut'e• flow 1 ^e c• O Toe of slope Inre•stc'ron T"' — E ESP T — IOM 0 900 01 E I E Ci N - N ' l0M O 350 \ - E N (°4 0 1E1 /. Opt,onol m rovin — E Imes . O E � . 0 c PLAN \ • ^1 c P Exposed r TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE 50 0 ° mm (2•) C CI for H)2 4 m (8') Q W/3 C -50 rrm (2') for H <2 4 m Ea•th slope at (8') 30C Roughened constructlar joint t exposed face IOM O 360 :n7 E mm 100 mm • (4') Starter wall • ( •4 0 18) E ft'-0' NMI E'er • 0 150 mm 0 1— — 1 5 N= O o° 111 I (6') in t=._ L tL. _ A.- 50 mm (2') 0 0 -G = 200 ' 181 Cl Typ. E v ��� _G =300 mm (1 ) E — III for H_ 3 0 m (10'1 Standard 90° Is 1 G hook for Case Omit keys Optional W/2 II. H : 3.6 m Type t" (12') only for H<0 9 m (3') I5 m (5') min for (1 < 18 m 16') Key w 2 4 m (8') min for 11 r 1.8 m (6')' 1 SECTION AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BYTnE REINFORCED CONCRETE - STANDARD PLAN Put3u1 worms STANDe INC G+tEENBpr prc CO►1r1iTTE E RETAINING WA L L TYPE 4 6 - 1 1 TTE 1914 REV 199E USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 2 NOTE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR METRIC AND ENGLISH UNITS ARE NOT EXACTLY EQUAL VALUES. IF METRIC UNITS ARE USED. ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE METRIC VALUES. IF ENGLISH UNITS ARE USED. ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ENGLISH VALUES. H :36 m 021 ) H :3 0 m (10'I io i p iD 824 m T / E i d1 :10 -- 1 N H:I 8 m — N E — er Dimensions above bars indicate (6 ) ^ Q�p E minimum distance from top in — of footing to upaer end of bors ti: 2 m E — Exposed Ioce ba•s not shown on •4 0 Top of footing I I 1 PLACEMENT OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL. DIMENSIONS AND DATA CASE 1 CASE 11 LEVEL BACKFILL •0.6 m (2') SURCHARGE DESIGN OR V:I•H :2 BACKFILL 1:15 BACKFILL H 12 m ' 1 8 m 2.4 m 3.0 m 3 6 m 1 2 m 18 m 2 4 m 3 0 m 3 6 m (4'1 1 (6') (8') 110') (12') (4•) I 16') (8'1 (10') I (12') N t I m 1 1 6 m 2 2 m 2 8 m 3 6 m l l m 1 6 m 2 2 m 2 8 m 1 3 6 m (3' -8'1 (5 -31 (7' -11 19' -4 (1I' -91 (3' -81 15' -31 (7' -1•) (9' -4') 1 (II' -10'1 F I 250 250 250 280 330 250 250 250 300 I 375 1 (0' -10') (0' -101 (0' -10') (0' -11 (I' -1•) (0' -101 (0' -10') (0' -101 (l —01 u• -3'1 C 0 71 m 119 m 1.75 m 2.44 m 3.18 m 0.71 m 119 m 1.75 m 2 41 m 3 12 m (2' -4•) (3' -111 (5' -91 (8' -0•) U0' -51 (2'-41 (3' -111 (5' -91 (7' -111 (10'-31 T 250 250 250 250 300 250 250 250 275 325 • (0' -10') (0' -101 (0' -10') (0' -10') (I' -0') (0' —I0) (0' -10'1 (0' -101 (0' -111 (I' -1') BAR CI 10M 0 330 151 0 380 101 0 300 151 0 340 201 0 310 IOM 0 330 151 0 360 IOM 0 320 151 0 300 201 0 270 1.4 0 18) (05 0 15) (s4 0 15) 1.5 0 13 1/2) 1.6 011 1 /2) 1.4 0 18) (05 0 14 1/2) 1.4 0 161 (05 0 121 186 0 101 BAR 201 0 390 201 0 280 201 0 230 201 0 330 201 0 260 201 0 2001 ('6 0 15) 1.7 0 13 1/2) 117 0 11 1/2) (87 0 16) (07 0 12) 1.7 0 10) BAR 0 1101 0 330 101 0 330 101 0 330 101 0 330 101 0 330 101 0 330 101 0 330 IOM 0 330 101 0 330 101 0 330 1.4 0 18) 1.4 0 181 (44 0 18) (•4 0 18) (•4 0 18) (.4 0 18) (44 0 18) (.4 0 18) 1.4 0 18) 1.4 0 18) SOIL PRES kPai 302 3t 1 31.6 31.6 335 235 268 292 326 359 Ps 1 630 650 660 660 700 490 560 610 690 750 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN METRIC REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TYPE 4 613 - 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 — E - _ .2 •r ,- ! L•se struc'u•O se: 'cr des.g^ ti c 1 ` I -r v "7 ----r T E t NOTE• s Pc :, ' = _ - — For Des g- : . detc s C": . •es see _ . - _ 7 _i - 6E r p � - Unless o'he•.. .. se spec.' el .se _s. v` - r x) EIE V _ - E 4, u c � E E tr= c I E o ° NIE L C V Cf, J N I t t t Top o} `- 6o'tom of Layout ,; foot,ng J ELEVATION footing Line 25C rnm. 15 M (IG•I `• S e' , • Continuous 600 mm (2'1 L ,e Surcha•ge ,.." • Oet cne' 1 , �°' Gol'e• ' -e f". r g Tce of s ::e •e'se:' T IIneS --- o 1 li / ION. Q 900 IP /y - (.4 0 361 1 .-- cI :Di t o C n 12 h ' C I E E I :CM 0 ?t- E I E O - m .— oI Loyd.,' I,-e - - Ei _ J — ._t_ O O, - E S — ^1 c • E r V E Exposed o face a,o PLAN 50 mm (21 CI C TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE t . . 0 /— — Rou c c ^s tc rJ ^ o * 150 mm 16') S to 1 . � EI Storte• Y. o'' rlli I.5 ISM E ! -� E I - 50 mr•• (2• I / L �E do rOo ivy Ty; I in ,C for H. 3 0 m (i0') 1.- u T 'T G.200 mm (8 s 1 ' e G =300 mm (I') J / /` I for Hr G I=IOM C 3 0 m (10'1 Sfondord 90° 3; C Omit keys hook o2f4r m G r' I (•4 0 '8 f or)H'O 9 m (8') W/2 Opt,on :II Type 1 5 m (5') min for H x 1 8 m (6'1 W K I 2 4 m (8') min for H 1 1 8 m (6') . SECTION AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BY THE REINFORCED CONCRETE STANDARD PLAN PUBLIC woRKS STANDARDS INC METRIC GREENB')OR COMMITTEE RETAINING WALL TYPE 5 614 — 1 1064 REV 1996 USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 2 H =3 6 m (;2 1 H = 3 0 m.n (10 1 R. - E 0 H =2 4 m N (8') - /�N E 1-1=1 9 m ., -).o . _ Dimensions above bars 'nd;coie (6 1 , M- 1 minimum d;stonce from t7D N ' M of footing to upper end of bars .4:.; 2 t ' E E E Exposed face bars not s ^own (4 1 N 0 0 _ c - 0 m Top of foct,n9 / PLACEMENT OF VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL, DIMENSIONS AND DATA CASE I CASE II LEVEL BACKFILL •600 mm SURCHARGE DES'GN OR 1 2 BACKFILL 1 1.5 BACKFILL H 12 m 1 8 m 1 2 4 m 3 0 m 3 6 m (.2 m (.8 m 2.4 m 3 0 m l 3 6 m (4') i (6') 1 (8') (10') (12') (4') (6') (8') l (10') I (12') W j 1 I m 15 m' 18 m 22 m 25 m II m I7 m 24 m 3.1 m l 3.8 m (3'-8 (4' -10'1 , (6' -0'1 (7' -2') (8' -4'1 (3' -8 15' -81 l7' -11 (10' -31 ; (12' -81 I 1 F 250 250 I 250 250 300 250 250 280 1 300 1 350 10 -101 ' 10' -10'1 ' (0' -IO1 (0' -10'1 1 (I' -01 (0' -101 (0' -10'1 (0' -111 U' -0') (I' -2'1 C 1 0 71 m 1 1 07 m 1 1.40 m 1 80 m' 2.08 m 0.71 m 1 30 m 2 00 m 2 70 m 1 3 4 (2' -4'1 (3 -6') (4' -8') (5' -10'1 (6' -10 . 1 12' -4'1 (4• -4'1 (6' -7'1 (8' -10'1 1 (II' -1 T i 250 1 250 1 250 250 300 250 250 250 280 ' 330 (0' -10'1 ++ (0' -10') , (0' -10') (0' -(0'1 (1' -0'1 (0' -10') (0' -101 (0' -101 (0'-11'1 I II' -1 BAR O 101* 0 330110M 0 240115M 0 460 20M 0 380 20M 0 280 10M 0 33010M 0 240 10M 0 210 1 20M 0 340 0 260; 1 4 0 1 8 ) 1 1 4 0 1 2 1 1 1 5 0 1 8 1 (6 0 141 (7 0 14 1/21 (4 0 181 (4 0 12) 14 0 (0 1/21 (6 0 12 1/211 17 0 131 I 1 M 0 0M 0 8M O 280 BAR t� I 1 I IS (5 0 (8) 460 2 (6 0 14 ) (7 20 O (4 1/2) 10M 0 210 20M 0 340 20M 0 260 (4 0 10 I /2) (6 0 12 I/21 (7 0 131 BAR Q IOM 0 330;10M 0 230120M 0 320 25M 0 300 25M 0 220 IOM 0 330 IOM 0 330 10M 0 180 20M 0 280,20M 0 190 (4 0 18) 14 0 11 1/2)1 (6 0 12) (8 0 12) (8 0 9) 14 0 181 (4 0 18) (4 0 9) 16 0 10 I/21 0 9 1 /211 501E PRES kPa 53 1 1 75 6 97 7 119 7 146 0 70.9 106 3 149.4 - 197 3 247 5 1 psf 11110) (1580) (20401 (2500) (3050) (1480) (2220) (3120) (4120) (51701 NOTE' DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR METRIC AND ENGLISH UNITS ARE NOT EXACTLY EQUAL VALUES. IF METRIC UNITS ARE USED. ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE METRIC VALUES. IF ENGLISH UNITS ARE USED. ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ENGLISH VALUES. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN METRIC REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TYPE 5 614 - 1 SHEET 2OF2 r r= 3 6 rr 112 t 0 0 hom0er pOGV! ShCrl 0pr3 0 i r.: C:'es 0 51arCe 1 •Om H.3 0 r I10'I Da'$ Ic: el fc:1 ng ID a :Der Loyo1.' i�ne ena of SfC'i Dar - C3 E r .e !jam tD ■'-) ''' E ecors (II I/2') - _ E E 600 mm se E V m m (2') Sur - ; .7 ' . -, O O charge ,/' No Ms1 2 m (h 50 mm (2') CI 1;n mm Gutter EIe. or toe c1 Slope ir - (2 C terse01i0n b ar X.. IOM 0 330 I (04 0 161 smart f• Bolter see ia6le = bars Rou 1 construction. N I IOM 0 720 joint _ Q 5G \ 2i5 m 1 (•4 0 36) I ® OE tics m•r. a50 mm (8 I/2') Lars- E I� - fr J ELEVATION ( 8 I/2') mm 175 mm HOJ Use rein( for H: 1 2 m,1 8 m2 4 m 100 mmt (4') E0 OWQ Ic 1 E L I ° fa 9 Z Top Of wall 14'1 (6') (8 1 Starter wail - WWD Toe of slope .G,- uG''c'ci AN N :D V 'G1 I type 'eY (nN = i ° I E I 1 l•-W E E I ? C Faat c, , 2 ZJQ �O c., C W I > >NW � 1 = ( - n J- G =200 mm (8') for H: 3 0 m DC') cr less U )-1 - ��_ 0 :300 mm (I -0') for H: 3 7 m ('2 1 0Q >> e) E I t ELEVATION E - wW UN "' E I G . SECTION ZOO E ' Optlonol < ZZ ` E - T I footing 4 16- ry �s � N line Inc l NOTE 03 • ! , r I For design data. details and notes � F' PLAN see Standard Plan 617 » = TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE °o >N TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL. DIMENSIONS AND DATA Z Design H 1 2 m (4') 1 8 m 16') 2 4 m (8'1 3.0 m (10') 3.6 m 112') 410 -0 w 1.2 m (4' -0'1 1.5 m (5' -0') 2 0 m 16' -6') 2 4 m (8' -0') 2.9 m (9' -6') JW O. F Spread Flg 355 (P -2') 355 (r -2•) 400 (' -4') 460 (t' -61 560 (1' -10'1 W WWMO Batter None None None 32 1 (3/8 12) 1 16 1 (3/4.12) 2 IOM 0 330 ISM 0 450 ISM 0 430 2014 0 430 2011 0 380 WI- Qo bars (04 0 18) (e5 0 181 (05 0 17) (.6 0 171 (.6 0 14) to C] N Z W O O J O Short0 bars None Nene J -IL) (•5 0 17) (06 0 171 (•6 0 14) Z• Qb bars 1014 0 330 (5M 0 450 1511 0 430 20M 0 230 2014 0 190 >21:c (04 0 181 (•5 0 181 (05 0 17) (06 0 8 1/2) (.6 O 7) O JND To101 Q bars 8 - 2011 8 - 20M 10 - 2014 8 - 2014 6 - 20M 2QZ (6 -e7) (6 -07) (8-•71 (6 -•71 (4 -071 NOOO 4 CASE I 76.6 (1600) 105 3 (2200) 119 7 (2500) 143 6 (3000) 167 6 (3500) Z W l- . '6 a CASE II 71 8 (1500) 100.5 (2100) 129 3 (2700) 162.8 (3400) 196 3 (4100) 0>..D-' I- • .g CASE 76.6 (1600) 110.1 (2300) 138.8 12900) 181.9 (38001 210.7 (4400) NJ2 (n CASES 95.8 (2000) 153.2 (3200) 201.1 (4200) 253 8 (5300) 311.2 (6500) ~ ~W a 33 52 82 H �QZJ Spree() t Steel b /It (16) (22) (35) (55) (7 0 X 04:1 Fooling I Conc. m /m 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.3 3.4 Z OWU> I CF /fl (9 41 112.51 (17.2) 124 4) (36 I1 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BY THE REINFORCED CONCRETE STANDARD PLAN PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS INC . METRIC GREENBOOK COMMITTEE RETAINING WALL TYPE 6 615 - 2 16& REV 1996 USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 1 • H = I a — .: 4 rr H. I 0 m t6 .. -6• t3' - 4•; - NOTE: I I 1 E E - For design dale, detods and notes p ' tee Standard Plan 617 c 7 '" . I : :e IOM c 24: O = E ',r, sre: gro,r,C l•4 C . 2., line 1w ei1 61 . i.• IOMO 240 J (114 0 12) 600 mm T yp (2' -0') ELEVATION I Layout inc I I I I i PLAN FOOTING STEP DETAILS Ty,: I 60C r* C s r :-: •;e Tyr r — E : 20C (Tim 18'1 i E Design t lop mgrs for se J .ec r O E or surcharge Typ Ji „ F 2 Trp 1 1 a E t S \OG e V - > ° 1 Toe c' s. :;e t' interse :•icr ICM 0 2•:G ( •4 0 12) E 8 Roughened tan5trurf,or, 50 mm ( 2'; O joint. T C. Typ I id 4 -'C." (3-•4) [3 -,mot.' ,2 -041 E H _ El 100 mm o7 (4 FIB i ' f ', / s (4•) S tor ter - r „ I- e wolt,Typ x 200 men , ti� i (8') Typ '11_,„ 2 -15M 50 mm (2.1 E `J- CI Typ ( I_50 mm 1 1 E� .. rr (6•) Typ E w en W _I =I TYPE 7A WALL TYPE 7B WALL AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATED BY THE REINFORCED CONCRETE STANDARD PLAN PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS INC METRIC GREENBOOK COMMITTEE RETAINING WALL TYPE 7 616 - 1 REV tress USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF 2 . RETAINING WALL DATA TYPE 7A Design M IO m 1.2m 14 m 1.6m I 13'-41 (4' -0'1 (4' -81 (5'-41 (6'-01 W 1 0 m (.1 m 1.2 m 1.3 m 14 m (3'-2 (3' -61 (3' -(01 (4' -2 (4' -61 bars IOM 0 330 10M 0 330 10M 0 280 10M 0 200 ISM 0 300 (64 0 18) (64 0 18) (64 0 14) (64 0 10) (05 0 12) Steel kg /m 9 8 11 4 14 6 20.4 24 8 Spreod tbs /LF (6 6) (7 7) (9 8) (13 7) (16 7) Footing Conc 3 /m 0 27 0 30 0 32 0 34 0.37 C /LF (2 9) (3 2) (3 4) (3 7) (4 0) RETAINING WALL DATA TYPE 7B Design 1-1 IOm 12m (4m 16m 18m (3' -41 (4' -01 (4•-81 (5' -4 (6' -0'1 W 08 m 09 m 10 m 11 m 12 m (2'-81 (3'-0 (3' -41 (3' -81 (4' -01 bars IOM 0 330 IOM 0 330 15M 0 400 15M 0 400 10M 0 150 (04 0 16) (•4 0 16) (65 0 16) (05 0 16) (64 0 SI © Dora 10M 0 330 1011 0 330 10M 0 330 1011 0 330 1511 0 400 (.4 0 16) (•4 0 16) (04 0 16) (64 0 161 (65 0 16) Sleet kq /m 9 8 11 4 14 6 20 4 24 8 Spread IDs /LF (6.6) (7 7) (9 8) (13 7) (16 7) Footing Conc TO/n.1 0.23 0.26 - 0.28 0.31 0 33 CF /LF (2 5) (2 8) (3 0) (3 31 (3 61 NOTE: DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR METRIC AND ENGLISH UNITS ARE NOT EXACTLY EQUAL VALUES. IF METRIC UNITS ARE USED. ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE METRIC VALUES. IF ENGLISH UNITS ARE USED, ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ENGLISH VALUES. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN REINFORCED CONCRETE METRIC RETAINING WALL TYPE 7 616 6 - 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 m • in 44 1 Masonry 15M (•5) •� 50 mm construction — III 1 1 ° CO C1 (2') CI 15M (•5) Ii (7 i8 ) E EI 11 ■I 1111 m 15M (•41 ' ISM (•4) Tot 3 Tot 2 ��� 50 mm c 2 `_° (6 0 mm 111111 ` (5M (.5)_III (2'1 C1. l 111E 50 mm E , E 200 mm e ��� (8•) Eb f2') Typ Do c 1 95 mm �■ 0)2 E - 111 — i � el I E o. E = � — :� \ e N Evl 0 a,=l 15M (•4) IInc' _ I 1 (6'1 Typ m Tot. 2 1 r =I I Er , ISM (•4) _ ,.�— Tot. 3 I c : w/2 �n — W Typical I 1 H :1800 mm W (6' -0') mos. C 1 E dl " 600 mm ~ (2') surcharge r y / / - Layout line Typ. Design limits for slope � � N e 6 E ,.° / or surcharge. Typical I %) O o 2 -Ni �o9 1 in E j 1 kl• Q Masonry Construction 1 15M (•5) 1 III Net II (7 mm (7 5/8'1 E EI ,' Ni.-.1 200 mm Ill (5M (.5) , v.,' l8') I 200 mm x 11 ik (e IN Tot. 2 ISM t041 Tot. 2 .' [1____IN:E1._ � I 1Z1 -,,,,,i4_ :r , (5M (•4) Tot 2 W w H•1 4 m (4' -8') max. TYPE A WALL TYPE B WALL AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER PROMULGATEDBVTHE MASONRY RETAINING WALL STANDARD PLAN PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS INC METRIC GREENBOOK COMMITTEE 6 - 1984 o REV eta% USE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SHEET 1 OF • Tree Design H 1016 1219 1422 1626 1829 (3'•4•1 (4' -01 (4'-8') (5'-4 (6' -01 A yy 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 (3' -21 (3' -6') (3••10') (4' -21 (4' -6') A O 15M 0 406 15M 0 406 (04 0 16) (44 0 16) A S 15M 0 406 15M 0 406 (04 0 16) (05 0 16) A © 1514 0 406 15M 0 406 ISM 0 406 (04 0 16) (•4 0 16) (05 0 16) Footing Conc. m /m 0 27 0 30 0.31 0.34 0 37 CF /LF (2 9) (3 2) (3 4) (3 7) (4 0) Reinf kg /m 13 13 5 17.5 22.5 1b3 /LF (8 5) (8.9) (11.6) (12 8) (15 0) Type Demgn H 1016 1219 1422 1626 1829 l3' -4') (4' -0'1 (4' -8'l (5'-4') (6'-01 B W 850 950 1050 1150 1250 (2'-8'1 (3'-0'1 (3'-4 (3' -8') (4••01 B OA 15M 0 406 15M 0 406 (04 0 16) (04 0 16) B S 15M 0 406 ISM 0 406 (04 0 16) ( 0 16) B © I5M 0 406 15M 0 406 15M 0 406 1.4 0 16) 1 0 16) ( 0 16) B © 15M 0 375 15M 0 375 ISM 0 375 1514 0 375 1514 0 300 (04 0 16) ( 0 161 (04 0 161 (04 0 16) 1.5 0 16) Footing Conc m /m 0 23 0.26 0.28 0.3) 0.33 CF /LF (2 5) (2 8) (3.0) (3.3) (3.6) Rein1, k g /m 13.5 14 5 17 5 19 23 Ibs /LF (9.1) (9 6) (11.8) (12.9) (15.4) NOTE: DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR METRIC AND ENGLISH UNITS ARE NOT EXACTLY EQUAL VALUES. IF METRIC UNITS ARE USED, ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE METRIC VALUES. IF ENGLISH UNITS ARE USED, ALL VALUES USED FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ENGLISH VALUES. AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN MASONRY RETAINING WALL 6 18RIC 1 SHEET 2 OF 3 Place expansion joints at H =1829 mm /12192 mm 140' -0'1 cc max (6' -0') r 50 mm (2') Cement E' I - I, ■ morlor cop H=1422 mm WIN Omit mortar from (4' -8) 1 T verlicot joint in first course above `J� , -; 0 +� Mall 11111111111 proposed ground H =1016 mm line at 813 mm (3' -4') 1 1 1 1 I 1 11 1 11 (32') centers for weep holes Fill 1 11 WAI /11 IM V cells es with concrete --L---.1 IN. 11E1 11 1IILMIII front dace 41111 111111. I♦■ �I �I - �I■��M� � 111 i 1 1 I .? 1 1 i P 1 © L 1 A 4 1 - 1 4 -I- � � Extend caulk - ___ inq ') 150 mm 406 mm 406 mm 406 mm 406 mm 406 mm - 406 mm (6 below - 116') (16') (16') (16 (16') (16') finishea grade ELEVATION - MASONRY CONSTRUCTION H =1829 mm H=1422 mm H=1016 mm (6' -0') I (4' -8'1 I (3' -4•) 1 E 't E- Front face finished G.' c ground line M - . E 5 ISM (•4)J 0 300 ((2) -2A__ 600 mm (2' -01 15M (84) 0 300 (12) ELEVATI ON 6 mm 11/4') Premolded expansion joint filler / - Layout line (00 001 T Caulking E c I 1 300 mm in:- (I' -0' ) SECTION A -A PLAN FOOTING STEP DETAILS DESIGN CRITERIA: Masonry: 1 = 3.5MPo (500 psi) tm= 10.3MPa (1500 psi) 1 = 165MPa (24.000 psi) n : 20 Reinf Conc : 1 = 9MPa (1300 psi) f' = 22MPo (3250 psi) 1 = 165MPa (24.000 psi) n = 10 Earth = 19 KN /m (120 pct.) .6 m (2') Surcharge Equivalent fluid pressure = 5.6 kPa /m (36 pet) for determination of toe pressure 4.2 kPo /m (27 pct) for determination of heel pressure 1 (2:1) Unlimited Surcharge: Earth pressure determined from Rankine's formula 0 = 33 = Minimum allowable soil bearing capacity of foundation material = 96kPo (2000 p31.) AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER STANDARD PLAN METRIC MASONRY RETAINING WALL 618 - 1 SHEET 3 OF 3 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANKING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT, NOVEMBER 17, 1999 _ Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 19 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999 1 1 year. Chairman Hood confirmed that approval ended after 2 years, including the 2 extension. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if another extension were required at the 3 end of the initial 1 -year extension, the applicant would have to reapply to the 4 Commission for approval of any subsequent 1 -year extensions. 5 6 Mr. Whittenberg pointed out a correction in the title of the Resolution adopting Negative 7 Declaration 99 -2. He stated that third line of the title should be stricken, as the Planning 8 Commission can adopt the Negative Declaration without recommending approval to the 9 City Council. . 10 11 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to approve the Negative Declaration 99 -2 and 12 Minor Plan Review 99 -9 and adoption of Resolution Nos. 99 -42 and 99-43. 13 14 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 15 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 16 NOES: None 17 ABSENT: None 18 19 Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 99-42 and 99-43 begins a 10 -day 20 calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final 21 and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 22 23 24 STUDY SESSION: RETAINING WALLS 25 26 Chairman Hood asked that Staff present the information for the study session and then 27 the Chair would open for public comment. He noted that this would not be a question 28 and answer period. Chairman Hood stated that after this the Planning Commission 29 would discuss the issue. He announced that this was not an action item and there 30 would be no vote on this issue tonight. 31 32 Staff Report 33 34 Mr. Whittenberg reaffirmed that the purpose this evening was not to make any decisions 35 or take action regarding a proposal for retaining walls, but simply to receive information 36 from Staff and comments from the public regarding this issue. The Commission may 37 also provide direction to Staff on future proceedings related to this issue. 38 39 Mr.Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 40 Planning Department.) - He provided background information on the application and City 41 Council discussion on Zone Text Amendment 96 -1 related to the deck issues along the 42 Heliman/Gum Grove property. He stated that the existing provisions of the ordinance 43 do not limit the height of a retaining wall, but indicates that retaining walls can be built 44 within the City and that on top of the retaining wall a six -foot high fence can be built. 45 Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the current language of the Zoning Ordinance 46 and found nothing in it that limits the height of retaining walls. He stated that during the 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999 1 City Council discussion this became an issue, and the Council has requested that the 2 Planning Commission revisit the issue to determine if it would be appropriate to set a 3 height limit for retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Building Code did not 4 address the height of retaining walls, but only included a description of a retaining wall 5 and how it should be constructed. He said that the City Engineering Department was 6 approached to establish what the accepted engineering practice for the City would be 7 for retaining walls. They indicated to Staff that this would entail standard plans that 8 have been developed by the Califomia Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), and 9 standard plans for public works construction issued by the American Public Works 10 Association, Southern Califomia Chapter. He pointed out that the sample plans 11 included in the Staff Report were primarily designed for large public works and 12 transportation projects and so the heights of the retaining walls would vary from 8 feet to 13 35 feet. He stated that for residential and commercial development within the City these 14 maximums did not make a lot of sense. Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff researched 15 standards from other cities in the area and he noted that samples of these standards 16 appear in the Staff Report of zoning ordinances and subdivision ordinances or standard 17 plans for these cities. He stated that most of the cities had a standard height for 18 retaining walls of 6-8 feet. 19 20 Mr. Whittenberg then initiated discussion on retaining walls within the front setbacks of 21 properties. He stated that this is the area that is most visible to the street in most cases. 22 He reported that the City has an existing limit of 42 inches for fences within the front 23 setback of residential properties. He stated that Staff is recommending a limit of a 24 30 -inch high retaining wall in the front yard area, with a maximum fence height of 42 25 inches. For areas that are not within a front setback, Mr. Whittenberg presented the 26 following options, as recommended by Staff: 27 28 1. That retaining walls of less than 30 inches be automatically permitted without having 29 to apply to the City for any discretionary review. 30 2. By Building Code provision retaining walls that are exactly 30 inches high be 31 required to have a 42 -inch high guardrail constructed to prevent people from falling 32 off the deck structures. 33 3. Retaining walls greater than 30 inches in height would be permitted subject to a 34 Minor Plan Review at the Planning Commission level. The maximum height limit for 35 a retaining wall section would be 48 inches. Also, as Code allows, a fence with a 36 maximum height limit of 6 feet could then be constructed on top of the 4 -foot 37 retaining wall. Should the retaining wall /fence combination exceed 6 feet, on the 38 street side or rear yard, then Staff would recommend that the base of the fence 39 above the retaining wall be set back two feet with landscaping within the 2 -foot area. 40 41 Mr. Whittenberg stated that for properties requiring higher retaining walls, Staff was 42 recommending the option of constructing walls in 4 -foot high stepped sections 43 constructed on terraced levels with a minimum 2 -foot section of landscaping between 44 these terraced levels. Commissioner Cutuli asked if this type of wall configuration 45 would require the fence construction on top of the terraced retaining walls. Mr. • 46 Whittenberg responded that only the topmost terrace level retaining wall section would 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999 1 require a fence. He continued by stating that retaining walls greater than 30 inches 2 facing a public street would be required to have a minimum of 18 inches of landscaped 3 strip along the road face of the wall. He said that Staff is also recommending that any 4 non - conforming retaining walls that might be created by the establishment of new 5 standards automatically be allowed to remain without having to bring them into 6 conformance to these new standards. Mr. Whittenberg then presented several 7 photographic examples of existing retaining walls. _ 8 9 Commissioner Questions 10 11 Commissioner Brown clarified that with the 4 -foot maximum retaining wall and the 6 -foot 12 fence on top of that, the total height for the wall would be 10 feet. Mr. Whittenberg 13 responded that the City currently does allow 10 -foot high walls in certain areas of the 14 city. He stated that Staff felt that the 6 -foot wall above the retaining wall was necessary 15 because a 3 -foot wall did not. allow for privacy from the adjoining neighbor's yard. 16 Commissioner Brown stated that he was not clear on when a guardrail would be 17 required. Mr. Whittenberg responded that when a retaining wall is higher than 30 18 inches a fence or a guardrail was required. 19 20 Commissioner Cutuli confirmed that the proposed standards for retaining walls would 21 apply to all areas of the City and not to any specific area of properties. Mr. Whittenberg 22 responded that Staff was recommending that the standards be applied citywide. 23 24 Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to have photographic examples 25 provided of retaining walls that would be acceptable under the new standards and also 26 examples of what would not be acceptable. He said that this would make it easier to 27 determine what the requirements were as opposed to reading an ordinance and 28 attempting to decipher what the requirements would be. 29 30 Public Hearing 31 32 Chairman Hood opened the public hearing. 33 34 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that with regard to retaining walls, he did not believe any Code 35 changes or revisions were necessary. He said that he felt that Staff had made an 36 "honest mistake" in issuing a building permit, which should not have been issued for one 37 particular wall construction. He noted that he wished to take issue with the original 38 definition of retaining walls as written. He stated that Staff was "reaching and 39 overreaching" to come up with a definition of a retaining wall. He said that all of the 40 discussion and examples of what comprises a retaining wall go back to Zone Text 41 Amendment 92-6. He then read from the City Code 28 -233.1 pertaining to the 42 standards for retaining walls. Mr. Clewley also read from the Planning Commission 43 Minutes of October 3, 1990, in which Mr. Barry Curtis, former Assistant Planner, states 44 that when soil is retained over a certain height, 42 -inch high safety fencing is required. 45 Mr. Clewley stated that ZTA 92-6 was created when it was recognized that there were 46 cases with substantial slopes at the end of the properties (particularly up on the Hill) that 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999 1 the City Code did not address properly. He said that now Staff was returning to the 2 Commission with more standards for retaining walls, this time allowing for 14 -foot 3 retaining walls. He stated that there was no need for new legislation but there was a 4 need for enforcement and a reasonable reading of the City Code. He stated that all of 5 these new rules would just make things worse. Mr. Clewley stated that he believes that 6 the Planning Commission should direct Staff to create a letter of reprimand or censure 7 to the Director of Development Services for issuing an inappropriate building permit at 8 1505 Crestview Avenue. He stated that the presentation of photographs made by Staff 9 did not show the problem retaining walls, but displayed attractive applications of 10 retaining walls. He again emphasized that better enforcement was needed rather than 11 allowing for higher retaining walls. 12 13 Commissioner Lyon asked about the inclusion of drainage holes when constructing 14 retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there were separate design standards 15 under the Building Code that require drainage holes. 16 17 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing. 18 19 Commissioner Comments 20 21 Commissioner Cutuli asked for clarification on what his role would be in the study 22 session on retaining walls. He stated that he resides on Crestview Avenue and was not 23 sure that he would be eligible to participate in the discussions, as there might be a 24 conflict of interest. Mr. Boga responded that because this was a general legislative 25 matter that would be applied citywide, Commissioner Cutuli would not be in conflict and 26 was welcomed to participate. Commissioner Cutuli said that he had previously told Mr. 27 Clewley that as a resident of Crestview Avenue, he would not be able to participate in 28 the discussion on retaining walls. He apologized to Mr. Clewley for having misinformed 29 him. Commissioner Cutuli commented that there were many issues involved in the 30 retaining wall situation. He stated that along Crestview Avenue there were issues of 31 extension of the yards, and that the main reason retaining walls are being constructed 32 would be to decrease the slope on the backside of the properties along Gum Grove 33 Park. He noted that the question of the safety of the walls, the view from both sides of 34 the wall, and also the functionality and necessity of these walls would have to be 35 addressed. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he felt making a citywide ruling on this 36 issue might be a little premature, as certain areas of the city have different 37 requirements. He said that in order to make a citywide ordinance, special consideration 38 had to be given to the geographic areas of the walls. He stated that although he would 39 not be eligible to vote on this issue, he personally believed that there should be a height 40 limitation for retaining walls, as the too high walls present a visual barrier within Gum 41 Grove Park and the other areas where they exist. He said that for outside retaining 42 walls that are visible to the public, he believes that the City should recommend a 43 structure that is appealing, yet functional and safe. Commissioner Cutuli emphasized 44 that further discussion would have to take place before making a decision on this issue, 45 and that he would like to participate in these discussions. ,r 46 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999 1 Commissioner Brown stated that previously Staff had maintained that there is no limit 2 on retaining walls. He inquired if now Staff was proposing to limit the height of retaining 3 walls to 4 feet. Mr. Whittenberg responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown 4 then confirmed that currently a 10 -foot retaining wall was allowed in certain areas of the 5 City. He asked if Staff was proposing that a 10 -foot wall could be built on top of the 6 4 -foot retaining wall, or whether the total height of the structure from any side would be 7 10 feet. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was recommending that inside retaining 8 walls be a minimum of 6 feet in height, but that the Commission could vote to allow a 9 higher wall. He stated that Staff was proposing this minimum height requirement, based 10 on the likelihood that most of these walls would be constructed on a street side or rear 11 yard, or adjoining some public property. He said that a 6 -foot wall would provide 12 sufficient view blockage. Commissioner Brown confirmed that Staff was not proposing 13 a height maximum for retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg affirmed that Staff was not. He 14 stated that the Code allows 10 feet for certain areas, and as Staff interprets the Code 15 and as the City Attorney's office has interpreted the Code, the10 -feet would be 16 measured on the inside of the property. Based on where the outside property line ends, 17 this could mean that the retaining wall could be 14 feet high and be perfectly legal. 18 Commissioner Brown stated that according to Staffs interpretation a 30 -foot retaining 19 wall could be built on a property. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would depend 20 upon how much "fill dirt" would be needed to make the lot level. He emphasized that 21 the lot could not be built higher than the existing level of the high point. He said that 22 after driving around town to view existing retaining walls, Staff found that with the 23 exception of the stub streets off of Ocean Avenue, most of the "high" walls are located 24 on the back of Gum Grove Park. Commissioner Brown commented that these are the 25 two areas that are most visible to the public. He said that it was not good to have 26 visitors to Gum Grove Park, who are there to enjoy the natural surroundings, to be 27 confronted with a 30 -foot high cement wall. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was 28 why Staff was recommending a 4 -foot height limit for retaining walls with the stepped 29 landscaping to break up the view. Commissioner Brown stated that he believed a 30 height limitation of 10 -feet from the lowest point of the property should be required. He 31 noted that a 4 -foot retaining wall with a 10 -foot fence, creating a 14 -foot wall was too 32 high. He suggested that mandatory landscaping in front of the walls on the street side 33 could help make the view more attractive. He emphasized that an overall height limit on 34 retaining walls should be required. 35 36 Commissioner Larson stated that every law that is adopted prohibits something that is 37 already allowed, or allows something that is already prohibited. He said that he would 38 like to see what is being allowed and what is being prohibited in writing. He stated that 39 he was having trouble in visualizing all of the exceptions. He said that the City had too 40 many areas with existing exceptions and there wasn't much land left where a general 41 provision could be applied. 42 43 Chairman Hood asked whether most of the exceptions were already built, or if Staff was 44 still receiving a lot of applications for Minor Plan Reviews or requests for Variances. Mr. 45 Whittenberg replied that for retaining walls today there was no Variance or Minor Plan r 46 Review required. All that was needed was a building permit. Chairman Hood asked 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17. 1999 1 whether anyone with an existing wall would be grandfathered. Mr. Whittenberg affirmed 2 this. Chairman Hood confirmed that these discussions were related only to what would 3 be done in the future, as there would be no affect on existing retaining walls. Mr. 4 Whittenberg confirmed this. Chairman Hood stated that it appeared to him that the high 5 retaining walls off of Gum Grove Park and Ocean Avenue had been there for a long 6 time. He asked if there was realistically any further development that would be done in 7 addition to what currently exists at these locations. Mr. Whittenberg responded that in 8 the stub streets there could be some new construction if the property were sold and the 9 new owner decided to tear down the old property and rebuild. He stated that for the 10 properties that abut Gum Grove Park and the Hellman Property, he anticipated that in 11 the future the Department of Development Services would have a number of 12 applications from property owners wanting to level off their rear yards to make those 13 areas more usable than the slopes that a lot of them now have. Mr. Whittenberg stated 14 that these revisions to the zoning ordinance would control how these future requests for 15 construction would be handled. Chairman Hood asked of all of the properties facing the 16 Hellman Property, what percentage would Staff determine to be unretained. Mr. 17 Whittenberg responded that out of 90 properties to which notices were sent, 18 approximately 6 or 7 currently have retaining walls. Chairman Hood commented that he 19 had been under the impression that most of these proper already had retaining 20 walls. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that Staff's impression was that most of these 21 properties did not have retaining walls. Commissioner Brown interjected that that was 22 how this study session came about, as a result of the decks that were being constructed 23 along this area. 24 25 Direction for Staff 26 27 Commissioner Brown stated that he believed that there should be a height limit for the 28 public side of retaining walls and he believed that 10 feet was a high enough wall. He 29 stated that this restriction could also be applied to the properties along the stub streets. 30 He said that in recalling the visual presentation, he was not sure what the actual height 31 of one of the walls along the stub street was. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the 32 height of the wall for the majority of that property on the inside was 6 feet. He said that 33 there were some walls that were 12 to 15 feet high. Commissioner Brown stated that 34 he still felt that a height limitation of 10 feet with a landscaped area at the base of the 35 wall would be a good idea. Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff felt the landscaping 36 made a big difference in screening off the walls from public view. 37 38 Mr. Whittenberg then recommended scheduling another study session to return to the 39 discussion on retaining walls. He stated that at that point he would like to have a draft 40 of the provisions prepared with pictures of what would be allowable. He said that given 41 the current schedule, it appeared that the next study session would take place after the 42 first of the year, either mid - January or February. 43 44 Commissioner Cutuli requested that Staff re -state the requirements for retaining walls 45 for properties on the Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently, throughout the City, 46 there was no limit on the height of a retaining wall. He stated that because of the 14 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999 1 topography of the properties along the Gum Grove side of this area, most of these 2 properties had a 15 to 18 -foot grade level difference from the pad level of the homes to 3 the low point of the property at the back of Gum Grove Park. He said that in most cases 4 under today's standards, a property with an 18 -foot grade level difference would have a 5 18 -foot retaining wall with a 10 -foot wall on top of that retaining wall. Commissioner 6 Cutuli confirmed that what Staff was proposing was that rather than building an 18 -foot 7 retaining wall, a terraced effect be created with 4 -foot retaining walls at stepped levels. 8 Mr. Whittenberg affirmed this. 9 10 Chairman Hood closed the study session. 11 12 13 STAFF CONCERNS 14 15 Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff anticipated that the Planning Commission 16 meeting for December 22, 1999 would be canceled. He stated that at this point there 17 were only a couple of items to be heard at the December 8, 1999 meeting. He also 18 advised the Commissioners that a settlement had been reached on the challenge to the 19 Coastal Commission approval of the Hellman Ranch Project. He stated that the formal 20 terms of the agreement were not yet available, but it was his understanding that the 21 agreement would allow the Hellman Family to proceed with the residential component of 22 the project at this point. He commented that Staff would probably begin processing 23 development plans after the beginning of the year. 24 • 25 Commissioner Larson asked how many homes were to be built. Mr. Whittenberg 26 responded that a maximum of 70 homes were to be built along Seal Beach Boulevard. 27 He stated that extensive archaeological investigations must be completed on the 28 property before any grading activity begins. 29 30 31 ' COMMISSION CONCERNS 32 33 Commissioner Cutuli inquired as to the status of the Bixby Project. Mr. Whittenberg 34 responded that the signatures on the petitions had been verified and the measure has 35 qualified for a referendum vote scheduled by the City Council to be held on March 7, 36 2000. Commissioner Larson inquired as to the work that had already been completed 37 on the project. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this had been allowed under a court 38 order that was challenging the first suit to complete "rough grading" for the site. He said 39 that the referendum was only applicable to the two commercial components of the 40 project. He stated that the Bixby Company would be proceeding to complete the golf 41 course and bring it back to operation. He said that a number of plan submittals would 42 be required to complete final grading and drainage before continuing with the grading. 43 44 Commissioner Cutuli recommended that the Commission members take some time to 45 walk around the City and Gum Grove Park to view the existing retaining walls. He 46 stated that he felt that this would help in making an informed decision on this issue. 15 • Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Convnission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMIVIISSION MINUTE EXCERPT, JANUARY 19, 2000 Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 2 0 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of January 19, 2000 5 6 7 Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission 8 to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 19, 2000. The meeting was held in 9 the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag. 10 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Chairman Hood 15 Commissioners Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon 16 17 Also 18 _ Present: Department of Development Services 19 Lee Whittenberg, Director 20 Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney 21 Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner 22 23 Absent: Commissioner Brown 24 25 Mr. Lee Whittenberg reported that he had received a telephone call from 26 Commissioner Brown indicating that he was out of the area and was not sure that he 27 would be back in time to attend the meeting. He asked that he be excused from 28 tonight's meeting. 29 30 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Larson to excuse Commissioner Brown from 31 tonight's meeting. 32 33 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 34 AYES: Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 35 NOES: None 36 ABSENT: Brown 37 38 39 AGENDA APPROVAL 40 41 Mr. Whittenberg notified Chairperson Hood of a letter from Mr. Reg Clewley 42 regarding Item No. 7, Minor Plan Review (MPR) 00 -2. Mr. Whittenberg 43 recommended that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar. He also 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000 1 requested that Item No. 8, Study Session: Retaining Walls, be moved after Item No. 2 11 to be the last item on the agenda. Chairperson Hood asked whether MPR 00 -2 3 would still be considered a Public Hearing item if moved to Scheduled Matters. Mr. 4 Whittenberg responded that this was not a Public Hearing matter, but a matter that 5 the public could comment on. He stated that this item had not been noticed as a 6 Public Hearing item. 7 8 Mr. Reg Clewley requested that Item No. 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar. 9 Chairperson Hood asked Mr. Terrence Boga whether the Commission had any 10 authority to approve or disapprove Item No. 6. Mr. Boga responded that because 11 this was a Receive and File Item, all the Commission had to do was receive and file 12 the item. He said that under The Brown Act, members of the public do have the 13 right to comment on the action of receiving and filing the item prior to the 14 Commission's action. He said that the request to remove the item from the Consent 15 Calendar was acceptable. Chairperson Hood stated that he wanted to ensure that 16 everyone understood the process for Receive and File items. 17 18 MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as amended. 19 20 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 21 AYES: Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 22 ' NOES: None 23 ABSENT: Brown 24 25 26 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 27 . 28 Chairman Hood opened oral communications. . 29 30 Mr. Whittenberg reported that each Commissioner had been provided a copy of a 31 letter from Michelle A. Brendel regarding the minutes of the Planning Commission 32 meeting of January 5, 2000, and requesting that this letter be read into the record 33 during Oral Communications. Chairperson Hood asked for Commissioner 34 comments regarding reading the letter. Commissioner Larson commented that each 35 Commissioner had received a copy of the letter and they were all able to read it for 36 themselves. He stated that the letter could be received and filed. Chairperson Hood 37 reviewed the letter and commented that a previous request to read a letter into the • 38 record had been honored, and he felt it was appropriate to honor this request also. 39 He then proceeded to read the letter into the record. (Copy of Ms. Brendel's letter is 40 on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) - 41 42 Chairman Hood closed oral communications. 43 44 45 46 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2000 1 2 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Lyon to extend CUP 98 -12 for 90 days and return 3 for review at that time. . 4 5 Commissioner Brown stated that Vons had already been operating on a 24 -hour 6 basis for a while and has had the opportunity to address the complaints voiced by 7 residents. He said that he was not in favor of rewarding Vons for their "poor 8 neighbor policy." Commissioner Cutuli argued that who was making the noise had 9 not yet been determined. Commissioner Brown said that he trusted the residents 10 who say the noise is coming from Vons. 11 12 Commissioner Larson stated that he was in favor of the motion for the reason that 13 maybe Vons did not take the last set of conditions seriously. • 14 15 MOTION CARRIED: 4 —1 16 AYES: Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 17 NOES: Brown 18 ABSENT: None 19 20 21 8. Study Session: Retaining Walls , 22 23 Chairperson Hood recommended that the Study Session be continued to another 24 time. Commissioner Larson was in agreement. Mr. Whittenberg explained that 25 because the study session was not an advertised matter for public hearing, 26 rescheduling would not be a problem. He suggested continuing this item to the 27 February 23, 2000 meeting. • 28 29 MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to continue the Study Session: Retaining 30 Walls to the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2000. 31 32 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 33 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 34 NOES: None 35 ABSENT: None 36 37 38 STAFF CONCERNS 39 40 None. 41 42 43 COMMISSION CONCERNS 44 45 Commissioner Larson referred to the lengthy discussions on the bed and breakfast 46 (B &B) proposal and the preservation of historic structures, and he stated that there 23 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 • 1 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 2 NOES: None 3 ABSENT: None • 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg announced that ZTA 00 -1 is tentatively scheduled for a hearing before 6 the City Council on March 13, 2000. He stated that the public hearing would be 7 advertised in the newspaper and notice would be mailed to residents and business 8 owners within 300 feet of the property in accordance with the required noticing 9 provisions of the City. 10 . 11 12 4. Study Session: Retaining Walls 13 14 Staff Report 15 • 16 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 17 Planning Department.) He announced that this would be a study session to discuss 18 retaining walls continued from the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. He 19 noted that at the November 17, 1999 Planning Commission meeting there were a 20 number of issues that were brought up by the Commissioners and Staff was requested 21 to look into the following: 22 23 1. Preparation of proposal for one standard height limit of 10 -feet for a public side 24 measurement from the sidewalk to the top of a retaining wall. 25 26 2. Preparation of ordinance language for review by the Commission. (Mr. Whittenberg 27 noted that this was what was before the Commissioners this evening.) 28 29 3. Preparation of photographic samples of existing retaining walls throughout the City. 30 . 31 Mr. Whittenberg referred to the definition for retaining walls as it appears in the City 32 Building Code. He stated that after review by Staff and conferring with the City 33 Attorney, the determination was that this section of the Code does not limit the height of 34 retaining walls, but limits the height of any fence constructed on top of the retaining wall. 35 He said that the Building Code does not refer to height but refers to accepted 36 engineering practice for retaining walls. He stated that there were a number of different 37 standards utilized by the City's Engineering Department, which are basically the 38 standard plans from the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) and Public 39 Works Construction, American Public Works Association (APWA), Southern Califomia 40 Chapter. He said that these standards did not reflect the issues that apply to private 41 development properties within the City. He reported that standard plans approved by 42 CalTrans and APWA allow retaining walls up to 30 feet high. He stated that subject to 43 certain design standards Staff did not feel that this would be an appropriate height 44 standard, and recommends the standard height limitation of 4 feet to approximately 10 45 feet for retaining walls. He said that for the retaining walls within the Gold Coast area 46 that are visible from the stub streets along Ocean Avenue, there is a fairly steep drop 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 1 off. Staff is recommending at least a 2 -foot wide landscape planter that does not extend 2 - into the rear 96 feet of the property. He noted that in the rear 96 feet of the properties 3 there are utility easements, and it would not be appropriate to build into this area. This 4 is at the beach level of the properties. Mr. Whittenberg continued that Staff had 5 determined that the idea of trying to terrace the wall from the side property line back 6 onto the interior of the lot for the entire length of the property did not make sense. 7 8 Mr. Whittenberg reported that for those properties adjoining Gum Grove Park, Staff is 9 recommending that any section of a retaining wall cannot exceed 6 feet. If a property 10 owner wanted to build multiple 6 -foot retaining wall sections, there would have to be a 11 3-foot wide planter area between each 6 -foot section, creating a terraced effect along 12 the rear of the property. He commented that as some of. the Commissioners may have 13 noted in walking through this area, some of the existing retaining walls are quite 14 imposing. He noted that under today's standards, these are the types of walls that 15 could still be constructed, and under the new Staff proposal, they could no longer be 16 constructed. 17 18 Mr. Whittenberg stated that there were some great differences in wall height in The Hill 19 area of the City, but they were not as significant as for those properties along the Gold 20 Coast and along Gum Grove Park. Staff is recommending that for all areas the 21 maximum height for retaining walls in the front setback area should be 30 inches. For 22 those areas with a front setback area greater than 12 feet in Old Town or 18 feet on The 23 Hill, a 30 -inch high retaining wall would be permitted without approval by the Planning 24 Commission. The applicant may simply submit the retaining wall plans for review by the 25 City Engineering Department to ensure structural soundness. Any fence constructed on 26 the retaining wall cannot exceed a maximum height of 6 feet for a fence in that zone. In 27 some areas that are adjacent to a side or a back public street area, the combination wall 28 and fence may be higher to a maximum of 10 feet. Mr. Whittenberg noted that as 29 required by the Building Code, non -front setback areas with retaining walls 30 inches in 30 height from the top of the wall to finished grade would require a 42 -inch guardrail. He 31 stated that Staff would prefer to see a low fence constructed to prevent injuries rather 32 than just a guardrail. 33 34 Mr. Whittenberg reported that for non -front setback areas retaining walls up to a 35 maximum of 4 feet would be permitted with a maximum 6 -foot fence above the wall 36 permitted for a total height of 10 feet, subject to a Minor Plan Review before the - 37 Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this type of wall configuration 38 would be seen primarily on corner lots that front on two different streets and across the 39 back of properties. He noted that sometimes for the property above it, a retaining wall 40 higher than 30 inches may be required because of the grade separation. He noted that 41 most of these types of walls have already been constructed over the years, but there 42 might still be some cases where this would apply. He clarified that currently the Building 43 Code allows a 10 -foot high fence on top of a non - defined height for retaining walls. He 44 said that Staff is attempting to limit the visual appearance of this type of wall within the 45 community. He stated that if the height of a retaining wall /fence combination within a 46 street side or rear yard area exceeds 6 feet, the base of the fence must be stepped 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 1 back 2 feet and landscaping would be required to attempt to screen the view of the high 2 wall. He stated that this would apply in particular to those properties along the north 3 side of Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that in non -front setback areas retaining walls 4 could be stepped to create a terraced effect, but that this would primarily be on a rear 5 yard or side yard area fronting a public street. In this case Staff is recommending a 4- 6 foot height for the retaining wall portion, while a 6 -foot retaining wall height is 7 recommended for the Gum Grove properties. He stated that the reason for the 8 difference was because Staff determined that for the properties along the park area, it 9 would not hurt to go to a 6 -foot height for retaining walls and to include landscaping. 10 However, on a public street with more pedestrian activity, Staff felt that keeping the wall 11 height lower would be less detrimental to the area. Landscaping would also be required 12 along these walls to help screen the view. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for corner lots in . 13 particular with existing retaining walls higher than 30 inches, Staff recommends that 14 landscaping be added between the private property line and the retaining wall to help 15 screen the view of the walls. 16 17 Mr. Whittenberg stated that once any amendments to the City Code for retaining walls 18 are approved, Staff is recommending that all existing non - conforming retaining walls be 19 placed into a legal non - conforming status, which means the walls can be kept as they 20 are. For any new construction or changes to existing retaining walls, the property owner 21 would be required to meet the new standards. He stated that if the Commission was in 22 agreement with the amendments, Staff would prepare a formal public hearing packet, 23 and advertise and notice the item and bring it back before the Planning Commission for 24 consideration. Mr. Whittenberg then presented examples of existing retaining walls 25 within the City while entertaining questions from the Commission. 26 27 Commissioner Cutuli asked for clarification of how the walls in the photographs were in 28 violation of the proposed requirements. Mr. Whittenberg provided clarification. 29 Commissioner Cutuli asked if there was a maximum recommended height for retaining 30 walls along the stub streets of the Gold Coast. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a 6 -foot high 31 fence from the natural grade at Ocean Avenue was allowed, and whatever is necessary 32 on the ocean side of the property to match the existing street level. He said that there 33 was no maximum height limit other than the 6 -foot high measure from Ocean Avenue. 34 He stated that with an existing street at the bottom and top of the properties, the wall 35 height for the ocean side of the properties couldn't be required to match the Ocean 36 Avenue wall height. Commissioner Cutuli asked if Staff was recommending installation 37 of sprinkler /irrigation systems for the stepped back sections of the terraced walls. He 38 asked if this would also be required for the Gold Coast area. Mr. Whittenberg 39 responded that for landscaped sections, it would be a standard condition to have an 40 automatic sprinkler /irrigation system and the City would have to approve the plans. 41 42 Commissioner Brown asked if, for example, a retaining wall were 2 -feet high with an- _ 43 8 -foot fence on top of it, could the fence be built higher. Mr. Whittenberg responded 44 that if the height of the fence /retaining wall in total were more than 10 -feet, then there 45 would have to be a break in the fence. He also stated that if a retaining wall were 46 higher than 4 feet, a break would be required. Commissioner Brown questioned 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 1 whether a disparity might be created if the maximum recommendation height for a 2 retaining wall plus fence is 10 feet. He asked if this was the same as having a 10 -foot 3 fence. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct. Commissioner Brown noted 4 that when any part of the fence was retaining wall, the City would be imposing additional 5 landscaping requirements. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was correct. 6 Commissioner Brown asked if it were possible to build a 10 -foot fence without a 7 retaining wall. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was acceptable. Commissioner 8 Brown asked if it was acceptable to have a 2 -foot retaining wall with an 8 -foot fence on 9 top of it. Mr. Whittenberg responded that as Staff proposes, this would be acceptable. 10 Commissioner Brown asked if a 4 -foot retaining wall was constructed with a 6 -foot fence 11 on top of it, must the wall be set back with landscaping in front of the wall. Mr. 12 Whittenberg responded that this was correct. He stated that technically under law today 13 all of the properties with the block wall along the north side of Pacific Coast Highway 14 could have a retaining wall of undetermined height, and then have a 10 -foot high fence 15 on top of it. He said that he didn't believe there were many properties with this situation, 16 and that most of them had 10 -foot high walls. 17 . 18 Commissioner Brown asked to verify that the height of a wall within the City is 8 feet, 19 and 10 feet along Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there are 20 some areas within the City where a 10 -foot wall is allowed and others where walls are 21 limited to 8 or 6 feet. He cited an example by stating that for a standard lot in the middle 22 of a block the side yard walls could not be higher than 6 feet from the highest grade of 23 the two adjoining properties. He stated that 10 -foot walls are allowed in areas where 24 lots back up to fairly heavy traffic streets such as Pacific Coast Highway and Seal 25 Beach Boulevard to help block out traffic noise. Chairperson Brown asked if for the rest 26 of the City, the standard wall height was 6 feet. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was 27 correct. 28 29 Mr. Whittenberg ended his presentation by stating that if the Commissioners were in 30 agreement with the recommendation made, Staff could begin preparation for a public 31 hearing on retaining walls. 32 33 Commissioner Questions 34 35 Commissioner Lyon asked whether Staff did not believe that the scenario for a lot of 36 controversy was being created if a property owner wants to duplicate a non - conforming 37 retaining wall that is already in existence on another property. Mr. Whittenberg 38 responded that Staff believed that this would create no more controversy than that 39 experienced when the setback standards were changed on residential properties within 40 the City. He stated that Staff simply has to explain that the standards had changed and 41 new applications must comply with the current standard. He provided an example by 42 stating that there were many apartment buildings located within Old Town, but with the 43 changes regarding Residential High Density, currently the Code does not allow 44 construction of apartment buildings on a single lot. He said that laws change and 45 people will acknowledge this. Commissioner Lyon remarked that this issue would have 11 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 1 to be heard by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Whittenberg 2 confirmed that this would be the case. 3 . 4 Commissioner Cutuli asked if the ordinance text provided a definition of how the 5 determination would be made to differentiate between the side yard and the front yard 6 on corner lots. Mr. Whittenberg responded that along with the formal language, 7 graphics would also be included to demonstrate what the text is stating. 8 . 9 Commissioner Brown stated that he liked the concept overall, but that he would suggest 10 that drawings be included within the ordinance to clearly demonstrate what the 11 standards will be. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was proposing to include 12 drawings to help the public clearly understand the interpretation of the Code. 13 Commissioner Cutuli added, that this would be very helpful, particularly with the concept 14 of terracing of retaining walls. Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff would be 15 incorporating more drawings with ordinance text in the future because this makes the 16 information easier for the public to understand. 17 18 Chairperson Hood asked how the Commission should proceed at this point. Mr. 19 Whittenberg stated that because this was a Study Session, the public was also 20 welcome to comment on the information presented. He suggested that the Study 21 Session be opened for public comments. . 22 23 Public Comments 24 25 Chairperson Hood opened for public comments. 26 27 Mr. _Reg Clewley stated that he disagreed with the definition of a retaining wall as 28 presented by Staff. He said that according to Building Code Section 221 -W, this 29 definition was not correct. He noted that the Building Code states "A retaining wall is a 30 wall designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials." 31 Commissioner Brown asked if this definition had been taken from the most current 32 Building Code text. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this was the text from the current 33 zoning ordinance that discusses retaining walls as far as any height requirement is 34 concerned. Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Clewley was reading the Building Code 35 definition. Mr. Clewley responded that this was not exactly the same section number 36 that he was referring to. He stated that he was reading from Zoning Ordinance, Section 37 28 -2316, which discusses fences,, walls, hedges, and screen plantings. He referred to 38 Item No. 2, General Fence Provision, Item (d). He used one of the presentation 39 photographs and related that for retaining walls located on the property line or within the 40 lot the Building Code reads: "the height of such fence, wall, or screen planting shall be 41 6 feet or less in height as measured from the highest elevation of and contiguous to the 42 fence, particularly wall, or screen planting. This wall shall in no case be greater than 8 43 feet, as measured from either side of the fence." Mr. Clewley stated that a 2 -foot 44 retaining wall could have a fence of up to 6 feet on top, but questioned the Code 45 allowance of 8 feet for walls. He stated that it was not necessary to hold a study 46 session for "trying to write more laws on top of laws that were written just fine to begin 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 1 with. " He referred to Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 92 -6, which he stated had 2 changed all the rules on The Hill and allowed 10 -foot retaining walls. He said that if the 3 City were going to allow a 6 -foot retaining wall and a 10 -foot fence on top of it along the 4 Gum Grove Park properties, this would create a 16 -foot wall or fence. He said that 5 even with terraced walls with 2 feet of landscaped area between the walls, the foliage 6 on the walls still has to be considered as well as the 42 -inch high guardrail. 7 Commissioner Brown interrupted to clarify that Mr. Clewley was stating that a retaining 8 wall could be 10 feet high. He pointed out that the Commission was attempting to 9 determine whether Mr. Clewley was referring to the current text for the Building Code. 10 Mr. Clewley responded by stating that the current Building Code was quite specific in 11 stating that in no case could a retaining wall be higher than 8 feet as measured from 12 either side of the fence on top of the retaining wall, except on the properties abutting 13 Gum Grove Park where a 10 -foot retaining was is allowed due to the grade differential. 14 He stated that the fact that the current City Code did not have any height requirements 15 for retaining walls was "ludicrous." He said that there has always been a height limit for 16 retaining walls. He referred to the Planning Commission minutes from a 1990 meeting 17 in which he noted then Assistant Planner Barry Curtis' statements clarifying for the 18 Commission that for properties along Gum Grove Park a 6 foot 6 inch retaining wall was 19 permissible with a guardrail, but in no case could this wall be greater than 10 feet. Mr. 20 Clewley stated that this was confirmed by ZTA 92-6. He stated that the proposed text 21 for the new ordinance was more confusing and more unenforceable than ZTA 92-6. He 22 commented that much of the supporting documents included with the Staff Report were 23 illegible and difficult to read. Chairperson Hood and Commissioner Brown asked Mr. 24 Clewley to specify what he found unclear. Mr. Clewley responded that the text for the 25 drawings in the section titled "Standard Plans for Public Works Construction, 1997 26 Edition" was very minute and difficult to read. He stated that having 10 -foot walls along 27 Gum Grove Park would not be appropriate for this "nature park." He stated that there 28 was nothing unclear about the current laws pertaining to retaining walls and there is no 29 need to rewrite them. 30 31 There being no other speakers, Chairperson Hood closed the public comments time. 32 33 Commissioner Comments 34 35 Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see Staff return with this item with 36 more specific text and diagrams for this ordinance. He asked to clarify that if a retaining 37 wall were 30 inches or less, no landscaping would be required. Mr. Whittenberg 38 confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Brown then asked if a retaining wall was 39 42 inches high, would a guardrail be required? Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the 40 retaining wall itself is higher than 30 inches, then a 42 -inch guardrail is required: • 41 42 Commissioner Lyon asked what the problem was with the Building Code the way it is 43 currently written. Mr. Whittenberg responded that although there was a difference of 44 opinion, as it currently reads the Code allows a 6 -foot high fence on top of a retaining 45 wall, and there is no height limit for the retaining wall. Commissioner Brown interjected 46 that his interpretation was that a 6 -foot high fence was permitted on top of a retaining 13 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2000 1 wall, but in any case the structure could be no higher than 8 feet from the ground, which 2 would mean a 2 -foot retaining wall. He stated that it was his understanding that the 3 purpose of this study session was to clear up any misunderstandings or differences in 4 opinion. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was what Staff was attempting to 5 accomplish. He stated that some of the existing wall installations that are currently 6 allowed could be pretty intrusive along the sidewalk areas, and are not ideal examples 7 of what would most enhance the appearance of City walkways or properties. He noted 8 that Staff was attempting to soften the effect for retaining walls that exist along the 9 public right of ways, particularly along Pacific Coast Highway. He said that currently the 10 Code states that retaining walls can be built straight up without any landscaping. 11 12 Chairperson Hood asked if a motion was necessary to request that Staff return with a 13 final draft for this item. Mr. Whittenberg responded that all that was necessary was the 14 general consensus of the Commission. Commissioner Larson asked if this item would 15 be advertised and noticed. Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the Commission wanted 16 Staff to return with formal draft language and illustrations before scheduling a public 17 hearing, Staff could accommodate this request. Commissioner Brown stated that 18 unless Staff felt it was needed, he did not feel that another study session was 19 necessary. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believed Staff had a pretty good idea of the 20 concerns and would attempt to address those in the final draft of the text. 21 Commissioner Larson said that he did not want to have the same circumstance occur 22 as had for the bed and breakfast application. He requested that this item not be 23 advertised unless City Council directs Staff to do so. 24 25 26 STAFF CONCERNS 27 . 28 None. 29 30 31 COMMISSION CONCERNS 32 33 Commissioner Cutuli inquired about the status of the proposed project for the Shore 34 Shop property. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the project was held up due to 35 groundwater contamination coming from the property at the corner of Pacific Coast 36 Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, which is not under the ownership of the Musso 37 Family. He stated that as mentioned in recent newspaper articles, investigation is 38 currently under way to locate what were thought to be buried gasoline tanks from a 39 former gas station located at this location from the mid- 1940's to mid1960's. He noted 40 that unfortunately the tanks were accidentally discovered when one of the tanks was 41 unknowingly broken. Since there was still gasoline in the tanks, this has created a 42 major problem. Consequently, plans for further development have been placed on hold 43 until new approvals are received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board 44 (RWQCB). Commissioner Larson noted that he believed there were 8 tanks buried at 45 this location. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there were several. He stated that the 46 location of the tanks had been determined by using Ground Penetrating Radar. He 14 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 6 RETAINING WALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, VARIOUS ORANGE COUNTY CITIES Retammg Walls - PC Study Session 3 21 158 Brea • Cod Zenmg e part of the minimum. Slopes with a grade in excess I. Minimum dwelling area. of ten percent (10%) may not be included as satisfying this requirement. 1. Each dwelling unit shall have a gross floor area of not less than one thousand (1,000, 2. The provisions of § 20.08.030 of this square fees. title shall apply. 2. Second dwelling units shall have a G. Walls, fences. and landscaping. gross floor area of not less than five hundred (500) square feet, and shall not emceed one -half ('h) of the 1. Fences and walls and solid hedges shall gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit. not exceed seven (7) feet above the finished grade immediately abutting the fence with the following J. Coverage by srrucrz res. Not more than excepnons' thirty -five (35%) of the lot area shall be covered by buildings or structures. a. Solid fences, walls and hedges in a required from yard shall not exceed a height of K. Off - street parking. thirty (30) inches. 1. There shall be not Is than two (2) b. Open work fences (not less than off -street puking spaces within a garage or a Mr= ninety percent (90%) open) in a required front yard (3) sided carport for each primary dwelling unit. A shall not exceed a height of four and one -half (41/2) second dwelling unit shall provide one (1) additional feet single gauge parking space. c. Property owners are responsible 2. Garages only shall be provided fo: for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas off - street parking spaces when located below living on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the quarters. public right -of -way. All landscaped areas shat) be kept fret from weeds and debris, and maintained. 3. Except as provided herein, the provisions of § 20.08.040 of this tide shall apply d. The provisions of § 20.08.060 of this title pertaining to corner cut -off areas shall apply. L. Access. e. Fences and walls shall be located 1. All lots shall have vehicular access a minimum of six (6) inches from any property line from a dedicated street or alley. which is adjacent to a public right -of -way. 2. Driveway accts to garages or carports H. Distance berween buildings shall be of permanent construction material, concrete or asphalt or other material approved by the City 1. The distance between external walls of Engineer. detached buildings shall not be Is than ten (]0) feet, if there are either doors or windows facing on said M. Signs. The provisions of Chapter 20.28 of space berween walls. Where no openings face said this tide shall apply. space, it rnay be reduced to six (6) feet. N. Lighting. All lighting, interior and exterior, 2. A detached second dwelling unit shall shall be designed and located so as to confine all maintain a minimum separation of nor less than ten direct rays to the premises. (10) feet (regardless of openings in walls) from the external walls of the existing dwelling unit on the 0. Second dwelling unit architecture. Each same lot. second dwelling unit shall be ar chitectura1l) - compatible with the existing dwelling unit. 180 CornY-c o....( Brea - Zoning code § 20.224.030 USES EXPRESSLY PR0 MUTED . 2. Where the C -P Zone abuts any residential zone, there shall be a yard abutting the The following uses are expressly prohibited in zone boundary of not less than ten (10) feet plus an the C -P Zone: additional one (1) foot of setback shall bc requued for each additional one (1) foot of building height in All toes not spe`ifrcally permined. excess of ten (10) feet. Said required yard may be (Ord. 425, passed 10- 14-68) used for parking, loading and access. A solid wall not less than six (6) fees nor more than seven (7) feet • in height shall be erected on the zone boundary Line, f 20.224.040 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT to within fifteen (15) fern of any sweet property line STANDARDS. E. The follow' devil �� walls need landscaping and properr; mBPro e P�' development standards ma shall apply to all land and buildings in the C -P Zone: 1. Required walls. A. Ior area. No requirements. a. Walls along common property B. IoM dimensions. No requirements. lines shall bc erected as required in paragraph D above. C. Building height. b. Required walls six (6) feet or more 1. Buildings and structures erected in the in height shall be constructed of rnasonry maienal C -P Zone shall have a height no greater than thirry (30) feet. Heights in excess of the maximum may be c. Required walls less than six (6) perrrined by conditional use perrnit, subject to the feet in height may be constructed of other permanent requirements of § 20.408.030 of this title. =renal not including wood or corrugated sheet materi al 2. Structures permitted above height Izmir. Roof structures for the housing of elevators, 2. Permitted fences and walls. Fences and stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment walls not to exceed seven (7) feet in height shall be required to operate and maintain the buildings and permitted within any required side or rear yard area fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, steeples. or along any common property line provided, flagpoles, chimneys, wireless and television masts, however, that the wall or fence does not exceed a ware: tanks, or similar structures may be erected height of thirty (30) inches within the from yard or above the maximum hcigbt permitted in each zone. side yard on the street side of a corner lot. No structure shall be allowed for purposes of providing additional floor space. 3. The height of walls and fences shall be D. Yards. measured from highest ground level immediately adjacent to the base of the wall. 1. Front yards and side yards on the street 4. Iar iscoping. The provisions of side of a corner or reversed corner lot shall not be 1.20.236.040.M. of C-G Zone shall apply. less tharififteen (15) feet and shall not be used for off- street parking. If the required yard is across a 5. Property maintenance. The provisions local street from any residential zone, a wall not less of § 20.236.040.M. of C -G Zone shall apply. than thirty (30) inches nor mare than six (6) feet in height shall be erected on the building (setback) line F. Distance berwe buildings. No where there is no building on said line and where requirements. parking is provided to the rear of said line. G Floor area ratio The gross floor area of - ,: - ..777 -L • L- ✓ • eity 4 e,deet wie4a. Fazio et:49 fi'cr,iiA-itus 4 RETAINING WALLS __ , IF SURCHARGE 2 . a •• OCCURS WITH THIS 2' 4" FI-- DESIGN. THE TOE '' , MIN. / I l BE SET SLOP A MUST MIN If GRADE LIlI— MINIMUM OF 2' -0" r GRADE l' 2 13 BARS 'Fri; Ill _111= 111 =111 -III / 2 I7 BARS III =III= III= • . 111 IS BARS 24" O.G i ll1 A BARS24"OC ►— VII 6" CONCRETE i 0; III MASONRY % r _ 6" CONCRETE MASONRY : II All WALL A CELLS i ' III si WALL — AU. CELLS ; II, FILLED SOLID • l; ---7: t FILLED SOLID ; WITH GROUT Iii 2 WITH GROUT I: ; Ii a OMIT HEAD 7• 4 JOINT IN FIRST li ' OMIT MEAD JOIN IN ;; q COURSE AT 32' FIRST COURSE AT a O.C. FOR WEEP j 32" O.0 FOR WEEP MOLE MOLE = e• G ,• 2 .. • •! as BARS 024" 0.G f. GRADE i GRADE 1=1 _ — �9 11 111x2111 11 S' 10 • ■ • ;. 2 a4 BARS CONT. a 2 14 BARS a... ` 7 C POUR FOOTING 1 1 S "I AGAINST � 2•-Q•• AGAINST F OTING l'' 2' -0" 'I UNDISTURBED NATURAL SOIL UNDISTURBED NATURAL SOIL NOTES: I. Retaining wall shall be grouted solid. 2. Reinforcing splices in masonry shall be lapped not lebs than 15", in concrete not less than 12" 3. Omit mortar at head joints of first course at 32" o.c. 4. Mortar shall be no leaner than 3 to 1. 5. Inspection required prior to grouting cells. 6. Regaining walls greater than 4' -0" in height or with surcharge loads other than shown above shall be full) engineered by a licensed engineer. 7. Retaining walls with standard concrete block walls or fences of any materials constructed above. shall he fully engineered by a licensed engineer. SPECIFICATIONS: Post -it' Fax Note 7671 Dale / /J t [ 1 , a2� psi L . F ,om 1 1' F : CONCRETE. 2000 si at 28 day To s Co. /Dept Cc BLOCK: Grade N. Type 1 A.S.T.M C -90 prose II P,c,e REINFORCING Grade 40 A.S T.M A615 , Fax a (6-7nzp) <43 i 1 • 1913+6 (AEV 9981 r -05-: =1? :2-:2 c=• - _ - - 9 05 12D 9.05.120 Fences, \a11s. and Hedges. (a) Maximum Height Within the Required Side and Rear Yards (1) The maximum height of any fence, wall or hedge within the required side and -ea yard which faces an adjacent property shall be six (6) feet as measured from thc finished grade at the base of the fence. wall or hedge to the top of the fence, ual: or hedge The maximum height of any fence, wall or hedge within the required side or ma- yard which faces the subject property shall be eight (8) feet as measured from the finished grade at the base of the fence. wall or hedge to the top of the fence. wall or hedge SECTIO' 9.05.120ta) SPECIAL WALL HEIGIrf Ra.QUREME T f . a.b •s. ner.v S..V o w....., • • L � 111 t Gti -ants! rq1' nMtl A -, • (2) For those uses or facilities that are required by the Ciry to be screened. sere_n walls/hedges in excess of eight (8) feet may be permitted as necessary to provide adequate screening subject to determination by the Dilutor of Community• Developmen: (b) Maximum Height Within the Required Front Yards (1) Fences. walls and hedges shat; not exceed fony -two (42) inches in height except as provided in (2) below. (2) Pilaster and wrought iron fences may exceed forty-two (42) inches if designed to confor- to thc following requirements Mans Pam Lenin: Coax r 9 05-1R 9C l." (A) Pilasters may not exceed e:ghtecn (18) inches in width and Ina; not exceed tt.ry C (36) Inches in height. Pilasters mutt be spaced at a minimum of e+gh• on center. (B) Wrought iron inserts may be designed to a maximum height of for}- etgl (4S� inches as measured from finished grade (3) Open face fence matenal, whether wood, wrought iron. or other material sh;.1l not exceed two (2) inches in width nor be spaced less than six (6) inches apart. edge tc edge SECTION 9.05320(b)(2) AND (3) WALLS AND FENCES LN TIIL FRONT YARD - tit' y 1 1 .-- Wrought Iron Max. - 1 111. „Jr, . l'amiworomansmie • .- J.1111111111111111111•1•1111 Al t5-0' 14G,rmura jr \•—• }pap e r • (4) The maximum height of retaining walls in the required front yard sha:I be thin On. inches The total wall height. including thc retaining wall shall not exceed fon. c (42) inches (5) The sight visibility area requirements in Section 9.05 090 shall apply to thc place r. % - t and height of fences, walls. and hedges. (6) Reasonable temporary secunty fencing for vacant lots or constrution sites shall he exempt from this Section and may be placed in the required front yard to a rnaxirr.u height of six (6) feet subject to determination by the Director of Community De�•cl,� ment (c) Alternatives to the height lirruts for fences, walls and hedges specified in sections tat and (b) above. and provisions for the placement of arbors. porticos, trellises or other entry fean.r-• s within required yards may be granted subject to the approval of a minor Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.65. (c) Retaining Walls The height of any portion of wall or fence which reuins earth or v. art r in all locations except the required front yard. shall be as follows (1) Walls/Fences Under Thirty (30) Inches. Retaining walls that are less than thirty inches in height from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are pertnn�C 9 05 -19 (Da:+ r•.,,, :ryn; 9 nf 110 (2; Wa_1s/Fences at T irry (30) Inches. Retaining walls that arc thirty (20) inches in he sr from top of retaining wall to finished grade on either side are permitted and are requ.rrd to have a minimum forty -two (42) inch guardrail or fence on top for safety purposes (3) Walls/Fences Greater Than Thiny (30) Inches Except when= the subject wa1: was shown on an approved preliminary or precise grading plan, retaining walls tha: are grater than thirty (30) inches from the top of the wall to finished grade may be permitted subject to the approval of Site Development Permit. ac described in Chapter 9 71 Approval of retaining walls higher than thirty (30) inches in height shall be considered when the wall is landscaped and does not create conditions or situations that may be detnmental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity (4) Alternative to Height Limit of Retaining walls. Stepping of retaining walls is permitted subject to approval of a Site Development Permii ac described rn ChapL�-r 9.71. Stepptne is allowed provided that the minimum honzontal distance between the top of thr downslope retaining wall, fence and/or landscaping, and the bottom of the up slot° retaining wall, fence. and/or landscaping. shall be greater than 2 time the vertical distance of the downslope retaining wall. fence, and/or landscaping Approval shall be considered when the wall is landscaped and does not create conditior.s or situa:Ions that may be detrimental, or incompatible with other permitted uses in the . icirur. The top of walls will require guardrails as necessary for safer` purposes as detcrm.r.ed b■ the Director of Community Development. SECTION 9.05.120(04) HEIGHT LIMIT FOR RETALN1NG BALLS — a - `• �' MI AIM � (5) Retaining walls greater than thirty (30) inches in height which face a public street or other public area shall be provided with a landscaped strip along the base of the wal) which is of an adequate width (two (2) foot minimum) to accommodate plants which will mature to visually screen the wall. (NM Pc.rd 7sning Cede t.?1, 9 05-20 • 2: _. S r;: ] 2 (e) Fcnces or walls shall include a gate or other suitable opening no less than thirty (3' ) '� - - .c in width to prtnide access to pnmary or accessory structures. (f) Fences constructed under permit but made nonconforming as a result of the duorinr. of the Zoning Code are exempt from amortization. (Addcd by Ord 93 -16. 11/23/93, amended by Ord. 94-09. 5/24/94: Ord. 96 -10, 8/13/96 9.05.130 General Design Compatibility and Enhancement. Any new building or structure. any addition to an existing building or strucrure, and the instal lat,nr. or construction of any site improvements shall be designed to create a unified functional arc comprehensive site plan with an integrated architectural theme that is compatible with and u,1: compliment and enhance the subject and surrounding properues. as determined by the Director of Community Development. The factors used to evaluate design compatibility and enhancement shall include bur n w limited to. (a) Architectural style and detailing: (b) Massing and bulk: (c) Color and matenals: and (d) Scale and proportion. The design of all development projects including. but not limited o, architecture. and landscar:r,, should consider the applicable direction provided by the Urban Design Guidelines. (Added t�) Or,! 93 -16. 11 /23/93. amended by Ord. 94-09, 5/24/94; Ord 94 -21, 12/13/94) 9.05.140 Roof Mounted Appurtenances. All roof mounted appurtenances including. brit not limited to air conditiorung units. and mezhzniz. 2 equipment shall be shielded and architecturally screened from view from on -site parking ue,c - adjacent public streets and adjacent residentially zoned property. The screerung matena: mi.st t+: compatible with and integrated into the architectural design of the structure. (Added by Ord 93-1r 11/23/93) 9.05.150 Wetland Buffer. To protect and maintain the City's wetlands resources. a 100 -foot buffer are around all identified wetlands located outside the coastal zone shall be provided, unless consultation with the Califorrui Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that a lesser huflcr will provided adequate protection. The standards for wetland buffers around wetlands within the coastal zone are contained in Section 9.27.030(b)(3). (Added by Ord. 93 -16. 11/23/93, amended by Ord. 97 -05. 9/9,97) 9.05.160 Cultural and Natural Resources. For those projects where the City's environmental review process indicates the putenual fcr sigrufican: imps: is to cultural and natural resources (such as archaeological. paleontological or histoncal resources and biological resources). site- specific studies shall be performed to rdennr■ 9.05 -20 1 tC+aa mom, tr y r •• • war t, City of Mission Viejo -(JFoR Facsimile Transmittal Form TO: 'r-P �ti; '��1 t Flom: City of Mission Viejo 25909 Pala, Suite 230 FA_X:� _ I ,� I _ L �� Mission Viejo, CA 92691 �i (949) 470-3053 Telelhoce (949) 470 -3094 FAX Number of pages, including this sheet: Date: Time: RE: 1V SAGE: (Zr) c>iirtnt;ln 17t) INCA)) i n c h = . , " LA Co chit IAA C 'i �� `�'✓� c - Foy '1A N-5 :4 c_ J. WALLS Wads and fences are an integral part of the streetscape (1) Walls should be of plaster, stucco, slumpstone, or other approved mason.*y and should employ materials and colors that complement the adjacent dwelling units. (2) Other materials may include wrought iron, tile insets, or grillwork. The recommended choice for wrought iron is 1 inch pickets, at a maximum of 6 inches on center. (3) Wall planes should be articulated per the following guidelines: (a) Length. No wall should make a continuous unarnculated plane of more than 50 feet The wall should make a jog which measures a minimum of 18 inches deep by 8 feet'long every 50 feet. (b) Pilasters: Pilasters should be spaced a minimum of 25 fee; apart and should be placed where there is a change in wall direction or a 5 -foot change in wall elevation. (c) Height: Wall height should not exceed 6 feet. T Elevation of Staggered Wall l SO' • Elevation of Plonfers/Wa:l P Devotion of Walt /Mrlough! Iron Combination • ;,!!!' �U4IIIIll�U1 � wuyuy Ji UWI aeration al Wrought lion with Pilasters 8 _ -- 7. WALLS AND FENCES A. If not required for a specific screening or security purpose, wails should not be utthzed within commercial areas Where walls are required. the inters should Se to keep them as low as possible while performing their screening and securer; functions B Where walls are used at properry frontages or screen walls are used to eoncea- loading or equipment areas, they should be designed to blend with the site s architecture. Landscaping should be used in combination with such walls whenever possible to conceal their flatness. C. When security fencing is required, it should be a combination of solid walls with pillars and decorative view ports, or short solid wall segments and open wrought iron grill work D. The surfaces of long expanses of fence or wall should be offset and designed to prevent monotony. Landscape should be provided along the entire length of a fence or wall. te, .. • - Elevation of noggered wall Etevar,or, ofiofaC viol: with Oast- E/e►atIOn of nail - wrought iron eon:boom% 8. SCREENING A. Any outdoor equipment, whether on a roof, side of a structure, or on the ground. must be appropriately screened from view. The method of screening should be architecturally integrated with the adjacent structure in terms of style, materials, and color Where individual equipment is provided, a continuous scrim is desirable. B. Screening for outdoor storage and equipment areas should be a minimum of 6 fee: and a maximum of 8 feet high The height should be determined by the height of the material or equipment being screened 32 N ^.1- 2_ -_cc= 9 -3 6n3 (A) Any sign erected without first complying Director, upon an application. may approve fences with all ordinances and regulations in effect at the in front yards up to five (5') feet in height if all of time of construction and erection or use the following requirements are met: (B) Any sign which was lawfully erected, but (i) The portion of the fence above three (3') feet which the display has been abandoned by its owner. is of open vertical bar construction (for example. for a period of not less than ninety (90) days. Costs wrought iron) with a minimum spacing of ttuee (3") incurred in removing an abandoned display may be inches between vertical elements: and charged to the legal owner of the premises upon (u) The City Engineer confirms that the proposed which the sign is located. fence allows adequate sight distance for vehicles (2) In addition to the above, every violation of using driveways and/or street intersections. any prevision of this section stall be punishable as (c) Agricultural districts. Fences may be erected set forth in Chapter 2, Tnle 1 of this Code. (¢ 3.6.3, in the General Agricultural (AG) and Growth Man - Ord. 293, as amended by f 2. Ord. 601, Exhibit A, agement (GM) Districts up to a height of six (6') Ord. 692 * 2. Ord. 697. 1, Ord. 710. 1. Ord. feet within all required yards provided such fences 739. 2, Ord. 754. § 2, Ord. 765. and 4 2(a), Ord. conform to the requirements of Section 9 -3.605 of 781) this article (Visibility at intersections). (d) Other districts. Fence height and design in all Sec. 9- 3.604. Fences, walls, and hedges. districts other than residential and agricultural shall (a) General. Fences, walls, and hedges may be be approved by the Director if not a pan of a devel- erected within required yard setbacks in all districts opment application being processed m accordance subject to the requirements of this section. with Section 9 -2.301 (Development review). Fences For the purposes of this section, the words being considered as part of a development applrca- "fence" and - gall" shall have the same meaning, tion (Section 9- 2.306) shall be approved by the and any reference to fences shall include walls as Planning Commission. well. In addition, all height restrictions applying to (e) All districts. Fences and walls for the follow - fences and walls shall apply equally to hedges plant- ing uses shall be subject to the location, height and ed within required yards forming a barrier serving design standards so stipulated by the referenced the same visual purpose as a fc ncz or wall. section of the Code: (b) Residential districts. The following require- ments shall apply to fences in all residential dis- tricts, including the Small Farm (RA) District (1) Fences erected within required side or rear yards shall not exceed a height of six (6') feet. However, when the rear property line of a corner lot abuts the side property line of an adjoining lot (.e., a "key lot" situation), fences on the exterior (street) side of a comer lot shall not exceed a height of three (3') feet if placed within five (5') feet of the street right -of -way line adjoining the side yard of a said comer lot. Further, fences within a required side yard on the exterior side of a comer lot shall conform to the requirements of Section 9 -3.605 of this article (Visibility at intersections). (2) Solid fences shall not exceed a height of three (3') feet in any required front yard. However. the 428 - 1/428 -3 (.- Lae Car avant ys-, 9-3 15A4 ∎ 1 (1) Fences to be loomed within corner lots shall er than three (3') feet within a front yard (rear asurrd be in compliance with the visibility provisions of from the base of the retaining wall), the base of the Section 9-3.605 (VIsibiluty at intersections). fence shall be stepped back from the top of the (2) All swimming pools, whirlpools and spas retaining walla minimum of two (2') feet shall be enclosed by a minimum five- foot -high (5') (g) Measurement of fence bright The height of froze designed and located In accordance with the fens shell be measured from the finish grade on provisions of Suction 9 -3.606 (Swimming pools, the inside of the fence, except thst the height of whirlpools and spas). fences enclosing swimming pools shall be measured (3) Storage of outside materials stall be subject from the finish grade three (3') feet outside thr to chc location and design regulations of Section 9- fence. 3.616 (Outside storage and displays). (h) Building permits. Building permits shall br (4) Teams cost fencing shall be in oomplanoe required prior to the erection of fences in actor- with the setback and height requirements of Section dance with the requirements of the Uniform Build - 9-3.607 (Accessory uses and structures). ing Code and the Department of Public Works (§ (f) Fence/retaining wall combinations. If a fence 3.6.4, Ord. 293, as amended by § 2. Ord. 413. eeif is a vertical extension of a retaining wa11, and the January 9. 1981. § 2 Ord. 453. eff. May 20, 1982. combined retaining wall and fence height is greater and § 1. Ord. 677. eff. December 6. 1990. and § 1. than six (6') feet within a side or rear yard or great- Ord. 739) FIGURE 3-d / (............ _________ Arstalr? :::■—■ �+.r ,4 w • QLTO 9 11.1 Abort fee? • l 1 1 • J 428-5 San 1 a Cm au mc _tai 9-3.605 Sec 9-3.605.. Visibility at Intersections. On a codes lot in any district, no fence, wall, hedge, or other barrier shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow so as (1) to materially impede vision above a height of three (3') feet across a triangular area bounded by the front and side property lines and a diagonal Une connecting the two (2) property lines at points fifteen (15') feet • (Sss Judas Gpura• 4.90 428 -6 N:. :2.5 7 C45 453 1 55% =-7- L- C :Tv C''OE ZCN1NS 92-:g t-_s Ctiapter in order to protect the public safety and property values In -•- area. (Ord. Nc. 157, Sec. 5..0) h Animal Hospital or Clinic One (1) caretaker apartment shall be permitted incidental to an anima: hospital. Said apartment shall be used solely by persons employed in the hospital for caretaker duties. (Ord. No. 340, Sec. 2) Small animal hospitals or clinics shall be subject to additional provisions - hereinafter set forth: (1) All animals shay_ be kept within.an enclosed, air conditioned, sound - proof structure. - (2) Said hospitals or clinics shall be so designed that no odors will be discernible beyond the property lines of the parcel on which it is located. (Ord. No. 352, Sec. 6) lJ Fences, Hedges and Walls • (1) Fences, hedges and wails nay be erected in any district, subject to the fol:owing cond= tions: (a) Fences, hedges and walls shall not exceed six feet eight incnes. (6'2') in height cn cr within all rear and side property lines on interior lot _ lines, and on or to the rear of all front yard setback lines. (b) No fence, hedge or wall over three (3) feet in height shall be erected in the required front yard setback. (c) No fence, hedge or wall over three (3) feet in height shall be constructed in: (1) any required rear cr side yard within twenty :20) feet of the intersection of street or alley rights -of -way, (2) any required rear yard abutting the front yard of an adjoining lot, cr • (3) within ten (10) feet of a driveway in a re.;.lire:: side or _ rear yard . unless approved, in writing, by the Planning Department. (d) Fences or structures exceeding six feet eight inches (6'8") In height to enclose areas on the rear half of a lot may be erected subject to obtaining a Use Permit therefor. (e) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to a fence or wall required by any law or regulation of the State of California or any agency - thereof or by any other ordinance of the City of Tustin, for reasons of public safety. (Ord. No. 353, Sec. :) (f) (1) Every swimring, wading or spa pool shall be surrounded oy a - fm,ce or wall not less than six feet (6') in height above the adjacent exterior grade. Such fence or wall shall be constructed and maintained _ •• with no.openings nor projections which could serve as a means to scale same. vertical openings shall be no wider than five inches (5 ") and horizontal embers, accessible from the exterior, shall be no closer than forty eight inches_ (48 "). There shall be sufficient distance fror any - - structure, shrubbery, or grade which could be used to scale the fence - or wall so as to prevent scaling. R:. 1 -79 LU ` " g_ = _ST1N C: 71e ;1..L 'Cti -'.G _ _ ;? I C) - \ — (2: Gates and doors opening t`4rougn s.:ch cnc :cs•_res n'.al- ) r se::- closino and self - locking with release five feet (5') above exterior grads or so _coated on the pool .1:3c as to prevent release from lrc ex'.:r:'.. (3) Access from a pub:i: street to the "front door" of a si :e family residence shall not be obstructed by a pool er,c:csure. (4) Except for single family residences, the fence or walls shall be so located as to allow access to all living units without enter :ne the pool enclosure. The fence cr walls shall serve to isolate the pool fr. other act:vltles or structures and shall be located within fifty Pert 1 ::,', of the poor. Cates in such enclosures shall be located in view cf the pool. A building wall with nc doors may be used as part of such rocs enclosures when within the specified distance of the pool. EXCEP71ON5: When approved by the Director of Comnur. :ty Dcve:opre such enclosures may include sunshade. toilet, or shower structures which are used only in cor.)unction with the pool. (Ord. No. 77:5. __ :. _ (2.) Walls shall re constructed and maintained on zone boundary 11 :1es a. fellows: (a) :mere any "C ", M ", or '1'r' zone abuts upon any res :ic-..a: z: -_, there s.,ai l :'e constructed a solid masonry Fall, six feet ei ht 1:1:h 1•_ ) in ):eight c- the zone boundary line. .r. Were any "R-3", "R-4". or "PO' zone abuts . 1pc': any -1 zone. tr.ere sal: be cons :ru:zed a sold masonry wa.1 sax feet eight inc:les (6'E ") -:1 re_: er. the cone rounddr•: line. tr.) w-err any zone a its upe :, any 'C' or 'Pr' inne, .h ^ :e shall -_ censt.rac ed a se ::d masonry wall six fee: vigor i :,rhe.D (6'6") in height on tnc zone boundary _Inc. ;d) he aforesaid walls shall be six feet eight inches (6'8 ") :r.:reign: except tha: por*_inn cf equal depth of the front yard on the abut :rng "J classified r.rope :ty w;'r:i shall be tr:rec (3) feet in height unless a :treater he', _ is approved in w:;t.ng by the ar lin Department. (Ore. NC. 353. Sec. 1, • 't ; •loll -d' ', ).:)wive_, t.l. ( r.rrr.;: , .. r y !)..vr'.cj.n :,.t 'r:r l':_ t._, .: .. _ roJify any wall re , sre eats es specified in this Secticn where there 1: a soli.: rascr. :y wall existing ton ediate.y ad)a_ent on the g.onzigucus pro ert.}, ...pro f; - :r_ and requiring :rat: i) An existing wall meets or can be modified :c rcr._c; to t.hc totem. cf ..,is Section; an_ 11) Su:taole landscaping can be installed ad:acerlt tc r.' .L e:: grin ; wall to supplement and enhance the cnv.ror. buffering; and :i1) Protection can be afforded the cxistInq wa :l to proven'_ vehicle darare, if necessary; and iv) Concurrence of the ad)acent property owner can be crtainrd. when necessary, to modi an existing wall to meet the rc•q':_rcr r,' s of this :ectson. (Ord. Nc. 534) (3) Provided, however, that upon application and proceedings pur:uan_ to Section 9231, Use Permit, the Planning Commission may waive or modify t' :e requirements set forth herein. (5) The fer•ccs, hedges and walls provided herein shall be measured and constructed pursuant to development standards of the Building Departmrr t . (Ors?. Nc. 353, Sec. :) Arv: l -7$ Lt.) 2.--(DI :. 2 = -2=== -- . •- k • - e% • a rm �' K iFv c.. i .� Pedestrian Environment ' = '-lE ' S 2.2 Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls -- Intent: To reduce the negative visual impacts of blank walls on the pedestrian environment. . Guidelines: Blank Wall . , r '. ' Blank Walls i . er Trellis r C. a'• Residential buildings should not orient large areas • of blank walls to the street. 0 {� — ef' [ Ends of buildings should be designed and e f - d• 1 $ articulated with windows and other architectural , � � � , k I elements. Screen blank walls with landscaping, architectural features, or art. Examples of such treatment include: Blank walls can be screened with and * installing trellises for vines and other plant climbing plants. material in conjunction with a planting strip; is providing landscaped planting beds; Blank • incorporating decorative tile or masonry; Wa ll an s •st;�� {��, � � inc orporating artwork, (a mural, sculpture, s relief, etc.) on the wall surface. r e L ++arm ry . A planting bed and generous landscaping used to screen a blank wall . Residential Design Guidelines for Snohomish County Tomorrow MAKERS 1992 G-67 Pedestrian Environment 4 S 2.2 Screening Blank Walls and Retaining Walls (cont.) Guidelines (cont): Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be either of materials which • , A reduce their scale, like brick or stone, or treated .• _ • `' sculpturally to appear less monolithic. Hanging or • ir climbing vegetation can soften the appearance of retaining walls. • . High retaining walls should be terraced down : providing landscaping setbacks, especially if they �, are close to the sidewalk. 0o Applicability: Residential projects in urban growth areas Related Guidelines: • Use landscaping to screen retaining walls near the S 2.5 Screening Parking Garages sideway. SP 3.3 Siting Service Elements BD 2.1 Articulation and Modulation .`"T-AA ' /CI ./ A Terrace high retaining walls to provide for landscaping. Residential Design Guidelines for Snohomish County Tomorrow MAKERS 1992 G-68 Retaining Wall Standards - Study Session # 3 Planning Commission Staff Report September 18, 2002 ATTACHMENT 7 PHOTOS OF EXISTING RETAINING WALLS IN SEAL BEACH Retaining Walls - PC Study Session 3 2 2 Ci) CA r24 •--i 0 (ID 0 6 g CA b1J v--4 CD . t: U a) (1) 5) .,--4 . ...4 E ct c) I7 -4—' o L ct Z -4---' 1-1-q a ci) -.1.m.) • , , . . . . . • - i • •.. 0. . r 1 " CD - . --- ...1r. ,-• - • ' ', ..:, --. ,. —1 . - s. ''''..t*,,, * • • • stl. ..1 - •A ; 1•11.111 1 , ,: = ' '- „ ' - 7 .-. ":... .... . . - i *0 ... ,.. .".• K *. ._ 'o>".. - 2.1.7 t ,... . , . ,r;?• 111.11111.11( • * , 4. , •,.. - . ' ' • ' ' - 'w . - 't ' r ....v, = 4 . - .. - v -, • .-4 -,,.-. I ir *- . •'''''`,," ,....tt. , .•,...."' ' - ),', ','". • '.;....: • , ' ''' .1.I. i t , ,- ar2 _.111Z.,1 -.4e" - "-.-.."-- -""" ., 7 .1 " • ` -' '' -. ... * -.-nt . k , ."--4,7.7,. s. • >. .- 1.... 7 4 •• • r•Ing : .,,,7 r.;.• ; 71 '',7 •`', . • 6.- - ,1=ff • .., * ... ..'" • • ' . ... 4 v -.1.. .,...,..„. . I .... 4 .7 ' - ■. - ''' ''';•' '' :. z•• .; Vie, ,.R'` • •• ....• f rolm•••111( 3.0. V .* ,...-.. , .••••"... • .„0 . , -;e: of Ct r i... j. ;;;•faip..1;; ,, -.../.- . _ ,.. ,.,. .. . --. .-.- . .,... .. : .• : S $. . • . -i.,d34' ''. -*-:•- ' .--. '. 1 . ,".!<...::: . ' .-.' .: - , .. z f44•4•4, • ' ; C1 4110 14 Ct /6. el it . .Tri„%s....... .....:. .„.„ • .. ''' ` 4. ' '. '-..-* - ' .. 1 pfb„ ' - --- ..ii .. •';`t : fi v- , :. : : ....i.. .* • . ,,.... Ir. 1 •-• ... •••■• . - - t0 Ir' f ,, .:.,t - , • -,.. •=:. . 2 ' • * ,._•••• • ' a t > . V • ... • -- Fft ^ '.1 -4_) ,.. ,,, 8, jb ZIP ..„1"."11:4" ••• . ea • ,:- t 1 '• • 7 '1*. > `'` , (1) r _ . V•Ak , -, — , , . f •,-• # ? • 1 • v . • raw( < .... . 5, •... . • .... . •• . s,.. .... - . •••••rgr• -.... . ,s, ' - i. -,- ,$...1. •4 • v. 4 r., ,. k •■•• ? .. ■ W., 4 ..... ••., • 11....4 • . e • r . ,•;.....„ :.: .; - • • '.. -- l•-•' • ''' q • v• • • • . . ., Ct .. ..r .- t... .... 40 . , • '4 si,°, ..1 CO) • .... „ ... , , - t , , . -. : ...14, - - , v ' -:'$•••;:, 1 - a .....".■ . 41r....p..- ..., • •.• ...:,,I.' N‘. *V. F s • st.0.." 1 g:4 1 3ir .. ,..,f -` • , - ;-;;A: a . • :Itit.,-, t .... „.-":„. .,... -; . 1 .z.s..."..:„.1 ii . ..... t $.;..;,,...:.: - .,....Aps A..... *......L..-' I; 1 7,•, - .. ar .„ .I .A- - --,..: . ;,,, k,.„4' . ‘` 1.• "',..•-• ' - 4 • .1....L._ . -- ,^ s ••• \ sz' z • I lit -•..t._-,..'":' _ ...... - .:• s z . i • 4044 " 17.-.1r- --------2 - .• . „ ..........,!&. ...., I 4.,•,". .„.„ ..., .„.. , 4 wo• . 4 for .., ,. . ,. #r: 'A • .'" . r - 40_ ri . .&'" • 4 1=C...a CD /111.11m4 S a ri .. • _ w .. - 4 0.1( -' _ .d ... 2 . • p.�{ 3r } • i ' ,, - - -, z...z.;.., . ". r''' ... --,, ... - ,.' , ,•: - I it -- 4 r immuring L11 ► 1 ^ a te ! : + - T e -- ' T ^ Z 4 4r } ..� 1! jr) im. C . .) . ; ' f., s }. .w +. a n� P4 I L H:: ; t w ,,,,,..1.,.,4, . : ,...4.. - .. ,.‘• • .11m.1) 4 vmz •. — • 1 2 `rim # f jg < x _ g�» ti x i r 1. TF �y,. „ N 8 a` avIJj`•i Y'uW ,i ,. N . ^ . < i ` ` ..JN I C .}Y N ♦ v immin 1:::11) o . . r . . ' - ''' 2 : - . v IA . '' ' • • •%... A - a . � i. f S • ... T� .F. , as ejOy a < h C:4 ,..-- tiw W AA .. $::D•wi CA ,.. (I) (1) • . , , „, „., .. .. ' ......,-, ' .. .. „ ,- - „ • - : - ' ,.. • --_ -_ _ • : - - --% . • .4.1 ,.- -; -' ::;-.^:!',--:..":-;-:' L . Sfif , • .4. :, - .. , - . ,-' ' .. ''''':- :z...14,-:-., C.) ID f:'•: ..- s is ........_:itt..,.....,_____,.....;„ (L) .. 4,, : , ...,... t N ., ....... , - -17•J, . s f.: ,. '-::!:". 7.7t.z.:- .... , • - • 4 1 t . tIP ..... • s ....." •‘ ...." ''?< 4 ''''; -"It'11:7';'''''..-''.:77.4 • t...4 ....._ ;Sig; ttit4 . • 40 „. • . ,--...; ;., • -....--:. L.., Cip .... ,77:r-i' : ' . .... . 4 •r , ..z.... +406.. • -5.- - - " ". ,... s•:,.,f,,:1,ii4 ti ,- . . . 4 , ,-• t ,„,. •-•-..• ,, . ........ -. . . -----,r.„-- - • .... „ , 1 rimmol( ( 4 .1.... t e:&: ::t s , I , , ......:‘ . , - .„. ,... '. ;$, • : ..... r Is... .... Ct ..•.:).4 If . ' --.: 2 , ..,.. . :.:.., : ' ' ,-- •= ftt !I r:...i s .......... .. . ;... • f-- . 1: -. ...1_ • :; : • :;!... ,.. .,....:..„....,:... .-. - ........:,..... p. : .. ..:: . ... ..: ' r *1 • ,.., ' • •'' ,. -1- .." - '. . .-.... ,.,;• - . ...-.,.-.r4 . s . . . .. i . ‘,.... . . . .:.: . . . • . ; .. ,. ,.. • •-•4 [ . -....... . -.„ .- . ........-:,.....•,...,,,-: ..-.-- ..:.s. " ....--.• ::•.....:.•,.:,....•.- -...-:....:,. -; -:-..- . - .. - •..... C'■'J .4.-.) • .1-114 t-.. -....-.-..: : -.;.,...,.?,: ,- .:.-- : ...,, . • s . - • :. : :, ..: . • . -- Q.) :7- -. - ::::' :....: - ,. --.0::..... , ---- -.% • 7-, ., -,;,.. :-......., t,..... , - .,-. - -. ,... „......: .-; : ...q --, •,.... .... t•.:.- • :...,‘,..s.h...e ..:;;-•,•,:;:;:,•!..-v... - . -;.::--, . - • •I'mn) v .1 ::...1 4.:- .:-* .: , :-- ...* z:-..*: -, ::::::: , ;:zis;i ; -4 7 - ..'..- - ..z:.• .•,, - - • - , 7 — , . rZ4 i. - ........,L,. s ."••• , .. , ... ' ....;,, : :..4..sz,„:: It ".... ••• . . , . .....„... _.., .... , C CO) '''i '''..'” ..-: l' 7 *; . • : -... ' '-': i , .. 'ff-- .. - . - li f::) (1) 4 ..4 Cf) • CID ct b.J - _ CD •� 0 o •- O bL v a4 VD .� O ;O cG • • ,.: . f .•• pC , : % ' • '. E ..fi �, - .. 4. :. -.tip • - ; r4 - . f i te a: t _ y 11 1 1 wi:. --iel tz ' „,.. . , ; t- -I 1: .,:, ..„, ,•1 ,_ ' •`•: Iz • (Z11 ; F -- 4enii 1, • I II ...: • : --- - - c ;- . • J r 7 i ± f _ �'- ;. �- 7 t ... : , t...... . ... ......: . .. 1 : .,.....-.„. , _ , ... . . !I . . • '• .. jr: 't 2 T :":i7,1;:i71.!:".. r bl ti:),I) 4111111) ' . .. ......:-.: :.- • - :--L- r - • plow{ :. r . - -ter.. - .. - -• - --- - - : ay. a ' . ' "...:'r:' - .-::2' •-•-•' - '. .. .,,,us,,-.4:14..,k, ,__.,_..... ......_....... , con ,•• ............1.:: ,....:.....„.-.:....„. ..:-.::‘,...., ......trik:N.... ' r " aect ' - Qj P4 n 3 O )11.14 t - F , z,- s" 1 t ` f � .f�! • H •!p er Z ► ''s r r::11"4 . * x z r a40 o a J f F .L Y , H 1-; ,, �: r a � 1 4 M CD Ts. 4 = x w ii f ✓ . (I) Trt° t . • t f'' —...z.... � .1' . /� _ (1°0:4 ..... t. $ L L s • a.•. s A r rj • • �' a A ; - .rte i Ct V • Y � x Yx al P e.V14. ) Cr) riii. P P4 0".4mm) bD .. • O 0) Im rim i C4 - :::. . „---... • .,-. , %, ^ :: , - .' • ' - '.- .04 r'n..•••"" ...1.....14.• • ''... .. 2. ....:: '.... r..` • , ... ....` .. . Z.".•\•$•;‘?,.'N.tts.,!. :'..t ".4'...Zt",13 .'".Z '''...%1154, F • • : - - '''''sk;•.;,,3.',4"rn.,,,;.`4,:zivt:rk:r.s..*:1, , a ---•••••• .% 1 -: ' ' .; '.., . ;.,,,,*°0, z•Tifsx;rs:t.,..114:iikt..?„ ..!.!..... - .,i*z .. 7 k, I 3 , .; . - - - .. . . !Di) :*S. 'is;31•11t.. 4—` ,t.....;4s.:4-*.V.:':.* ')a. ''' • - — – - - : :, . f.4 sts' ••••=.. " .. Vv s ... z .■W"" 4 ."..: • Fre. ,,, ...,- E--i )p ..............i‘...........:ii...1....,24............ .......,... :..4...:;......4.0......„:::::......k.,.rt?....:... s rm.( ..;"....,q.;;;.iitils,,,:iii•Vs..;:z: Arse <' ' low z - - .-,, • -•" r......... - . .,. - • - - . " :••••-•• 4 Nolti... lig,.. _ . jimmi.‘ . • .',•-s.•.. • vil•=4 inid ' s'•• s's".'''••••4‘;•"*11., :i'.- 43-- /1" ,4 e,TA: ik • 4,...... - • ,. . 4L-4 , - - Ct ''' .: . 1'.: '''' - 7 * 4.) v....4 . 4 ' ' ..? 0 1"Imm.4 .1- ,, ........„,tt ... t, 3 • . .,. , P4 ‘11 NS jiht4. ■ ... ., - . • ' .. , 4. ' <7- -• ... .. 011i..k' . .:' .10, ..... . „: e . ‘, `,/.' * ...5c A. 0 el. I ''' "".. . ' • • e . - CX. ' : fr,f,' s l .. . ..., ......''', ,„ ' 4 . • ' Ct C ..) - fe#7,(:"•,, . ' ---. . ----' - - f • • •1 r, '' ' ' . - - - -11m4 0 -.- -*'..• li" - 3-, , ' .--' ' ....4'; .:`' 's' -.• 1 • . •-• ,,,,Ls. - - -•':„ , vm p . - --.... .... ,- . . , - . - „... • .C , . --- , - -- t,..! -- •f'--,-.. . _ ,:: ,."1.--,.- -..-„;?!.:i- - i,- :."." ' - .. • • , -- , ; 4 .-" - t - ' - : - - • Imam( tu. - 4mm e - 11.-•.-,...1.-. ,z,,,- •:,- - misik ... '..;,-... -;•.... • r: --,,;:-.',. VD • "mom( ---...-.4-x7,--- -!-1.-,. illt _ . "4 It I) -4-4 Ci) Z O •r.4 O +°'") PO ... • . - -;• , ---_ - - 4. ' ' „ ' t - '-,* .. ' - - ' ''.,:,"::, , - ..--.',":. -- "4" �- p Cil) CI) --'' ''. ': . .yam � j T '; il U ; 11.61 0 (Dra.:111 1,.. r :.*. • .... k 1: .;.. ii. 11. -4 . '''''.44.1:7141,..:::::: .. •,, : : ' , ',. : . :'.1 ': :: ....;: ,•;-,:;.*:.;::1-',....7`,..:t CID 4) E--4 ...;. i . - , ‘..,.. ,a,,,,, . .•; - .5,::.-4:-. 1 4 - +-e l, . ..- � ' r � s xM c p . s. bl) ru. • •;,,,.. � y s L F a � r a x , ;T' • r / _ ,r+'• `x. 59) .A �, � ` w a' "4 • ir -. ,- t om' ,. ` .w at t a - a s " h '4 1 1 { CZI "Cij • .rte .e a ---,:::.;%.---,....- �...} �' . ' . .:d,.j. # .... P4 > IIII4 O U ' c rt.) v't: t w 0 ..:'•• "4." . > ', < E _ �+ S + ' • •• .iii" .Y \. { Y ,, - • n 4 v X I�r{ x� � � � �T `�rac 0 • r"� x . k Y `47 : r t � s !+ s �,� t > 4 -1( : ...•-...-..i: ,c.- - __ ..-: ...,•,,k4-21, ... if ..., f,,,, - t. .e...,,,,,. -, - - . - w a 2 c o') A f � $ � „, i ? 17:S ss A Ta :'..i..::-;.= t g <� ‹ 1• g b i : El y f ` � r `ice .- C I. - !:/..) L - te, '' ; '..' 4 ' , ': . A it' . R .,V1� *t�`� r.ot 1, � �.+ f r ".•-. „ i '” ...4 . iT - . - A WE Z - , \ 2 • . r.::4 • ■111r— - • • - - , • . . • • .. . . • : ' • -: • • . --44r - . . , • rm.( ••• • . : 2 pl bD • — 41,°;. 11— ' - • • . .; . • • • . 41, ,•4 . - • • • - . „, -z I . -. . • - • - . - . - - - CC • r--4 - . . - - - • 11.4 ,;= • ' x CZ - •.;* • . - ."•:;•;s; " ■i•"'e . • • - - , - - - . . . _ • • --- - • - . 15.4 °■*wIN4 '