HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem JAGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 23, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Crystal Landavazo, Interim Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING VARIANCE (VAR 17 -1), AN
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A
VARIANCE (VAR) TO PERMIT A 71 SQ. FT ADDITION OF
HABITABLE SPACE, FOR A BATHROOM AND CLOSET, TO
AN EXISTING DUPLEX, ON A NONCONFORMING
PROPERTY IN THE RESIDENTIAL AT 156 12th STREET
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council hold a de novo hearing regarding an appeal from the Planning
Commission's decision denying a variance, VAR 17 -1 to allow a 71 -sq. ft. addition of
habitable space, for a new bathroom and closet, to an existing duplex, on a
nonconforming property.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On October 2, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on proposed
VAR 17 -1, which would allow for the addition of 71 square feet of habitable space, for a
new bathroom and closet, to an existing duplex, (the Project) to be located at 156 12th
Street (the subject property). Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission
voted to deny VAR 17 -1, and adopted Resolution No. 17 -24, denying VAR 17 -1. On
October 5, 2017, the applicant appealed the Commission's decision denying VAR 17 -1.
The grounds for the appeal of Planning Commission's denial of the Variance are set out
in a letter submitted by the appellant and in their appeal (Attachment B). Their concerns
were previously addressed at the Planning Commission meeting and through the staff
report, resolution, attachments, and presentations.
SETTING:
The General Plan designates the subject property as Residential High Density and it is
located in the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zoning district. The proposed project
site area is currently used as a duplex on a lot with a gross lot area of 2,937.5 square
feet, 2 garage parking spaces and as small as a 4 inch side yard setback is a
Agenda Item J
nonconforming property in this zone. The front unit is 828 square feet and the rear unit
is 433 square feet located on the second floor over a 389 - square foot first floor garage.
The site is surrounded by residential uses.
ANALYSIS:
Patrick and Romy Mahoney (Project applicants) submitted a variance ( "VAR ") 17 -1
requesting approval to allow a 71 -sq. ft addition of habitable space, for a new bathroom
and closet, to the existing front dwelling unit which is part of a two -unit property.
Pursuant to Section 1.20.010 of the Municipal Code, appeals of Planning Commission
decisions to the City Council are heard de novo. This means that the City Council must
independently hear and consider the evidence in a new hearing and apply the same
decision - making criteria that the Planning Commission did when deciding whether to
approve VAR17 -1.
In order to approve VAR 17 -1, the Planning Commission was required to make certain
findings with regard to the proposed Project. These findings, as required by the Seal
Beach Municipal Code (SBMC), in §11.5.20.005.C, gives the Planning Commission
authority to grant a variance to adjust dimensional and performance standards only; and
any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in
which the property is situated. A variance cannot be granted to authorize a use or
activity which is not expressly authorized by the zone district regulations governing the
parcel of property. These same findings must be made by the City Council on this
appeal.
Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) §11.4.40.025 does not permit multi -unit residential
and nonresidential structures to be structurally altered or expanded. Specifically the
code states a multi -unit residential structure may not add habitable space.
The property was constructed in the 1950s and predates the City's current zoning code.
The property is considered nonconforming due to density, setbacks, and parking. With
regard to the side yard setbacks, Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.2.05.015)
provides minimum setback requirements for residential dwellings. In the RHD -20 zone
the minimum interior side yard setback is three feet. The front building on the subject
property maintains the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks but the rear building only has
a 4 -inch side yard setback on the northern side and a 2 -foot 8 -inch side yard setback on
the southern side. These setbacks are too narrow to provide fire and law enforcement
access.
With regard to density, the Seal Beach Municipal Code, Table 11.2.05.015, states that
RHD -20 zoned properties are allowed one residential unit per every 2,178 sq. ft. of land
area. The subject property is approximately 2,937.5 square feet, which would only
allow for one unit, so the property is nonconforming because it has two existing
residential units. The Seal Beach Municipal Code, Table 11.4.20.015.A.1, requires two
Page 2
(2) off - street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The site only contains two garage
spaces, which make the site deficient by two parking spaces based on the existing need
of four garage spaces for the two dwelling units on the site.
The applicants are proposing approval of VAR 17 -1 to add 71 square feet of habitable
space to the rear of the existing front unit, in order to add a closet and bathroom. The
addition would be located across the entire back of the front unit. In order to add onto
the existing front unit, the applicants are requesting approval of a Variance to (i) reduce
the required 3 -foot minimum side setback, (ii) reduce the required number of garage
parking spaces from four spaces to two spaces, and (iii) reduce the minimum square
footage of 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,468.75 square feet per dwelling unit.
According to the applicants, the approval of VAR 17 -1 would eliminate the
nonconforming status of the subject property.
Nonconforming structures and uses are governed by Chapter 11.4.40 of the Seal Beach
Municipal Code (SBMC). SBMC §11.4.40.010 provides that a lawful nonconforming
structure may be used, occupied and maintained in its current size and configuration.
An ownermay perform non - structural repairs and interior alterations to structures that
are nonconforming or contain nonconforming uses, provided the structure is not
enlarged, the life of the structure is not extended or the nonconforming use is not
expanded. With regard to multi -unit residential structures, SBMC §11.4.40.030 also
provides that multi -unit residential structures may not add any habitable space. The
proposed 71 -foot addition to the front unit would add 71 square feet of habitable space,
and expand the unit, which violates SBMC §11.4.40.030 and SBMC §11.4.40.010.
As outlined previously, the subject property is presently nonconforming as to both
dimensional and performance standards. The side yard setbacks are too narrow,
precluding fire and safety access. The property has two dwelling units but the
applicable zoning, based on lot size, only allows one unit. The property should have
four garage parking spaces, but only has two. The applicants seek to construct an
addition to the primary dwelling unit of multi -unit structures that are already
nonconforming. In effect, the applicants are seeking approval of the variance to add
habitable space and expand the primary dwelling unit on a lot that has insufficient
access and is also already under - parked and too dense.
The applicants have not presented evidence to justify their request for a variance, and
approval of the variance would constitute the grant of a special privilege. A variance is
not warranted in this circumstance because adherence to the residential setback
requirements, along with the density and parking requirements would not create an
undue hardship, because the lot's size and shape, and the dimensions of the existing
structures, are similar to other lots in the vicinity. The strict interpretation of the
Municipal Code requirements would not deprive the applicants of the ability to enjoy the
same privileges as other property owners within the same vicinity; the applicants and
the other property owners in the vicinity are subject to the same limitations.
Compliance with the residential development standards would not create a hardship for
the property and there are no unique characteristics or circumstances applicable to the
Page 3
property such as unique size, configuration or topography that would warrant a
variance. The lot is flat and is consistent with the characteristics of the lots in the rest of
the area. Existing development on the subject site would be allowed to remain and the
applicant can still add a bathroom and closet within the existing square footage of the
primary dwelling unit with the approval of a minor use permit. The applicants' request is
inconsistent with the RHD -20 zone in which it is located because the proposal includes
adding habitable square footage to and expands a nonconforming property. There are
no unique circumstances applicable to the property. The request to further expand and
add habitable space to a property with nonconforming side yard setbacks that are too
narrow (four inches or 2 feet 8 inches, rather than the required three feet), insufficient
parking(two spaces rather than four spaces), and too many units for the size of the lot
(two units rather than one unit), is a request for a special privilege that is inconsistent
with other properties in the RHD -20 zone because most properties in the RHD -20 zone
provide at least the minimums for these requirements.
For reasons stated previously and in the proposed resolutions of approval (Attachment
A), staff recommends that required findings cannot be made in this case, and that the
Planning Commission correctly denied VAR 17 -1. As such, staff recommends that the
City Council deny the applicants' appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the
variance, and also deny VAR17 -1.
Decision on the Variance:
Any decision by the City Council to grant the applicant's appeal and approve the
Variance must be based on the Project application, any supporting appendices, and all
other written and oral evidence submitted at the public hearing, and the City Council
must make all of the following findings required by SBMC Section 11.5.20.020.13, as
follows:
1. The variance conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan
and with any ordinances adopted by the City Council;
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of
the Zoning Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification;
3. The variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in
which such property is situated; and
4. Authorization of the variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of
the zoning district in which the property is located and will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working
in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
The discussion above outlines the reasons why Staff believes that the City Council
cannot make these findings and should deny the VAR, and a proposed resolution of
Page 4
denial is included with this Staff Report (Resolution No. 6773, Attachment A). The City
Council may grant the appeal and approve the Variance if the Council determines that it
can make all findings required by SBMC Section 11.5.20.020. The factual basis for a
decision to approve should be set out in an oral motion by the Council, and if adopted,
the Council should then direct Staff to return with a resolution incorporating those
findings at a subsequent meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This project is determined to be a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption
pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) for the permitting of an addition to an
existing single - family residence that is less than 50% of the existing square footage.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolution and approved it as to form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact related to this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council hold a de novo hearing regarding the VAR 17 -1 and after
considering all evidence and testimony presented, adopt Resolution No. 6773 denying
the appeal and denying VAR 17 -1, to add 71 square feet of habitable space to the front
unit at an existing duplex that is nonconforming at 156 12th Street within the Residential
High Density (RHD -20) zoning area.
SUBMITTED BY:
ity Development
Prepared by: Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner
NOTED AND APPROVED:
W111 _ii SPN,1�
lngra�n, City MIS . .
Attachments:
A. Resolution No. 6773
B. Appeal Application to City Council, received on October 5, 2017
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -24 — Denying Variance 17 -1
D. Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations
E. Applicants Project - Related list of nonconforming properties
F. Ordinance 1519 & 1518 — Amendments to Residential Nonconforming Regulations
Page 5
Attachment "A"
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6773
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
DENYING AN APPEAL AND DENYING VARIANCE 17 -1
TO PERMIT A 71 SO. FT ADDITION OF HABITABLE
SPACE, FOR A NEW BATHROOM AND CLOSET, TO AN
EXISTING DUPLEX, ON A NONCONFORMING
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 12TH STREET IN THE
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD -20) ZONING AREA
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Patrick and Romy. Mahoney ( "the applicants "), submitted an
application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for
Variance (VAR) 17 -1 to allow a 71 square -foot addition of habitable space, for a new
bathroom and closet, to an existing duplex on a nonconforming property in the
Residential High Density (RHD -20) zoning area, which is nonconforming due to density,
parking and setbacks, at 156 12`h Street.
Section 2. This project is determined to be a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) for the
permitting of an addition to an existing single - family residence that is less than 50% of
the existing square footage.
Section 3. A duly noticed meeting was held before the Planning Commission
on October 2, 2017 to consider the application for VAR 17 -1. At this meeting, the
Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and
oral, regarding the subject application. Following the public hearing, the Planning
Commission voted and approved Resolution No. 17 -24, denying VAR 17 -1.
Section 4. The applicants timely appealed the Planning Commission's
decision by submitting an Appeal Application to the City Council on October 5, 2017.
Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
October 23, 2017 to consider the applicants' appeal and application for VAR 17 -1. At
the public hearing, the City Council received and considered all evidence presented,
both written and oral, regarding the subject appeal and application. All persons present
who wished to address the Council regarding the matter were permitted to do so. Based
on substantial evidence in the entire record of the hearing, the City Council finds the
following facts to be true.
A. The applicants submitted an application to the Communit
Development Department for Variance VAR 17 -1 for a proposed project at 156 12'
Street, Seal Beach, California.
Page 1 of 4
Resolution 6773
B. The subject property is a rectangle- shaped parcel with a lot area of
approximately 2,937.5 sq. ft. or (.07 acres). The property is approximately 25 feet wide
by 117.5 feet deep. Most of the surrounding properties consist of lots that range from 25
to 50 feet in width and 110 to 117 feet in length and abut an alley at the rear, as does
the subject site. The site is surrounded on all sides by residential uses.
C. The subject property is currently developed with a one -story
residential unit and a detached second unit above the two -car garage at the rear of the
property. The subject site is located on the east side of 12`h Street between Electric
Avenue and Ocean Avenue. The subject site is surrounded by residential properties.
The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zone.
D. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.2.05.015) requires all
properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet.
E. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC Table 11.2.05.015)
requires all properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide a minimum 2,178 square feet of
land area per each residential unit.
F. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC Table 11.2.05.015.A.1)
requires all properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide two off- street parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
G. The applicant is proposing to add a 71 square -foot addition of
habitable space to the front unit for a new bathroom and closet.
H. The subject site is nonconforming based on density, parking and
setbacks.
I. Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.4.40.010) provides that a
lawful nonconforming structure may be used, occupied and maintained in its current
size and configuration, and that an owner may perform non - structural repairs and
interior alterations to structures that are nonconforming or contain nonconforming uses,
provided the structure is not enlarged, the life of the structure is not extended or the
nonconforming use is not expanded. With regard to multi -unit residential structures, the
Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.4.40.030) provides that multi -unit residential
structures may not add any habitable space
Section 6. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in the preceding Section of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the
Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The variance does not conform in all significant respect with the
General Plan and with any ordinances adopted by the City Council. The General Plan
Land Use Map designates the subject property as Residential High Density and the
subject site is not consistent with the residential density for the area. The Seal Beach
Resolution 6773
Municipal Code requires that all properties in the RHD -20 zone have minimum side yard
setbacks of three feet. The subject property has only a 4 -inch side yard setback on the
northern side of the garage and a 2 -foot 8 -inch side yard setback on the southern side
of the garage. The density requirements in the RHD -20 zone permit one residential unit
on the subject site, but the site currently contains two units. Also, under the applicable
zone district development standards, the site requires two off - street parking spaces per
dwelling unit. However, the site only contains two garage spaces, which make the site
deficient by two parking spaces based on the existing need of four garage spaces for
the two units. The applicant's proposal to add 71 square feet of habitable space to the
existing nonconforming duplex that is nonconforming due to setbacks, density and
parking does not comply with the requirement set by SBMC §11.4.40.020.
B. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and application of the
Zoning Code does not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification. Residential
properties in the RHD -20 zone have a typical lot width of 25 to 50 feet and a typical lot
depth of 110 to117 feet, and are abutted by an alley at the rear of the property. Typical
lots in the RHD -20 maintain a minimum side yard setback of three feet, a density of one
dwelling unit per 2,178 square feet and two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The
subject site has no unique characteristics such as size, configuration or topography that
make this lot different than others in the same zoned area. The lot is flat and is
consistent with the physical characteristics of the lots in the vicinity and zoning district.
Existing development on the subject site would be allowed to remain, and the applicants
may still add a bathroom and closet within the existing habitable space of the front unit
with the approval of a minor use permit. Application of the Zoning Code development
standards would not deprive the subject property from utilizing the existing uses.
C. Approval of the variance would constitute a grant of special
privileges to the applicants, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone district in which the property is situated. The applicants are requesting
to add a 71 square -foot addition of habitable space to the front unit for a new bathroom
and closet. Approval of this addition would not be consistent with the minimum side yard
setbacks, density and parking requirements applicable to surrounding residential
properties in the RHD -20 zone. The applicants' request is inconsistent with the RHD -20
zone in which it is located because the proposal includes adding habitable square
footage to, and expanding, a nonconforming property. The applicants are seeking a
special privilege or reduction beyond what is applicable to surrounding properties in the
RHD -20 zone, because other properties in the same zoning area, with these same
restrictions, are not allowed to increase the size of the building with habitable space.
D. Authorization of the variance does not substantially meet the intent
and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, and will be
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The subject site is located in the
RHD -20 zone which is developed with a mix of single family and multi - family
residences. The applicant is proposing to add a 71 square -foot addition of habitable
space, for a new bathroom and closet, onto the front unit, on a lot that is already under-
3
Resolution 6773
parked and too dense. The side yard setbacks of the garage do not meet the minimum
footage requirement of the zoning district, and are too narrow to allow fire and police
access. The proposed addition of habitable space will not be consistent with
surrounding properties. The applicant's proposal will not comply with all development
standards required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the
appeal and denies Variance (VAR) 17 -1 as the findings for the Variance cannot be
made.
Section 9. The documents, staff reports, appendices, plans, specifications,
and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution
is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the
Community Development Department, City of Seal Beach City Hall, 211 8th Street, Seal
Beach, CA 90740.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 23'd day of October , 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
Sandra Massa - Lavitt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Robin Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6773 on file in the office
of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 23`d day of October , 2017.
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
Attachment "B"
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL
For Office Use Only
Planning Commission Date: 1D12 Planning Comm. Re No.: 1-7-.24
Planning Commission Action: Approval Denia Other
Date Appeal Filed: !D h l � City Council Date:
Notice Date:
City Council Action: Resolution No.:
1. Property Address: 156 A-n�P l 5.6 Z / A fh S PA Id-
2. Applicant's Name:
Address: t56
Work Phone: ( ;
N
Mobile:( )
Home Phone: FAX: (
I Property Owner's Name: /
Address: /sd /
Home Phone: (6ZA 1 o - 1 �
4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following clescribeo action of the Seal Beach
Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No. �.
Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning
Commission is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed,
and include your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in
error.
ignature of Applidant) `� ( gn ure qf Owner)
PA-rA, jr,e, M k k b hfC:z1
(Print Name)
/D - "r- b0 l-7
(Date)
:a+
/D , 5-- jo
(Date)
Sea] Beach City Council
Regarding the Denying of Variance 17 -1 on October 2, 2017
The request for a bathroom and closet on the rear of the home is
compactible with the rest of the homes in the area. It would give us the same
rights that other larger 2 story homes have on this street. Having another
bath and closet would benefit us, and also when our family comes to visit.
The rear garages and unit over the garages was build many years ago and
no permits are available. The rear comer facing Electric Avenue is short
of the required set back. The set back is correct where the stairs go up to
the one bedroom unit. There is a building attacked to the front house where
a washer and dryer and a hot water heater were connected. The plumbing
for a bath is already there.
There are 2 garages and an apron in back of the garages that is required for
parking. The new California Code does not require another parking spot
if there is a Bus Line near the property. The square footage is not going to
add any bedrooms, dens, etc.. that would go over the new California Code
for additions on existing properties.
The property also has open space between the front house and the rear unit.
There is also a nice tall tree in the rear yard.
We appreciate your time and consideration.
Romy and Patrick Mahoney
Attachment "C"
RESOLUTION NO. 17 -24
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING VARIANCE (VAR 17 -1) TO
PERMIT A 71 SQ. FT ADDITION OF HABITABLE
SPACE, FOR A NEW BATHROOM AND CLOSET, TO
AN EXISTING DUPLEX, ON A NONCONFORMING
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 12T" STREET IN THE
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD -20) ZONING
AREA,
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Patrick and Romy Mahoney ( "the applicants "), submitted an application
to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Variance (VAR) 17 -1 to
allow a 71 square -foot addition of habitable space, for a new bathroom and closet, to an
existing duplex on a nonconforming property in the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zoning
area, which is nonconforming due to density, parking and setbacks, at 156 12th Street.
Section 2. This project is determined to be a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical
Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) for the permitting of an addition to
an existing single - family residence that is less than 50% of the existing square footage.
Section 3. A duly noticed meeting was held before the Planning Commission on
October 2, 2017 to consider the application for VAR 17 -1. At this meeting, the Planning
Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding
the subject application. The record of the public hearing indicates the following:
A. The subject site consists of a 2,937.5 sq. ft. parcel developed with a one -
story residential unit and a detached second unit above the two -car garage at the rear of the
property. The subject site is located on the east side of 12�h Street between Electric Avenue
and Ocean Avenue. The subject site is surrounded by residential properties. The subject
property is located in the RHD -20 (Residential High Density — 20) zone.
B. The subject site is a rectangular- shaped lot with no unique size or
configuration when compared to the surrounding properties in the RHD -20 zone. Most of the
surrounding properties consist of lots that range from 25 to 50 feet in width and 110 to 117
feet in length and abut an alley at the rear, as does the subject site.
C. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.2.05.015) requires all
properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet.
D. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC Table 11.2.05.015) requires all
properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide a minimum 2,178 square feet of land area per each
residential unit.
E. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC Table 11.2.05.015.A.1) requires
all properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide two off - street parking spaces per dwelling unit.
F. The applicant is proposing to add a 71 square feet addition of habitable
space, for a new bathroom and closet, to the front unit.
-1 of 3-
Resolution 17 -24
156 12"' Street
G. The subject site is nonconforming based on density, parking and
setbacks
H. Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.4.40.010) provides that a lawful
nonconforming structure may be used, occupied and maintained in its current size and
configuration, and that an owner may perform non - structural repairs and interior alterations to
structures that are nonconforming or contain nonconforming uses, provided the structure is
not enlarged, the life of the structure is not extended or the nonconforming use is not
expanded. With regard to multi -unit residential structures, the Seal Beach Municipal Code
(SBMC §11.4.40.030) provides that multi -unit residential structures may not add any
habitable space.
Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in
the preceding Section of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Seal Beach, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. The variance does not conform in all significant respect with the General
Plan and with any ordinances adopted by the City Council. The General Plan Land Use Map
designates the subject property as Residential High Density and the subject site is not
consistent with the residential density for the area. The density requirements in the RHD -20
zone permit one residential unit on the subject site, but the site currently contains two units.
Also, under the applicable zone district development standards, the site requires two off -
street parking spaces per dwelling unit. However, the site only contains two garage spaces,
which make the site deficient by two parking spaces based on the existing need of four
garage spaces for the two units. The applicant's proposal to add 71 square feet of habitable
space to the existing nonconforming duplex that is nonconforming due to setbacks, density
and parking does not comply with the requirement set by SBMC §11.4.40.020.
B. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and application of the Zoning Code does
not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under identical zoning district classification. Residential properties in the RHD -20 zone have
a typical lot width of 25 to 50 feet and a typical lot depth of 110 to117 feet, and are abutted by
an alley at the rear of the property. Typical lots in the RHD -20 maintain a minimum side yard
setback of three feet, a density of one dwelling unit per 2,178 square feet and two parking
spaces for each dwelling unit. The subject site has no unique characteristics such as size,
configuration or topography that make this lot different than others in the same zoned area.
Application of the Zoning Code development standards would not deprive the subject
property of utilizing the existing uses.
C. The variance does constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in which such
property is situated. The applicant is requesting to add a 71 square -foot addition of habitable
space, for a new bathroom and closet to the front unit. Approval of this addition would not be
consistent with the minimum side yard setback, density and parking requirements applicable
to surrounding residential properties in the RHD -20 zone. The applicant is seeking a special
privilege or reduction beyond what is applicable to surrounding properties in the RHD -20
zone, because other properties in the same zoning area, with these same restrictions, are not
allowed to increase the size of the building with habitable space.
D. Authorization of the variance does not substantially meet the intent and
purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, and will be detrimental to the
-2 of 3-
Resolution 17 -24
— - —156l a Street .
health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the neighborhood or to the general
welfare of the City. The subject site is located in the RHD -20 zone which is developed with a
mix of single family and multi - family residences. The applicant is proposing to add a 71
square -foot addition of habitable space, for a new bathroom and closet onto the front unit, on
a lot that is already under - parked and too dense. This will not be consistent with surrounding
properties. The applicant's proposal will not comply with all development standards required
by the Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies
Variance 17 -1 as the findings for the Variance cannot be made.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at
a meeting thereof held on October 2, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Machen, Thomas, Campbell, Klinger,
NOES: Commissioners Aquilar
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
ATTEST:
rysta a ava
Planning ComGsgion Secretary
-3 of 3-
Beb Machen,
Chairperson
Attachment "®"
I
v..,,.
i yroro,c
� �
S 3 N O( I Zi O 11I
06LO6 dJ 'HJV30 T13S
1S Hlil 951
3JN341S3J A3NOHVW
S310N lb�J3N39
V1Va 1J3fOTJd
�
� _
g
a
�o� Nollla ao aw 13aaw�
W7o ails
r"
e
�
!qr O i5Me w lCir'n
N rmi ri� ICY 4J iY'M1
Iii lr PY TW 'V
C
f5
W
pw-
f P.
yy
9
e�
I •
I 1�'gy3�
I .I y r —t
4�
I I
L
�
L
� NO I
N
yky
a�SysyO
gqa
�j82 ��
T�
IF
Y y� r 7 4t �' p�S i
ps �Q -¢¢ E I§
Fex.d �=
ifM Y !.3{[p FgmiG
A•PP
<dIVND, H mi l §'n
�
Q2 f
Z
v PI
g3 [ap s y deg Z j
i
mm.� +� � iii YUawndm a �1-
O >L06 VO 'tYJV3H
}}
�lni�lh I
S I N O I I b O 1 "a
1B l�l
m 951 I
3�n3ols3a x3nonvw
"oJ NOI114OV QNO 1340LL�J
s ouvn3l3 aola3 x3
`^1ld abOl�
�
1 r
n-
�
I I
; �IIIVIIIiI11:�
I I
I � I
I I
I
i
I
n
4
F�
�9 #31
II
n
n
I�
�I
I li
I 6
I II
I �I
EU
I
i
I
i I
I�
I
w
L%
n
4
F�
�9 #31
II
n
n
I�
�I
I li
I 6
I II
I �I
EU
I
i
I
i I
I�
I
w
Attachment ent "E"
in
U
a
n w
c°
c 0
w
i a
-c
w
a
0 E
°
E
p a
w
e
E
a
0i
u J
Q
v
a a°
m
C u m Q
.°i-
Z
0
v
U
C
w
w N L
a
V1
>
O N
C
2 m
'� C
1l1
m
O
C
a
O
d Y
C
m
a
m
n; o
a
o
w
m
o
•j
c
c
w
0
c
a
w
o
Y v -mo
0
n
E
Z
o
c. °- o
E°
o
m o m
90
N
,�
c c°
L
O
Y9 Y
L
u
Y
w
C
.fC
Y w
O
�
C
C
C
C
O
m
w
a
E
m
`o
w
u
w
o
0
0
a
n
N
C
W
m
a
a
0
o
o
°o
w
E
m
u
a
o
0
0
'v
c
m
J
CL
E
c V-
u
v u
3
ot
m
O
C
O
m
Z w
U
J
N
o
L
Z a .Y
w
O
Z
c
C
p
>
o m p
o
w
u
m
w
n
p
u
[Cw
C
^O
w
O h U
y
m
o
n
o m
m
v
u 'a
m
a
Q o v
v
v
m
u 0 m
0
a
� w
io
> .� a
�
J
a
L
Y
a
w
o
+= +�
N H
C
C
O
U
o
c E
J
J
CL
>
ro
w
Y,
m
tlq
1
Y
L
w
C
m c
-
Y
°-
w
x
CL
v
E
w
Q
v
`o
o
o
0
0
O
C
N
N
V
a
a
O
oiS
a
-p
E
m
Y
o0
O
O
Y
O
c
O m
co
C O
O
N
Y
Y
E 0
c
p
'O
a m
a
N
u
m
p m
U
m
w
u
V
a
m
n
c
Q
C
N
L Y
C
a
p E
p
m
m m
I
iEi
=
a
N Y
Z
n
Z C
m
w
a
a
N
>O
C
N
N
M
�
>
a
n
C
m
w
w
m
w
L
a
w
a
O
O
Q
o
v
a c
J
O
c
O
O
'O
m
U Y n/
00
J
O
N
N
N
C
O
O
m
d
C
O
o
C
o
�
3
L
Fo
o
v
c
c
o
Yo
Jv
E
m
v
o
o
c c°
oo
>
o
o
�
o
E
w
L
m
(U
0
u
O
. �
O
O
O
E
O
Y
°'
N
O E
C
-
O
v
z
¢
z
°
z n
v
uw
n
v
> N,
N
n °
i
m
r0
E
°p
m
o
0
m
o
p
O
n
O
M
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z
N
O
Y
L
C
C O
O
J U
N
O
O Y
c
3
z O N
O
hD l
°
:`-'
v
v
w
'o c
a.
o
ro 0
v
m
n
N u
N
CO
V1
O
00
00 cr
V
p
N N
✓
M u
O
ci
N
-O
6 DD O^
N
Z °_
Z
O
Z .--i
p
M w
O
N
Z
ON
O
C_
C_
N
C_
N tCO
O
s
E L
E o
v
E
d
O
v
t\D
C
0 m-
.M-I 0
O -O
m
�
o
o
y
o
0
3
D c
�°
o
O
u c
c W
a u J
c o
u
c o
m
C
N
o
O
O ° O
O
O O
N
y0i
Y
%
C w
N
U c OD w
>
c w
00
L
Y_
Y_
J
J
J
J
N
r-1
H
ti
e-1
O
m
`o
w
!6
m
^
00
D
V
m
E
ao
v
r�
O
75
>
>
>
C
0
Cn
On
On
Y
C
c
C
n
N
O
O
O
a
a
n
`
YO
u
u
u
C m
C
3 3
o
O
o
0
Z c
N
N
d
C
f0
V
N
l0
N
J
a-1
rl
ri
O
N
D
D
0
N
M
0
O
M
N
J
E
°
°
a
Y_
m
°
E
u
E
O
E
o
Y
0
p
Y
w
0
J
0
C
0
v
C
C
U
C
U
N
O
N
Y
c0
O
E
N
C
O
v
y
C
v
o
`v
E
u
N
°
°
c
v
c
a
n
i7i
3
m
0
0
N
m
ti
0
N
C
O
c C
C
'E
d
N
0
°
l0
w
C
°
d
C
O
m
c
0
0
z
E
.
0
0
0
0
v
v
�
a
o
N
�
O
N
y
J
�
r-I
E
a
m
u
a
-0
V_
C
J
H
�.I
D-
O
r
m
c
v
c
0
a
u
N
d
O
Z
N
L
'-I
V
N
M
Attachment "F"
ORDINANCE NUMBER/-f/9
T
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH AMENDING ARTICLE 24, SECTION
28 -2407 OF TITLE 28 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH REGARDING
STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND
ENLARGEMENTS TO NONCONFORMING
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES (ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT 04 -1)
WHEREAS, The City Council in early 2003 requested the Planning Commission to
schedule .a Study Session to review the existing standards in the Zoning
Ordinance regarding the addition and expansion provisions for non -
conforming residential uses; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted an initial study session regarding this
issue on February 5, 2003 and directed staff to:
❑ schedule an additional study session for March 5, 2003; and
❑ prepare additional land development proposals regarding expansions to
non - conforming residential structures related to provision of additional
parking and allowable size of a proposed expansion; and
WHEREAS, On March 5, 2003 the Planning Commission conducted their second
"Study Session" regarding the issue of the current Zoning Ordinance
provisions that allow for the expansion of legal non - conforming
residential structures. During the study session, several individuals
indicated that the current regulations are not reflective of the community's
desires and recommended that no addition or expansions of legal non-
conforming structures be permitted in the future; and
WHEREAS, After closing the March 5, 2003 study session, the Commission adopted
on 5 -0 vote the following recommendation:
"To recommend the City Council consider elimination of the
provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal
non - conforming structures within the City. "; and
WHEREAS, On April 14, 2003 the City Council considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and determined to adopt Ordinance No. 1498, An
Interim Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Enacted Pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65858 Prohibiting Minor or Major
Structural Alterations, Enlargements and Expansions to Certain
ZAMy Documen1s \0RD2TA 04- I.0rdinancc (2nd Rwding).Non- Conforming Reaideoca.doc \LW\02 -24-04
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non-Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 1004
Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses During the Pendency of
the City's Review and Adoption of Relevant Permanent Zoning
Regulations and Declaring The Urgency Thereof (the "Interim
Ordinance "). The initial interim ordinance was effective for 45 days and
was subsequently extended for a maximum period of an additional 10
months and 15 days on May 12, 2003, by the adoption of Ordinance No.
1502, in accordance with the provisions of State law; and
WHEREAS, On July 14, 2003 the City Council considered the possibility of approving
a limited exception of the interim prohibition for expansion or addition to
legal non - conforming structures in the City if all current development
standards, including the off - street parking requirements and excluding the
density requirements, are met. After discussion, the City Council
determined to receive and file the Staff Report on this matter, thereby
taking no action regarding the proposed exception; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a final study session on December 3,
2003 and at the conclusion of the Study Session directed staff to schedule
public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to consider several proposed
alternatives; and
WHEREAS, The City is proposing to establish new requirements and criteria for the
enlargement or structural alteration of non - conforming residential structures;
and
WHEREAS, The subject zone text amendment would apply to all non - conforming
residential structures within the City; and
WHEREAS, The proposed Zone Text Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301(a), (d) and (e), and Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
January 21, 2004, and continued to February 4, 2004 to consider Zone Text
Amendment 04 -1; and
WHEREAS, The said Commission held said aforementioned Public Hearing-, and
WHEREAS, At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony or evidence
received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission made the following findings:
2
ZfA 04- I.0rdirance (2nd Reading).Non- Confamung Residences
I
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non- Corsiorming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 1004
(a) Zone Text Amendment 04-1 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) This proposal will result in the completion of a city study that was
initiated in January 2003, but not finalized until adoption of the proposed
Zone Text Amendment.
(c) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning
ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and
planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning
requirements. Specifically, this amendment would establish new
standards for the alteration to nonconforming residential buildings and
uses, and prohibit additions to such legal nonconforming structures in
accordance with the recommended language of Zone Text Amendment
04-1; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Monday, February
23, 2004; and
WHEREAS, The City Council received into evidence the Report of the Planning
Commission, including the Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes
of January 21, 2004, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 04 -10. In
addition, the City Council considered all written and oral evidence presented
at the time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, At the conclusion of the public hearing, based upon the evidence presented,
the City Council determined to approve Zone Text Amendment 04-1.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 28 -2407 of Article 24 of Title 28 of The Code of The City
of Seal Beach is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 28 -2407. Enlargements or Structural Alterations to
Nonconforming Residential Buildings and Uses. Nonconforming
residential buildings may be enlarged or structurally altered as provided in
this section.
A. Permitted Improvements.
3
ZTA 04-1.0 diname (?nd P=ding).Non- Confomung Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Fapansion of Non- Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 1004
1. Minor
Structural Alterations and Improvements to
nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as fol-
lows may be approved by the issuance of a building permit:
(a)
Skylights.
(b)
Solar Systems.
(c)
Additional windows.
(d)
Decorative exterior improvements.
(e)
Building maintenance.
(f)
Adding or replacing utilities.
(g)
Other minor structural alterations and
Additional exterior doors.
improvements similar to the foregoing, as
Additional garages and carports, including tandem
determined by the Planning Commission.
2. Minor
Structural Alterations or Improvements to
nonconforming residential buildings and uses listed as
follows may be approved by the Planning Commission
pursuant to minor plan review as a consent calendar item:
(a)
Open roof decks.
(b)
Additional balconies and porches (not enclosed).
(c)
Roof additions over balconies and porches.
(1) Roof eaves projecting five (5) feet into the
required rear yard setback of Planning
District 1, Residential Low Density Zone.
(d)
Additional exterior doors.
(e)
Additional garages and carports, including tandem
garages and carports.
(f)
Interior wall modifications and remodeling which
involves removal of or structural alteration to less
than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the structure's
interior walls. Such interior wall modifications or
remodeling may increase the number of bathrooms
provided that the number does not exceed the
following bedroom/bathroom ratio: one bath for
each bedroom plus an additional half -bath. The
number of bedrooms, as defined in Section 28 -210
of this chapter, shall not be increased if the subject
property is nonconforming due to density or
parking.
(g)
Reduction in the number of units involving removal
or structural alteration to less than fifty percent
(50 %) of the structures interior walls.
(h)
Other minor structural alterations and
improvements similar to the foregoing, as
determined by the Planning Commission.
0
ZTA 04- I.0idin e(2nd Reading ).Non - Conforming Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion ojNon- Conforming Residences
Zone Test Amendment 04 -1
March 8, ?004
3. Residential Low Density Zone, Planning Districts I
through 7: Structural Alterations. Enlargements or
Expansions to nonconforming single - family residential
buildings and uses which are nonconforming only by
reason of building heights exceeding the maximum height
or inadequate setbacks to nonconforming single - family
residential buildings and uses, including the required
setback for existing legal, non - conforming garages,
carports, and exterior stairways, may be approved by the
Planning Commission pursuant to minor plan review as a
scheduled matter item, subject to the following:
(a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with
the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and
district in which the building or use is located.
(b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall
be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the
exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior
stairways, which shall comply with all applicable
provisions of the California Building Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of
the required with the exception of the required
California Building Code setback requirements.
(c) The existing nonconforming side yard setback may
be less than three (3) feet in width on properties
developed pursuant to "Precise Plan" or "Planned
Unit Development" approvals previously granted by
the City. I
4. Residential Medium Density Zone and Residential High
Density Zone Planning District 1: Structural Alterations,
Enlargements or Expansions to nonconforming single -
family residential buildings and uses which are
nonconforming only by reason of building heights
exceeding the maximum height or inadequate setbacks to
nonconforming single- family residential buildings and
uses, including the required setback for existing legal, non-
conforming garages, carports, exterior stairways, may be
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to minor
plan review as a scheduled matter item, subject to the
following:
(a) All enlargements or expansions shall comply with
the minimum yard dimensions for the zone and
district in which the building or use is located.
(b) The existing nonconforming side yard setback shall
be no less than three (3) feet in width, with the
5
ZTA 64- 1.0rdimme (2nd Reading).Non-Conforming Residences
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion of Non- Conforming Residences
Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 1004
exception of existing legal non - conforming exterior
stairways, which shall comply with all applicable
provisions of the California Building Code as most
recently adopted by the City, with the exception of
the , required with the exception of the required
California Building Code setback requirements.
(c) Garage and carport setbacks adjacent to a public
alley shall comply with current applicable setback
requirements."
Section 2. Reveal of Ordinance Number 1518. Ordinance Number 1518 is
hereby repealed upon the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Severabiliri. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council 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 section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in
accordance with applicable law.
PASSE)),,_ APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Co un the City of Seal
Beach a mee hg thereof held on the day of
2004.
T'zCCL-O-) I A�
Mayor
ST:
Clerk
R
ZTA 04- I.Ordimnee (2nd Rmding).Non- Conforming Residence
Ordinance Number 1519
Expansion ofNon- Conforming Residences
Zone Test Amendment 04 -1
March 8, 2004
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
1, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, Califomia, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number _ZV 9 _ on file in
the office of Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the
day of 2004, and passed, approved and opted by the
City Council City of al Beach at a meeting held on the
day of , 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Councihnember.
NOES: Councilmember.
ABSENT: Councilmember.
ABSTAIN: Councilmember:
and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number Z has been published pursuant
to theySea� Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 283
Ci lerk
ZTA 04- 1.0rdimnce (2nd Readmg).Non Conforming Rmidmcs
ORDINANCE NO.
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH EXTENDING INTERIM
ORDINANCE NO. 1502, AN INTERIM
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858
PROHIBITING MINOR OR MAJOR
STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS,
ENLARGEMENTS AND EXPANSIONS TO
CERTAIN NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS AND USES DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE CITY'S REVIEW AND
ADOPTION OF RELEVANT PERMANENT
ZONING REGULATIONS AND DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 1502 is hereby extended to and including March 26,
2005. The Findings set forth in Ordinance No. 1502 are hereby incorporated by this
reference.
Section 2. But for Interim Ordinance No. 1502 which, if not extended hereby,
would expire on March 27, 2004, the City Council finds that City residents are likely to
submit applications for minor or major structural alterations, enlargements and
expansions to nonconforming residential buildings and uses in the near future pursuant to
Subsections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 28 -2407A of the Code of the City of Seal Beach ( "City
Code "). Those Sections currently conditionally permit certain modifications to
nonconforming residential buildings and uses, and under these provisions many residents
have constructed improvements that have made nonconforming buildings and uses more
permanent. There is also currently a severe shortage of parking within the City, and
many properties do not comply with City Code requirements for maximum density and
minimum setbacks. However, the City Code allows for the expansion, enlargement, and
structural alteration of residential buildings and uses which are nonconforming with
respect to density, setbacks, and parking. As a result of the proliferation of applications
for such property renewals, the problems with inadequate parking, excessive density, and
nonconforming setbacks have become exacerbated.
Z \My Documents \OaDWonconfomung Expansion Interim Ord.Extension 2.dce \Lw\02 -23-04
Ordinance No.
Interim Ordinance re: Expansions to Non - Conforming Residential Structures
February 23, 2004
In the absence of immediate effectiveness, the approval of minor plan reviews or
conditional use permits for the major structural alteration, expansion or enlargement of
nonconforming residential buildings and uses pursuant to Subsections 2, 3 and 4 of
Section 28 -2407A of the Code of the City of Seal Beach will result in a threat to the
public welfare. Due to the foregoing circumstances, it is necessary for the preservation of
the public health, safety and welfare that this Ordinance take effect immediately
The City of Seal Beach has conducted studies to determine whether the expansion
of and/or the addition to a legal non - conforming residential structure or use is: consistent
with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and proposed Local Coastal Plan;
compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses; or contrary to the public
health, safety and welfare. Staff prepared Zone Text Amendment 04 -1, to propose
appropriate; revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding this matter, and public hearings
have been held by the Planning Commission on January 21 and February 4, 2004, and the
Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendations to the City Council for public
hearings. The City Council held its initial public hearing on Zone Text Amendment 04 -1
on February 23, 2004.
Pending completion of the public hearing process and the adoption of the
appropriate zoning regulations, it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, safety and welfare that no expansion of and/or the addition to a legal
non - conforming residential structure or use be developed, constructed or established
within the City.
The preparation of proposed zoning ordinance revision language has been
completed by staff, and public hearings have been completed at the Planning
Commission level. The consideration of proposed Zone Text Amendment 04 -1 has not
been completed, and the earliest effective date of new zoning regulations will be after the
expiration date of Ordinance No. 1502. It would defeat the purposes of Interim
Ordinance No. 1502 to permit the Ordinance to expire until the studies are completed and
a permanent ordinance is prepared and adopted. Expiration of the regulations contained
in Ordinance No. 1502 could permit additions and expansions of legal non - conforming
residential structures and uses that could be inconsistent and incompatible with existing
uses in the subject area, and with the recommended Zone Text Amendment provisions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The public health, safety and welfare
require that no further expansion of and/or the addition to a legal non - conforming
residential structure or use, be constructed within the City until the City Council adopts
adequate land use controls regulating such structures and uses.
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council finds that there is a current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare presented by the minor or major
structural alteration, expansion or enlargement of nonconforming residential buildings
and uses pursuant to Subsections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 28 -2407A of the Code of the City
of Seal Beach. In the absence of immediate effectiveness, the approval of minor plan
reviews or conditional use permits for the major structural alteration, expansion or
Nonoonfomung Expansion Interim Ord.Exteasion 2 2
Ordinance No.
Interim Ordinance re: Expansions to Non - Conforming Residential Structures
February 23, 2004
enlargement of nonconforming residential buildings and uses will result in a threat to the
public welfare. Due to the foregoing circumstances, it is necessary for the preservation of
the public health, safety and welfare that this Ordinance take effect immediately.
Section 3. Notwithstanding any other ordinance or provision of the Seal
Beach City Code, no application for a minor plan review or conditional use permit for the
minor or major structural alteration, enlargement or expansion, as those terms are used in
Subsections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 28 -2407 of the City Code, of a residential building or
use in the' City shall be approved during the term of this Ordinance or any extensions
thereto. The City of Seal Beach hereby prohibits any such addition or expansion that
may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal
that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering
or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure for
preservation of public health, safety and welfare and shall take effect immediately and
shall remain in effect until March 26, 2005, unless it is repealed by this City Council
prior to March 26, 2005.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be adopted by four -fifths (4/5) vote of the
City Council and shall be effective immediately upon such vote.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
Section 7. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a
misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000) or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed six (6) months, or by.both such
fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a
separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any
violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to
abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law.
Section 8. Severabilitv. If any part or provision of this Ordinance, or the
application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the
Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or
circumstances, shall not be effected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this
end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal
Beac at a meeting thereof held on the e jLk day of
2004.
Nonconforming Expa ioa Interim OrdEXtenslon 2
Ordinance No.
Interim Ordinance re: Expansions to Nan - Conforming Residential Structures
February 23, 2004
AZIC CL 0)
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Joanne M. Yen, City Clerk of the City of Sea] Beach, California, do by certify that
the foregoing ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number /F on file in
the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Seal Beach, pursuant to the City Charter and Government de Section 65858, at a
meeting held on the _ i ?:.d2 day of 2004
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number Z" has been published
p t to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836.
7 a
ley Clerk
Nowoofonning Expansion Interim OId.Ex[ ion 2