Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem S -) August 14,2000 1)1) 41(/r STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Dan Dorsey, Acting City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg,Director of Development Services Subject: PUBLIC HEARING -- APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 00-3, A REQUEST TO PERMIT AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 237 SQUARE FEET TO A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING BUILDING AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SEAL BEACH SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, thereby denying the request to allow an addition of approximately 237 square feet to a legal non-conforming building at 220 Seventh Street. 2) Sustain the appeal, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing the proposed 237 square feet addition to a legal non-conforming building. 3) Sustain the appeal, thereby reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and allowing the proposed 237 square feet addition to a legal non-conforming building in accordance with terms and conditions other than those requested of the appellant. Staff has prepared as Attachment 1, a resolution of the City Council sustaining the determination of the Planning Commission. If the City Council determines to adopt option 1 after conducting the public hearing,it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. AGENDA ITEM C:\My Documents\VARIANCE\VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report.doc\LW\08-01-00 Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 If the City Council determines to adopt option 2, as recommended by the Department of Development Services to the Planning Commission, Staff has prepared as Attachment 2, a resolution of the City Council reversing the determination of the Planning Commission, and granting the variance as recommended to the Planning Commission by the Department of Development Services. If the City Council determines to grant the appeal, and impose conditions not recommended by the Department of Development Services, it is appropriate to return the resolution to Staff for modification, if the amendments are substantial and can not be incorporated into the prepared resolution language. BACKGROUND: On May 17 and June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the above referenced application for Variance 00-3. After receiving all testimony at the public hearing and deliberation among the members of the Commission, it was the determination of the Planning Commission to deny the application on a 4-0-1 vote, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-14. Commissioner Sharp abstained as he did not participate in the public hearings regarding this application. The appellant is requesting the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and to allow the proposed addition of approximately 237 square feet to a legal non-conforming building. An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by Michael Harding in a timely manner, and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. FACTS: IN The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 17 and June 14, 2000 to consider Variance 00-3. Evidence was submitted for and against the project. At the public hearing the applicant and other persons spoke in favor of the request with persons appearing in opposition. • After receiving all public testimony on June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission determined to deny the requested variance without prejudice, on a 4-0 vote. At that time the Planning Commission had only 4 members, and Mr. Larson had been seated on the City Council and not made an appointment to fill his previous seat on the Planning Commission. This decision was not final,as a resolution of denial was not available at the June 14th meeting. 2 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ■ Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-14, adopted by the Commission on July 19, 2000, set forth the findings and determination of the Commission regarding these matters. The resolution was adopted on a 4-0-1 vote of the Commission. Commissioner Sharp abstained as he as he did not participate in the public hearings regarding this application. • An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed by Michael Harding on July 21, 2000,and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF CONCERN OF APPEAL: As previously indicated, the appellant is requesting the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and allow the proposed addition of approximately 237 square feet to a legal non-conforming building. The Planning Commission devoted a substantial amount of time during their deliberations on this application. Please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes of May 17 and June 14,2000. For the purposes of this report, the following issue of concern as set forth in the appeal (Refer to Attachment 2)will be discussed: A. The appeal states "Section 5(a). The proposed extension will not result in intensification of use. No new rooms will be added, it will remain a 2 bedroom structure. The extension will merely enlarge existing bedrooms and provide for a larger bathroom to enable mobility impaired occupants easier access to facilities. The benefits to subsequent owners would not include intensification of use. As the extension would be built on ground within the property line and at the rear of the existing structure(out of sight from the street) there are no long term adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Bed & Breakfast establishment in the 7th Street area will have adverse impacts. We understand this has already been approved by the Planning Commission." Staff Comment: The appellant is stating his opinion of the impact of the proposed project. The Planning differed in its position regarding the intensification of use issue, and determined the project would have an adverse impact. This is an issue of interpretation of the comments made at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff refers 3 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 the City Council to the Minutes of the Planning Commission (See Attachments F and H, respectively) B. The appeal states "Section 5(b). It is impossible to modify the existing building to accommodate the handicapped in reasonable comfort without the extension. The bedrooms and bathroom are too small (one bedroom is approximately 6ft x 5ft — not large enough to take a standard double bed). The other bedroom is approximately 8ft x loft. We invite the council to view the premises." Staff Comment: Refer to Staff Comment 1. C. The appeal states"There is no intensification of use. See Section 5(a)above." Staff Comment: Refer to Staff Comment 1. D. The appeal states "There are no encroachment issue or variances. We have adequate side yards under the current code." Staff Comment: A variance is necessary to allow the requested addition to the front residential structure to proceed. The variance is required pursuant to Section 28- 2407.2.h.2 due to the fact there are 3 residential units on the subject property, and only 2 parking spaces. If 1 parking space per unit were provided on the property, an addition of 144 square feet would be permitted by approval of a "Minor Plan Review". In this, case, even if there were 3 parking spaces provided, the requested size of the proposed addition would require a variance approval. Although not affected by the proposed project, the rear structure on the property has a legal non-conforming setback of 3 feet, 3'-9" would be required in accordance with current zoning setback standards. E. The appeal states "The request will provide roughly 200 square feet when the code allows 188 square feet or less under the current minor plan approval." Staff Comment: Please refer to Staff Comment D. F. The appeal states "We have spent approximately $56,000 in remodeling this structure and expect to make another $40,000. There will never be more than the two current residents residing in this structure." 4 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 Staff Comment: This statement may be considered by the City Council in deliberating this matter. G. The appeal states "Our family has resided in Seal Beach since 1964. We intend to make this our permanent home,but need the accommodation to do so." Staff Comment: A major portion of the discussion at the Planning Commission was the "reasonable accommodation" and "reasonable modification" requirements of the U.S. Fair Housing Act. As indicated in the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 17, 2000, page 7, after discussion on pages 4 through 7: "In considering this request in light of the above discussion relating to "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation", it is the opinion of staff the subject request is in conformance with those standards of the Fair Housing Act, and should be approved pursuant to the provisions of that Act. In the opinion of staff, the subject request meets the "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" standards of the Fair Housing Act, and in addition: o the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals; o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city; and o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of it city's land use controls." The Planning Commission considered the applicability of the Fair Housing Act, and determined to deny this application without prejudice, and further recommended the City Council authorize staff to review the issue of reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act to assist in developing guidelines to accommodate these requirements. (Planning Commission Minutes,June 14, 2000, page 20) H. The appeal states"We respectfully request that the denial be reconsidered"." Staff Comment: No comment required. 5 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS: Under Code Section 28-2502,all variance requests must be evaluated in light of three issues: "(1) Such variance shall not adversely affect the general plan; (2) Because the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone; (3) The granting of such variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone." In these three areas the Planning Commission adopted the following findings, through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No.00-14: "Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Variance 00-3 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which permits residential uses on the subject property. Although the subject property is legal non-conforming, the proposed addition will result in an intensification of use above the present situation of three residential units existing on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units. While the purpose of the variance is to accommodate a physically handicapped occupant, the proposed addition is of a permanent character and would also benefit subsequent owners of the subject property. Such permanent intensification would have long-term adverse impacts upon adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood. 6 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14, 2000 (b) There are not special circumstances applicable to the subject property that, as a result of strict application of the zoning ordinance, deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The purpose of the proposed addition is to accommodate a physically handicapped occupant. This purpose can be met by modifying the interior of the existing structure and does not require expansion of the building. (c) The granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties within the same vicinity and zone. Approval of the variance would undermine the fundamental purpose of the City's land use controls by allowing a permanent • intensification of use above the present situation of three residential units on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units." CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS RE: APPEAL: Once all testimony and evidence has been received by the City Council, it is appropriate for the Council to make a final determination regarding these matters. After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, thereby denying the request to allow an addition of approximately 237 square feet to a legal non-conforming building at 220 Seventh Street. 2) Sustain the appeal of Michael Harding, reversing the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with the request of the appellant to allow the requested addition of approximately 237 square feet to a legal non-conforming building. 3) Sustain the appeal of Michael Harding, reversing the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with terms and conditions other than those requested of the appellant regarding the proposed 237 square foot addition to a legal non-conforming building. 7 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 Staff has prepared as Attachment 1, a resolution of the City Council sustaining the determination of the Planning Commission. if the City Council determines to adopt option (1) after conducting the public hearing,it would be appropriate to adopt that resolution. If the City Council determines to adopt option 2, as recommended by the Department of Development Services to the Planning Commission, Staff has prepared as Attachment 2,a resolution of the City Council reversing the determination of the Planning Commission, and granting the variance as recommended to the Planning Commission by the Department of Development Services. If the City Council determines to grant the appeal, and impose conditions not recommended by the Department of Development Services, it is appropriate to return the resolution to Staff for modification, if the amendments are substantial and can not be incorporated into the prepared resolution language. NOTED AND APPROVED , IP ,,,,, ./Ay ' ./,,, Whittenberg,Director Dan Dorsey Development Services Department Acting City Manager Attachments: (8) ATTACHMENT A: Proposed City Council Resolution Number , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Sustaining the Planning Commission Denial of Variance No. 00-3, a Request to Permit the Addition of 237 Square Feet to an Existing Single-Family Residence Located on a Non-Conforming Residential Property at 220 Seventh Street ATTACHMENT B: Proposed City Council Resolution No. , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, Sustaining the Appeal of Michael Harding, Approving Variance 00-3, Permitting the Addition of 237 Square Feet to an Existing Single-Family Residence Located on a Non- 8 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 Conforming Residential Property at 220 Seventh Street, Seal Beach ATTACHMENT C: Appeal by Michael Harding,received July 21, 2000 ATTACHMENT D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-14 ATTACHMENT E: Planning Commission Minutes of July 19,2000 ATTACHMENT F: Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2000 ATTACHMENT G: Planning Commission Staff Report of June 14, 2000, with Attachments 1 through 5 ATTACHMENT H: Planning Commission Minutes of May 17,2000 * * * * 9 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 00-3, A REQUEST TO PERMIT THE ADDITION OF 237 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET 10 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 RESOLUTION NUMBER A • :SOLUTION OF THE CITY CO CIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SU` AINING THE PLA ' G COMMISSION DENI •. OF VARIANCE NO. 00-3, A REQUEST TO PE' T THE ADDITION OF 237 S* ARE FEET TO • EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY ' .SIDENCE LO • TED ON A NON- CONFORMIN k RESIDENT • PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH ST' T P1/40 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND FI : Section 1. On April 5, 2'10, Meg i ttlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Vari. e 00-3. The .pplicants seek to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 squar, feet) to the rear o an existing single family residence. Section 2. Pursuant o 14 Calif. Code of Reg § 15025(a) and § 11.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staf as determined as follows: 4,e application for Variance No. 00-3 is categorically exempt fro review pursuant to the Cali irnia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. C•• of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Altera 'ons in Land Use Limitations) because the request is fo' a minor alteration in land use limitatio in an area with an average slope of less than 20% .nd no changes in land use or density are i olved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3),because i can be seen with certainty that there is no possib. sty that the project may have a significant eff, t on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Plann.I: Commission on May 17, 2000 and continued to June 14, 2000, to consider Variance 00-3. • t the public hearing the Plan ng Commission received written and oral testimony. Section '. The record of the hearings on May 17 and June 14, 2000, and the Pl. •Hing Commission a,tion of July 19, 2000, indicate the following: 11 ti VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 (a) On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicants seek to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. (b) The applicants request a variance from the following section of the Code of the City of Seal Beach: o Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. (c) The subject property is legally described as: Lots 18 (the north 12.5 feet thereof) and all of Lot 20 in Block 107 of Tract Bay City, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map recorded in Book 2, Page 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. RR iFgt (d) The subject property iD . eet by 117.5 feet in area, comprising g approximately 4,406.25 square feet of land area. (e) The subject property is non-conforming due to density, parking, and existing building setbacks. The property is large enough to provide two residential structures under current development standards of the city; three residential units currently exist. A total of six parking spaces would be required currently for a total of three housing units on the property. The existing two-story garage and apartment structure at the rear of the property would be required to have side yard setbacks of 3'-9", and 3' is provided along the southerly property line. No structural additions or modifications are proposed to the existing two-story garage and apartment structure at the rear of the property. (f) Due to the existing age of the structures, 1947 and 1949, the current development standards of the City are not complied with. (g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH,EAST&WEST: Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD)zone SOUTH-EAST: City Hall in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone 12 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 (h) At the public hearing the applicants spoke in favor of the request and persons spoke in opposition to the request. (i) The Planning Commission determined on June 14, 2000, to deny the requested variance, without prejudice, and requested staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption by the Planning Commission. (j) On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-14, denying the requested variance without prejudice on a 4-0 vote. Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Variance 00-3 was timely filed. On August 14, 2000 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and written testimony and evidence presented at the time of the public hearing, including the staff reports. Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 and 5 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds as follows:a Variance 00-3 is inconsistrft)gAF-f the rovisions of the Land Use Element OP of the City's General Plan, which permits residential uses on the subject property. Although the subject property is legal non-conforming, the proposed addition will result in an intensification of use above the present situation of three residential units existing on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units. While the purpose of the variance is to accommodate a physically handicapped occupant, the proposed addition is of a permanent character and would also benefit subsequent owners of the subject property. Such permanent intensification would have long- term adverse impacts upon adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood. (b) There are not special circumstances applicable to the subject property that, as a result of strict application of the zoning ordinance, deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The purpose of the proposed addition is to accommodate a physically handicapped occupant. This purpose can be met by modifying the interior of the existing structure and does not require expansion of the building. (c) The granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties within the same vicinity and zone. Approval of the variance would undermine the fundamental purpose of the City's land use 13 VAR 00.3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 controls by allowing a permanent intensification of use above the present situation of three residential units on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council denies Variance No. 00-3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers �� DgP ABSENT: Councilmembers MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,2000. City Clerk 14 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT B PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL HARDING, APPROVING VARIANCE 00-3, PERMITTING THE ADDITION OF 237 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SEAL BEACH 15 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SEAL BEACH, SUSTAINING THE APP • L OF MICHAEL HARDING, APPROVING VARI • CE 00-3, PERMITTING THE ADDITION O. 237 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE— rAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON—CO . •RMING RESIDENTI • PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SE • BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE CITY OF SE • BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AN I FIND: ., isifT Section 1. On April 5, 211 c, MegLille-eld and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 1,'-3. The .,•plicants seek to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) t. the rear of an existing single family residence. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. •od= of Regs. § 15025(a) and § 11.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined . . follows: The application for Variance No. 00-3 is categorically exempt from review pursua,' to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15 15 , inor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteratio in 1. • use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in and use ,r density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with c, ainty that ere is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environm- t. Section 3. A duly noticed p •lic hearing was h, d before the Planning Commission on May 17, 2000, and continued to J ne 14, 2000, to cons •er Variance 00-3. At the public hearing the Planning Commission rec- ved written and oral tes ony. Section 4. The record of e hearings on May 17 and Ju,e 14, 2000, and the Planning Commission action of July 19, 2000, indicate the following: 16 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 (a) On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicants seek to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. (c) The applicants request a variance from the following section of the Code of the City of Seal Beach: 0 Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. (c) The subject property is legally described as: Lots 18 (the north 12.5 feet thereof) and all of Lot 20 in Block 107 of Tract Bay City, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map recorded in Book 2, Page 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. (h) The subject property is 37.5 feet by 117.5 feet in area, comprising approximately 4,406.25 square feet of land area. D A Oi The subject property is non �n due to density, parking, and existing building setbacks. The property is large enough to provide two residential structures under current development standards of the city; three residential units currently exist. A total of six parking spaces would be required currently for a total of three housing units on the property. The existing two-story garage and apartment structure at the rear of the property would be required to have side yard setbacks of 3'-9", and 3' is provided along the southerly property line. No structural additions or modifications are proposed to the existing two-story garage and apartment structure at the rear of the property. (j) Due to the existing age of the structures, 1947 and 1949, the current development standards of the City are not complied with. (k) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH,EAST&WEST: Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH-EAST: City Hall in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone 17 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 (k) At the public hearing the applicants spoke in favor of the request and persons spoke in opposition to the request. (1) The Planning Commission determined on June 14, 2000, to deny the requested variance, without prejudice, and requested staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption by the Planning Commission. (m) On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-14, denying the requested variance without prejudice on a 4-0 vote. Section 5. An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Variance 00-3 was timely filed. On August 14, 2000 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. The Council considered all oral and written testimony and evidence presented at the time of the public hearing, including the staff reports. Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 and 5 of this resolution and pursuant to §§ 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds as follows: DR cFT (a) Variance 00-3 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which permits residential uses on the subject property. Although this property is legal non-conforming due to previously permitted development in 1947 and 1949, the proposed project will maintain the existing number of residences and parking upon the subject property. The requested variance will not result in an additional intensification of use above the present non-conforming situation of three residential units existing on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units, resulting in non-conformance with current development standards of the City. The requested additions are to provide reasonable accommodation in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. (b) The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (c) There are special related circumstances, which, through the strict application of this Chapter, would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the variance request will provide "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" to the proposed occupant's of the 18 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 existing single-story residential structure, one of which is physically handicapped. The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA) has as one of its principal aims the prevention of"discrimination"against persons with "handicaps" in the use and enjoyment of a"dwelling." (d) The granting of this variance would not be the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject request meets the "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" standards of the Fair Housing Act, and in addition: o the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals; o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city; and o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of it city's land use controls. �F� Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the CiPRA nereb sustains the appeal of g 8� � Y Michael Harding, reverses the decision of the Planning Commission, and approves Variance 00- 3, subject to the following conditions: 1. Variance 00-3 is approved for the construction of a 9-foot by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. o The proposed addition will expand the size of two existing bedrooms within the existing single family residence from approximately 100 and 157.5 square feet, to approximately 189 and 262.5 square feet, respectively. o An additional bathroom of approximately 48 square feet would be provided for the larger new bedroom. o The size of the existing single-story residence would be increased from approximately 870 square feet to approximately 1,106 square feet. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Variance 00-3. 3. This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10)day appeal period has elapsed. 19 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers MAYOR ATTEST: DROIT CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ,2000. City Clerk 20 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT C APPEAL BY MICHAEL HARDING, RECEIVED JULY 21, 2000 21 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL For Office Use Only Planning Commission Date: Planning Commission Resolution No.: Planning Commission Action: Approval Denial Other Date Appeal Filed: City Council Date: Notice Date: City Council Action: Resolution No.: �v 1. Property Address: -77r1 eE,E i =r 1))/-, 2. Applicant's Name: �Li�Git4 L �//U / /%4.9 Address: 4 Cetluv PYA ,9 Home Phone: (56).)) .5'? - h^g.3 -5 Work Phone: (S72) 548- d��'3. FAX: (SL) /L3I - 7e-SIC 3. Property Owner's Name: M/C,y ,1 /A14, Address: 4-1-)1 Home Phone: (p2) jN -e- 4. -4. The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach Planning Commission concerning Plan Review No. j/ /NA/,;,E 0G-.5 Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and include your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error. ///7.d -^ / , (Signature of Applicant) (Signature of Owner) (Print Name) (Print Name) ( L Y C71L4 Y� C (Date) (Date) Page 27 Rey.2/DO RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 VARIANCE 00-3, 220 7'" STREET DENIAL OF VARIANCE—APPEAL In justification of our request,replies to paragraph 5 of the resolution(dated July 19,2000)are set out below. Section 5 (a). The proposed extension will not result in intensification of use. No new rooms will be added, it will remain a 2 bedroom structure.The extension will merely enlarge existing bedrooms and provide for a larger bathroom to enable mobility impaired occupants easier access to facilities. The benefit to subsequent owners would not include intensification of use. As the extension would be built on ground within the property line and at the rear of the existing structure(out of sight from the street)there are no long term adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Bed& Breakfast establishment in the 7th Street area will have an adverse impact. We understand this has already been approved by the Planning Commission. Section 5 (b). It is impossible to modify the existing building to accommodate the handicapped in reasonable comfort without the extension. The bedrooms and bathroom are too small(one bedroom is approx 6ftx5ft-not large enough to take a standard double bed). The other bedroom is approximately 8ftxl0ft. We invite the council to view the premises. Section 5 (c). There is no intensification of use. See Section 5 (a)above. There are no encroachment issue or variances. We have adequate side yard setbacks under the current code. This request will provide roughly 200 square feet when the code allows 188 square feet or less under the current minor plan approval. We have spent approximately$56,000 in remodeling this structure and expect to spend another$40,000. There will never be more than the two current residents residing in this structure. Our family has resided in Seal Beach since 1964. We intend to make this our permanent home, but need the accommodation to do so. We respectfully request that the denial be reconsidered. Michael Harding (562)799-8854 I. f 5` f 1 ink t M `� •4 • • we �•;.:#6,,...,,.. b!'"b. ,`�I � �" ,..744.-,,,,,..744.-,,,, iw '� ♦ i't �, ..e.) -ate* 3 •i oie Ali 1:18 1. r 7 7'4 J ate, 7 S- lip 4 Ail( OS8 \i„ lib' - ., f 61176€6V6I-Al WWW ca 0 7`` 1; Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT D PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 22 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING VARIANCE 00-3, NOT PERMITTING THE ADDITION OF 237 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicants seek to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § 11.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Variance No. 00-3 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May 17, 2000, and continued to June 14, 2000, to consider Variance 00- 3. At the public hearing the Planning Commission received written and oral testimony. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicants seek to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. (b) The applicants request a variance from the following section of the Code of the City of Seal Beach: C:\My Documents\RESO\Variance 00-3.PC Reso.doc\LW\06-27-00 Planning Coi....tission Resolution No. 00-14 Variance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street July 19, 2000 o Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. (c) The subject property is legally described as: Lots 18 (the north 12.5 feet thereof) and all of Lot 20 in Block 107 of Tract Bay City, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map recorded in Book 2, Page 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. (d) The subject property is 37.5 feet by 117.5 feet in area, comprising approximately 4,406.25 square feet of land area. (e) The subject property is non-conforming due to density, parking, and existing building setbacks. The property is large enough to provide two residential structures under current development standards of the city; three residential units currently exist. A total of six parking spaces would be required currently for a total of three housing units on the property. The existing two-story garage and apartment structure at the rear of the property would be required to have side yard setbacks of 3'-9", and 3' is provided along the southerly property line. No structural additions or modifications are proposed to the existing two-story garage and apartment structure at the rear of the property. (f) Due to the existing age of the structures, 1947 and 1949, the current development standards of the City are not complied with. (g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST: Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH-EAST: City Hall in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone (h) As of June 2, 2000, staff has received no response, written or other, to its mailed notice regarding Variance 00-3. (i) At the public hearing the applicants spoke in favor of the request and persons spoke in opposition to the request. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Variance 00-3 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which permits residential uses on the subject property. Although the subject property is legal non-conforming, the proposed addition Variance 00-3.PC Reso 2 Planning Cw,.,nission Resolution No. 00-14 Variance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street July 19, 2000 will result in an intensification of use above the present situation of three residential units existing on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units. While the purpose of the variance is to accommodate a physically handicapped occupant, the proposed addition is of a permanent character and would also benefit subsequent owners of the subject property. Such permanent intensification would have long-term adverse impacts upon adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood. (b) There are not special circumstances applicable to the subject property that, as a result of strict application of the zoning ordinance, deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The purpose of the proposed addition is to accommodate a physically handicapped occupant. This purpose can be met by modifying the interior of the existing structure and does not require expansion of the building. (c) The granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties within the same vicinity and zone. Approval of the variance would undermine the fundamental purpose of the City's land use controls by allowing a permanent intensification of use above the present situation of three residential units on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 00-3 without prejudice. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 19th day of July ,2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Brown, Cutul i , Hood, and Lyon NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Sharp David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman, Planning Commissi Variance 00-3.PC Reso 3 Planning Co,—nission Resc.l.ition No. 00-14 Variance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street July 19, 2000 1()/. , e Whittenberg, Secretary7 Planning Commission Variance 00-3.PC Reso 4 Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2000 23 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2000 1 NOES: None 2 ABSENT: None 3 ABSTAIN: Sharp 4 5 6 SCHEDULED MATTERS 7 8 4. Adopt Resolution No. 00-14 for Variance 00-3, 220 7th Street 9 (Denied without prejudice at Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2000.) 10 11 Mr. Whittenberg reported that Resolution 00-14 had been reviewed by the City 12 Attorney's office and was now ready for adoption. Chairperson Hood indicated that 13 Commissioner Sharp would abstain from voting on this resolution, as he had not yet 14 begun his attendance at Planning Commission meetings. 15 16 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to Adopt Resolution 00-14 as presented. 17 18 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 — 1 19 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon 20 NOES: None 21 ABSENT: None 22 ABSTAIN: Sharp c 23 24 pit 25 PUBLIC HEARINGS 26 27 Conditional Use Permit 00-3 (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of 28 615 Ocean Avenue June 14, 2000) 29 30 Applicant/Owner: Patrick Cronin 31 Request: To create tandem parking and add 853 square feet to an 32 existing house. 33 34 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 35 00-20. 36 37 Staff Report 38 39 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 40 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 41 stated that the property is nonconforming due to density, as it is zoned for one unit 42 only and has two units on the property. He stated that Section 28-2407 allows for 43 one-time major expansions to nonconforming buildings. Mr. Cummins noted that at 44 the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission had asked Staff if any 45 similar applications had been presented to the Planning Commission and approved. 46 He said that research by Staff disclosed a few such applications. He stated that the 47 most similar was for a property at 236 - 5th Street where a major addition of 615 3 Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2000 24 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report City ,eal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000 1 2. Change Condition 3 to read "an attendant will be on site during all 2 days in which the valet is holding keys for paid parking." 3 4 3. Change Condition 5 to read "the maximum number of paid parking 5 spaces shall be nineteen, of which no more than 3 parking spaces 6 shall be within the center aisle." 7 8 4. Leave Condition 10, which provides for a 12-month review. 9 10 11 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-5 and 12 adopt Resolution 00-24 as amended. 13 14 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 15 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon 16 NOES: None 17 ABSENT: None 18 19 Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-24 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 7. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 25 770 Pacific Coast Highway (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of 26 May 17, 2000) 27 28 Applicant/Owner: Tom Lao, TI Planning 29 Request: To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in 30 restaurant currently resides. 31 32 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 33 00-18. 34 35 This item is to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 36 2000. 37 38 39 8. Variance 00-3 40 220 Seventh St. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 41 2000) 42 43 Applicant/Owner: Meg Littlefield, Michael and Deborah Harding 44 Request: To add approximately 237 square feet to a legal non- 45 conforming residence. The applicant is requesting to add 46 to a building on a property that has three units and two off- 15 C: 'f Seal B tanning Commission Meeting ;. :. _:tes of June 14,2000 1 2 � street parking spaces. A variance is also requested to allow the addition to follow an existing 3-foot, non- 3 conforming side yard setback on the south property line. 4 5 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 6 00-14. 7 8 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was a continued item from the Planning Commission 9 meeting of May 17, 2000. He reported that the Commission had requested 10 additional information related to "reasonable accommodation" from Staff and from 11 the City Attorney. He referred to Attachment 3 of the Staff Report, a memorandum 12 prepared by the City Attorney regarding the FHA reasonable accommodation 13 requirements, and to Attachment 2, a letter from the applicant indicating that they 14 would be willing to offset the wall, if necessary to meet the setback requirement. Mr. 15 Whittenberg reported that the architect measurements on the plans submitted reflect 16 an incorrect dimension for the side yard setback for the front house. He stated that 17 the actual side yard setback is 3 feet 9 inches, and this meets the setback 18 requirements. He reported that Staff had visited the property to verify this. He said 19 that the only variance under this application would be for the expansion of the 20 bedroom area and construction of the additional bathroom at the rear of the 21 ' property. He stated that the Variance that was advertised for the side yard setback 22 + is no longer necessary. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff was still recommending 23 approval of Variance 00-3 under the reasonable accommodation standard of the Fair 24', Housing Act (FHA) and that the Planning Commission forward an additional 25 recommendation to the City Council to authorize Staff and the City Attorney's office 26 to further research the issue of reasonable accommodation to attempt to develop 27 specific standards and guidelines for future applications of this kind. 28 29 Commissioner Questions 30 31 Commissioner Cutuli requested confirmation that Staff's was proposing that the 32 Planning Commission recommend to City Council that further research into 33 reasonable accommodation be completed in order to develop guidelines on this 34 issue. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that Staff would like to propose that this 35 recommendation be made to City Council. 36 37 Commissioner Lyon asked why this matter had come up. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed 38 the history of this application and clarified that the need for the Variance was due to 14 39 a lack of adequate parking to allow for expansion of the structure to accommodate 40 the proposed occupants for the second unit on this property. 41 4 Public Hearing 4 Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. 41 The applicant elected not to speak at this time. 16 City peal Beach Planning Commission .Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000 1 Ms. Sue Corbin read from the FHA, Section 21.25.1311D as follows: "requires that 2 a finding be analyzed, made, and adopted that the requested accommodation will 3 not require a fundamental alteration of the zoning or building laws, policies, and/or 4 procedures of the city." She stated that this Variance is in violation of the FHA and 5 that Staff has not done enough research on this issue. She said that we all have 6 certain disabilities and that being elderly is not necessarily a disability. She said that 7 if they need more parking they can paint a blue strip on the front curb designating 8 this as handicapped parking. She noted that being allowed to construct larger 9 accommodations due to being elderly is not the intent of the law that allows 10 reasonable accommodation for the disabled. Ms. Corbin stated that she did not 11 understand why an additional 100 square feet was being allowed when there is 12 nothing unique about the property to require this. She stated that all of the residents 13 of Leisure World are elderly and no variance is being approved to allow them to 14 expand their living accommodations. She emphasized that the FHA does not allow 15 for this. She stated that although the applicant's attorney was a very nice person, he 16 had not thoroughly researched the matter of reasonable accommodation. Ms. 17 Corbin commented that Staff was "placing the cart before the horse" by seeking 18 approval of Variance 00-3 and subsequently encouraging the Planning Commission 19 to make a recommendation to City Council to establish guidelines for future 20 applications of this kind. 21 22 Commissioner Brown inquired about the document from which Ms. Corbin had read. 23 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this information is referenced in a letter of opposition 24 from Stephen Reg Clewley received on June 14, 2000 by Staff. He stated that a copy had been provided to members of the Commission in which Mr. Clewley refers 26 to Section 21.25.1311(D) of the FHA. 27 28 Ms. Meg Littlefield stated that she was present to speak on behalf of her parents 29 who were not present tonight as "quite frankly they were very embarrassed by airing 30 their personal problems the last time." She stated that apparently Ms. Corbin had 31 not been present at the last meeting and did not see the video. She said that the 32 variance was not being requested because her parents were "old," but because her 33 65-year-old mother has severe arthritis and must use a walker most of the time. Ms. 34 Littlefield reiterated that the request was to add a bathroom to the back of the house 35 and make the bedroom a little larger for access to that bathroom. She said that they 36 did not seek to profit from this, but were simply attempting to make it easier for a 37 disabled person to access the bathroom. She said that she was sorry to hear that 38 the City did not have a policy regarding reasonable accommodation, as there should 39 be special accommodations for people with disabilities. She emphasized that the 40 request was not being made because her parents are elderly, but because they 41 need special assistance. She said that basically the house is a one bedroom as the 42 second bedroom is not even big enough to accommodate a closet. Ms. Littlefield 43 stated that the neighbors on both sides of the property are in favor of this addition. 44 She said that her parents would be spending approximately $75,000 to upgrade the 45 property, including landscaping. She said that they have only one car, while the 46 previous owner had 2 cars. She noted that they would be occupying the house only 17 Cit.'of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2000 • 1 on weekends for approximately 3 years until they retire, at which point they will still 2 have one car. She stated that this would not impact the parking requirements. 3 4 Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. 5 6 Commissioner Comments 7 8 Commissioner Brown stated that he would vote against Variance 00-3, because 9 regardless of what the applicants were adding, there were no findings for this 10 variance. He stated that the only way that Staff could make these findings was 11 through the FHA. He said that although the Commission had requested a definition 12 of reasonable accommodation from the City Attorney's office, all that was provided 13 were a bunch of cases which go each way. He stated that what he has in mind 14 when he thinks of reasonable accommodation are the types of things to 15 accommodate handicapped individuals. He stated that expanding a bathroom to 16 create an ADA accessible bathroom, or allowing expansion of driveways 17 encroaching onto setbacks to accommodate a handicapped vehicle or for wheelchair 18 ramps are the types of things that could be approved. He said that applicants 19 should know the rules in advance and approval should not be based on the whim of 20 the Planning Commission or the Director of Development Services. Commissioner 21 Brown stated that the Commission could create a list of specific things that would be 22 allowed that would enable a handicapped person to have a more normal lifestyle in 23 \ terms of access to their house. He stated that Mr. Clewley's letter was correct in 24 noting that allowance of this expansion does require a fundamental alteration of the 25 zoning or building laws of the City. He said that in approving this variance, the 26 Planning Commission is saying that basically anyone stating that they have a 27 disability can then expand their home in any way they want. 28 29 Commissioner Lyon commented that the proposed changes to the home would not 30 make it practical should the property be sold and a non-handicapped party should 31 purchase the property. 32 33 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he understood the hesitancy of the Commission to grant 34 such variances for previously undefined situations. He stated that Staff's reading of 35 the FHA allowed that the Planning Commission could consider this type of 36 application. He said that Staff feels that the request is reasonable and conforms to 37 the FHA provisions. Mr. Whittenberg explained that as the City Attorney's 38 memorandum indicates, the courts have not been able to come to agreement as to 39 what may or may not be a reasonable accommodation in specific situations. He 40 noted that in many of these cases the City's position had been overturned and the 41 requirement has been to make the requested reasonable accommodation. Mr. 42 Whittenberg said that perhaps Staff was being a bit more conservative than the 43 Commission would allow, but Staff would like to prevent placing the City in the 44 position of having to face a discriminatory action by denying such a request. He 45 clarified that Staff is not of the opinion that granting a variance is not a fundamental 46 abrogation of City zoning laws. He stated that City zoning does allow for variance 18 City eal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 14,2000 1 requests under certain circumstances, and once certain findings can be made. He 2 stated that every Code that he is aware of within the State of California allows 3 variances under this type of provision. He said that Staff feels this request complies 4 with the local variance requirements of the City taken in conjunction with the 5 overlying laws of the federal government, which the City must consider when dealing 6 with areas that have not previously been dealt with. He again recommended 7 approval of Variance 00-3 and that the Planning Commission return at a later time to 8 begin to establish guidelines for reasonable accommodation. Mr. Whittenberg 9 commented that although the City of Long Beach ordinance was not definitive, he 10 did not believe that an ordinance of this type could ever be definitive. He said that 11 general areas could be set forth for specific types of applications, making it 12 unnecessary to go through a variance process. He stated that the reasonable 13 accommodation law is one that is evolving and these cases are fairly recent, and we 14 can expect to see more of these types of laws in the future. 15 16 Chairperson Hood asked if the Director of Development Services would have 17 recommended that this variance be approved had there not been the need for 18 reasonable accommodation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he would not have 19 recommended approval in that case. 20 21 Chairperson Hood noted that the three options available to the Commission were: 22 23 1. To approve the variance, possibly making this appear to be a special privilege. 24 2. To deny the variance, placing the City at risk for possible litigation. 25 3. To postpone ruling on this matter until guidelines on reasonable accommodation 26 / have been established. 27 28 "". Chairperson Hood stated that he was uneasy about developing policy by precedent. 29 He stated that he would rather follow a policy that has already been determined, 30 rather than begin granting things piecemeal and then put them together in an 31 f attempt at developing a policy. He said that he was in favor of having the applicant 32 wait until the Commission makes recommendation to City Council to act quickly in 33 developing an ADA policy. Mr. Whittenberg commented that the time frame for 34 completion of this policy was uncertain, and part of the reason would be whether or 35 not the reasonable accommodation provisions that the City might adopt are placed '36 into the Zoning Ordinance. He continued by stating that if they are placed into the 37 Zoning Ordinance, formal public hearings before the Planning Commission and the 38 City Council must be held. He stated that even after approval by City Council, there 39 is a 90-day waiting period before the ordinance would take effect. He projected that 40 altogether this would take approximately 6 months before any certainty of what the 41 City's position would be, plus the 90-day waiting period. He continued that if the 42 provisions were adopted outside the Zoning Ordinance, the process would be 43 shorter, but he was not sure that City Council would be comfortable in dealing with 44 the issue without input from the Planning Commission. Chairperson Hood asked 45 what the timeline would be were the Planning Commission to deny the variance and 46 if the applicant were to file a lawsuit against the City. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he 19 Cit"of., ;Beach Planning Co•nmission tot.,,;ing Minutes of June 14, 2000 1 was not sure. Mr. Boga stated that if Variance 00-3 were denied, the applicant 2 would have to go through the appeal process before the City Council. If the Council 3 were to deny the appeal, the applicant could then challenge the denial in superior 4 court after a 90-day appeal period, and the speed of this process would depend 5 upon the court calendar. Chairperson Hood confirmed that in denying the Variance 6 the Planning Commission would not create an undue delay in the process, as 7 compared to filing a lawsuit. Mr. Boga cautioned that the Commission needed to be 8 aware of compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act, which imposes time limits on 9 decisions on permits that if not approved by a certain time limit, gain approval by 10 default. 11 1 12 Commissioner Brown stated that he did not believe that any of the types of 13 reasonable accommodation that the Commission would endorse would include 14 expansion of a structure for the reasons given by the applicant. He reiterated that 15 he believed reasonable accommodation refers to enabling someone to access their 16 ' property in terms of a wheelchair ramp, wider doorways, etc. He said he would vote 17 to deny without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to return at a later time. 18 Mr. Boga interjected that if the variance is denied without prejudice the applicant 19 could return when the application has been substantially changed or whenever City 20 Council has adopted a policy on reasonable accommodation. Commissioner Brown 21 stated that he would be happy to do this. 22 23 MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to deny Variance 00-3 without prejudice. 24 25 MOTION CARRIED: 4— 0 26 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon 1 27 NOES: None 28 ABSENT: None 29 30 Mr. Whittenberg advised that denial of Variance 00-3 would require that Staff return 31 with a revised Resolution setting forth the determination of the Planning 32 Commission. Chairperson Hood asked for a motion to recommend that City Council 33 develop specific guidelines on reasonable accommodate. 34 35MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to recommend that City Council authorize 36 ' Staff to review the issue of reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act 37 to assist in developing guidelines to accommodate these requirements. 38 39 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 40 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon 41 NOES: None 42 ABSENT: None 43 44 Chairperson Hood explained the options available to the applicant regarding the 45 decision to return with this application. Mr. Boga advised that once the Resolution 46denying Variance 00-3 is adopted, this begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to I 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Jeeting Minutes of June 14,2000 1 the City Council. He explained that because the request was denied without a2 prejudice, the applicant is free to resubmit the application at any time, but he 3 recommended waiting until after the City guidelines on reasonable accommodation 4 I have been adopted. Mr. Whittenberg offered to contact the applicant to more 5 thoroughly explain the process for appeal. 6 7 Mr. Whittenberg requested that the Planning Commission recess for 5 minutes and 8 reconvene at 9:45 p.m. Chairperson Hood granted the recess. 9 10 The meeting reconvened at 9:47 p.m. 11 12 13 9. Site Plan Review 00-2 14 Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center, Area B (8.5-Acre Commercial Shopping 15 Center Site) — East side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between Northbound 405 16 Freeway off-ramp and Lampson Avenue (Continued from Planning Commission 17 meeting of May 17, 2000) 18 19 Applicant/Owner: Bixby Ranch Company 20 Request: To approve a Site Plan Review for construction of a 10,000 21 square foot retaiVoffice/commercial building. 22 23 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 4,24 00-15. 25 26 Staff Report 27 28 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in 29 the Planning Department.) He provided some background information and a visual 30 presentation on this item and explained that this Site Plan Review (SPR) involves 31 Development Area B as part of the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Project. He 32 described the area as the triangular section of the property along Seal Beach 33 Boulevard between the 1-405 Freeway off ramp and Lampson Avenue. He stated 34 that formerly there was an ARCO gas station on the property and that the current 35 application is to approve the SPR for a proposed 10,000 square foot retail bank and 36 restaurant building proposed as a part of this development. He explained that the 37 property had been approved by the City Council for the development of four major 38 land uses, two of which have already received approval from both the Planning 39 Commission and City Council. He indicated that the Marriott Senior Care Facility 40 was the first land use approved in 1999. He stated that the most recent application 41 for this area is the Ayres Group hotel development to be located directly near the 42 1-405 off ramp to Seal Beach Boulevard. He indicated that the SPR before the 43 Planning Commission tonight is for the furthest north lot along Seal Beach Boulevard 44 and is the parcel that would be located at the corner. He stated that there is an 45 intervening lot between the hotel and this property that is anticipated for up to a .46 7,500 square foot "quality restaurant." He said that Staff has conferred with the 21 Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF JUNE 14, 2000, WITH ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 5 25 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report June 14, 2000 STAFF REPORT - SUPPLEMENTAL To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: MEG LITTLEFIELD, MICHAEL AND DEBORAH HARDING Owner: MEG LITTLEFIELD, MICHAEL AND DEBORAH HARDING, ET AL Location: 220 SEVENTH STREET Classification of Property: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD) Request: To ADD APPROXIMATELY 237 SQUARE FEET TO A LEGAL NON- CONFORMING RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ADD TO A BUILDING ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS THREE UNITS AND TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES. A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE ADDITION TO FOLLOW AN EXISTING 3-FOOT, NON-CONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Code Sections: 28-801; 28-2407; 28-2500 -28-2502 Recommendation: APPROVE VARIANCE 00-3, AS CONDITIONED, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 00-14 C:\My Documents\VARIANCE\00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Streeddoc\LW10$-31-00 .once 00-3, :20 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 BACKGROUND This matter was considered by the Commission on May 17, 2000, and continued to this meeting for further discussion and consideration regarding the "Reasonable Accommodation" request, and the impact upon the variance request. As previously indicated, the applicants have submitted a request to permit variances to allow for the following construction on the subject property: to Allow a 9-foot by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. o The proposed addition will expand the size of two existing bedrooms within the existing single family residence from approximately 100 and 157.5 square feet, to approximately 189 and 262.5 square feet, respectively. o An additional bathroom of approximately 48 square feet would be provided for the larger new bedroom. o The size of the existing single-story residence would be increased from approximately 870 square feet to approximately 1,107 square feet. o Permit the proposed addition to be located within the required 10% side yard setback along the southerly property line. The proposed setback matches the existing residence setback of 3 feet, and the Code would require a 3'-9" setback. The requested variance of 9 inches is for a distance of 9 feet. Request building modification by Applicant: The applicant has submitted a letter (see Attachment 2) indicating they have redesigned the project to eliminate the requested side yard variance for the proposed addition along the southerly property line. This redesign would address one concern of the Commission regarding allowing the expanded room area to encroach into the present required side yard setback of the City. As currently proposed, the affected bedroom would be reduced from approximately 189 square feet to 182 square feet. This would reduce the overall size of the proposed addition from approximately 237 square feet to 230 square feet. "Reasonable Accommodation" requirements of the Fair Housing Act: The Planning Commission was also concerned regarding the issue of how to deal with future applications for "reasonable accommodation" in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Housing Act. Staff has provided, as requested by the Commission, a memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney regarding this issue for the information of the Commission (See Attachment 3). This memorandum provides more detailed discussion regarding the provisions of 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 2 .-lance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 In addition, staff is aware of several cities that have adopted "Reasonable Modification" or "Reasonable Accommodation" ordinances or policy statements to address issues relating to the Federal Fair Housing Act provisions. Staff would also recommend the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council authorizing additional staff research into the preparation of such an ordinance or policy statement. This action would allow the city to establish a formal framework for consideration of future "reasonable accommodation" or "reasonable modification" requests under the Fair Housing Act. e ttenberg Director of Development Se es Attachments (5): Attachment 1: Resolution No. 00-14, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Variance 00-3, Permitting the Addition of 237 Square Feet to an Existing Single-Family Residence Located on a Non-Conforming Residential Property at 220 Seventh Street, Seal Beach in Conformance with Provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act Attachment 2: Letter from Meg Littlefield to Planning Commission, dated May 25, 2000 Attachment 3: Memorandum from Assistant City Attorney to Planning Commission re: Reasonable Accommodation, dated June I, 2000 Attachment 4: Ordinance No. C-7639, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Long Beach Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by Amending Title 21 by Adding Division XIII, Sections 21.25.1301 through 21.25.1317, Relating to Reasonable Accommodation Attachment 5: Planning Commission Staff Report of May 17, 2000, with all Attachments 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 4 • rance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 the Fair Housing Act and the interpretations of those rules by several court decisions throughout the country. In addition, staff is providing a copy of Ordinance No. C-7639 from the City of Long Beach, relating to reasonable accommodation for the information of the Commission (See Attachment 4). This ordinance sets forth a purpose, establishes definitions, establishes procedures for making a reasonable accommodation request, sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Zoning Officer/Building Official, requires specific findings, establishes an appeal process, sets forth procedures for requesting reasonable accommodation relating to requests for increased occupancy of group homes, and establishes fee provisions for considering reasonable accommodation requests. In the opinion of staff, the subject request, as modified by the applicants letter request of May 25, 2000, still continues to meet the "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" standards of the Fair Housing Act. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relative testimony presented during the public hearing on Variance 00-3, approve this request as a "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act, and as modified by the applicants letter request of May 25, 2000. Staff's recommendation is based on the following: • Additional living space is requested within the existing single-story structure for the accommodation of a family with a member that is physically handicapped. • Approval of the request would not constitute a special privilege to the property owner, but would constitute "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. • There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which if approved, would not deprive the applicant of privileges that are available to other property owners in the same vicinity and zone. • The future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. • The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city. • The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of the city's land use controls. Additional Recommendation re "Reasonable Accommodation" Ordinance or Policy Statement: 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 3 variance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 00-3, PERMITTING THE ADDITION OF 230 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SEAL BEACH IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 5 —lance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 00-3, PERMITTING THE ADDITION OF 230 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SEAL BEACH IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicant is seeking to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § 11.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Variance No. 00-3 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May 17, 2000, and continued to June 14, 2000, to consider Variance 00-3. At the public hearing the Planning Commission received written and oral testimony. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicant is seeking to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. On May 25, 2000, Meg Littlefield submitted a letter indicating their intent to comply with the required side yard setbacks, resulting in an approximate 230 square foot addition. 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 6 i .ince 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 (b) The applicant is requesting variances from the following section of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, as modified in the letter request of May 25, 2000: o Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. (c) The subject property is legally described as: Lots 18 (the north 12.5 feet thereof) and all of Lot 20 in Block 107 of Tract Bay City, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map recorded in Book 2, Page 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. (d) The subject property is 37.5 feet by 117.5 feet in area, comprising approximately 4,406.25 square feet of land area. (e) The subject property is non-conforming due to density, parking, and existing building setbacks. The property is large enough to provide two residential structures under current development standards of the city; three residential units currently exist. A total of six parking spaces would be required currently for a total of three housing units on the property. The existing single-story residence would be required to have side yard setbacks of 3'-9", and 3' is provided along the southerly property line. The applicant id proposing to provide the required 3'-9" side yard setback for the proposed addition. (f) Due to the existing age of the structures, 1947 and 1949, the current development standards of the City are not complied with. (g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST: Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH-EAST: City Hall in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone (h) As of May 10, 2000, staff has received no response, written or other, to its mailed notice regarding Variance 00-3. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Variance 00-3, as modified by the Applicants request of May 25, 2000, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which permits residential uses on the subject property. Although this property is legal non-conforming due to previously permitted development in 1947 and 1949, the proposed project will maintain the 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 7 .,.riance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 existing number of residences and parking upon the subject property. The requested variance will not result in an additional intensification of use above the present non-conforming situation of three residential units existing on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units, resulting in non-conformance with current development standards of the City. The requested additions are to provide reasonable accommodation in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. (b) The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (c) There are special related circumstances, which, through the strict application of this Chapter, would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the variance request will provide "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" to the proposed occupant's of the existing single-story residential structure, one of which are physically handicapped. The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA) has as one of its principal aims the prevention of "discrimination" against persons with "handicaps" in the use and enjoyment of a "dwelling." (d) The granting of this variance would not be the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject request meets the "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" standards of the Fair Housing Act, and in addition: o the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals; o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city; and o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of it city's land use controls. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 00-3, subject to the following conditions: 1. Variance 00-3 is approved for the construction of a 9-foot by 25'-T' addition (approximately 230 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. o The proposed addition will expand the size of two existing bedrooms within the existing single family residence from approximately 100 and 157.5 square feet, to approximately 182 and 262.5 square feet, respectively. o An additional bathroom of approximately 48 square feet would be provided for the larger new bedroom. o The size of the existing single-story residence would be increased from approximately 870 square feet to approximately 1,100 square feet. 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 8 ..,-iance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 2. There shall be no openings permitted within three (3') feet of the side property lines. 3. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Variance 00-3, as modified by the Applicant's letter request of May 25, 2000. 4. This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman, Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission 00.3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 9 . jriance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 LETTER FROM MEG LITTLEFIELD TO PLANNING COMMISSION, DATED MAY 25, 2000 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 10 FROM THE DESK OF MEG LrITLEFIELD 40$ OCEAN AVENUE SEAL BEACH May 25, 2000 CRY OF SEAL BEACH Planning Commission Board MAY 3 0 2000 City Of Seal Beach DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Dear Commission Board Members: This letter is in reference to the property located at 220 7`h Street, Seal Beach. After the Planning Commission meeting last week on the square footage we need to add to the back of our parents house, we met with our contractor again to try and address the Planning Commissions concerns. He has reworked the addition so that we can comply with the set back requirements on the south side of the house. We realize that was keeping us from obtaining a permit and holding us up costing us time and money and stress for our parents. I hope that by addressing the Planning Commissions concerns on the set back requirements we can get approval and proceed. Thank you for your help. Sincerely ?or Meg ittlefield Variance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 ATTACHMENT 3 MEMORANDUM FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, DATED JUNE 1, 2000 00.3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 1 CRY Of SEAL BEACH CITY OF SEAL BEACH JUN - 5 2000 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM ; C,r7AFTMENT To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Terence R. Boga, Assistant City Attorney DATE: June 14, 2000 SUBJECT: Fair Housing Act "Reasonable Accommodation" Requirement This memorandum responds to your request for an opinion regarding the obligations imposed on the City by the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the Fair Housing Act. As explained more fully below, there is no "bright line" test for determining what actions the City must take in order to comply with the statute. Instead,whether or not a particular application of the City's ordinances would be found consistent with the "reasonable accommodation" requirement will depend upon the specific facts involved. DISCUSSION I. Summary of "Reasonable Accommodation" Requirement The Fair Housing Act ("FHA") prohibits various forms of housing-related discrimination, including discrimination based on "handicap." [42 U.S.C. § 3604.] To be deemed "handicapped" within the meaning of the statute, an individual must either: (1) have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; (2) have a record of having such an impairment; or(3) be regarded as having such an impairment. [Id. § 3602(h).] However, the term "handicap" does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. N.] The FHA broadly prohibits handicap-based discrimination. In relevant portion, the statute makes it unlawful: (1) to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of- (A) that buyer or renter; or (B) a person residing or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. S7296\0001\591346.1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH MEMORANDUM Planning Commission June 14, 2000 Page 2 (2) to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of[any person listed in (A) through (C) above]. [42 U.S.C. § 3604(0(1), (2).] The FHA's "reasonable accommodation" requirement constitutes one component of the prohibition on handicap-based discrimination. As used in the statute,the term"discrimination"includes"a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." [42 U.S.C. § 3604(0(3)(B) (emphasis added).] The term "dwelling" refers to "any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families." The term "dwelling" also encompasses "any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof." [Id. § 3602(b).] II. Court Interpretation of "Reasonable Accommodation" Requirement The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes California, recently confirmed that the FHA's "reasonable accommodation" requirement is limited to dwellings for handicapped persons. In the case of Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300 (9th Cir. 1997), the court considered the validity of Escondido's refusal to issue a building permit for construction in a single-family residence area of a complex for disabled elderly adults. As proposed, the complex would have comprised 10,360 square feet, and would have contained eight bedrooms and twelve bathrooms. The upper portion of the building was designed to house fifteen residents; the lower to serve as an adult day health care facility for disabled persons throughout the community. Ruling in favor of Escondido, the Ninth Circuit held that the developer failed to state a "reasonable accommodation"claim under the FHA. In relevant portion,the court explained: "These portions of the statute affirmatively require the City to make reasonable accommodations for handicapped residences. [I] The statute does not, however, require reasonable accommodation for health care facilities... [¶]Therefore,we find that [plaintiffs have] failed to state a claim under section 3604(0(3)(B) because the S7296\0001\591346.1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH MEMORANDUM Planning Commission June 14, 2000 Page 3 accommodation demanded is due in significant part to the adult day health care facility for which accommodation is not required under the statute." [Id. at 307 (citations omitted).] Unfortunately, there is no "bright line" test for determining what actions a municipality must take in order to comply with the FHA's "reasonable accommodation" requirement. Instead, the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that whether the application of a particular zoning ordinance is consistent with the statute depends on the specific facts involved. On this point, the court has declared: "Courts must ask whether a city's zoning satisfies[FHA]standards,or whether a city has to alter neutral zoning policies to reasonably accommodate and integrate handicapped persons. The answers will vary depending on the facts of a given case." [City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that FHA applies to zoning provision limiting maximum number of unrelated occupants of a single-family residence), aff'd sub nom. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995).] We have identified a number of cases addressing the application of the FHA's "reasonable accommodation" requirement in different contexts. In lieu of an extended recitation of the facts of these cases, we have summarized the decisions in the following table: Case Issue Result Forest City Daly Housing v. denial of special use permit denial deemed Town of No. Hempstead, and parking variance for likely to be upheld; 175 F.3d 144 (2"d Cir. 1999) "assisted living facility" in preliminary injunction commercial zone against town denied Hemisphere Building Co. denial of rezoning and denial upheld v. Village of Richton special use permit for high- Park, 171 F.3d 437 (7`h Cir. density residential project 1999) S7296\0001\591346.1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH MEMORANDUM Planning Commission June 14, 2000 Page 4 Case Issue Result Remed Recovery Care denial of variance allowing denial deemed Centers v. Tp. of Willistown, expansion of group home likely to be overturned; 36 F.Supp. 2d 676 in R-1 zone from five to preliminary injunction (E.D.Pa. 1999) eight residents against township granted Assisted Living Associates v. denial of exemption from denial and Moorestown Tp., 996 F.Supp. special sewering refusal overturned; 409 (D.N.J. 1998) requirements for "assisted preliminary injunction living facility" and refusal against township granted to include "assisted living facility" as allowable use in R-1 zone Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. denial of variance allowing denial upheld Howard County, Md., 124 F.3d expansion of group home 597 (4th Cir. 1997) from eight to fifteen residents Smith & Lee Associates v. denial of rezoning allowing denial overturned City of Taylor, Mich., "adult foster care "homes with 102 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1996) nine residents in single-family neighborhoods Hovsons, Inc. v. denial of variance for nursing denial overturned Township of Brick, home in R-R-2 zone 89 F.3d Cir. 1096 (3' Cir. 1996) Erdman v. denial of CUP for community- denial upheld City of Fort Atkinson, based residential facility for 84 F.3d 960 (7th Cir. 1996) elderly disabled in R-1 zone The above cases offer some guidance as to what sort of action a municipality may need to take in order to comply with the FHA's reasonable accommodation requirement. Although none of these cases are binding in California, they may be considered persuasive by courts here. S7296\0001\591346.1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH MEMORANDUM Planning Commission June 14, 2000 Page 5 Based on these decisions, and similar precedents, our office recommends that the City consider adopting an ordinance allowing minor modification of zoning regulations when reasonable and necessary to facilitate housing for handicapped persons. The advantage of such an ordinance is that the City would be able to address such requests by means other than a variance, which of course runs with the land. If the Planning Commission concurs with this recommendation, then we will work with staff to prepare a draft ordinance for your review. 57296\0001\591346.1 variance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. C-7639, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING TITLE 21 BY ADDING DIVISION XIII, SECTIONS 21.25.1301 THROUGH 21.25.1317, RELATING TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 12 1 ORDINANCE NO. C- 7639 . 21 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 41 CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE LONG BEACH 5 MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING TITLE 21 BY ADDING 6 DIVISION XIII, SECTIONS 21 .25.1301 THROUGH 7j - 21 .25. 1317 , RELATING TO REASONABLE 81 ACCOMMODATION 91 101 The City Council of the City of Long Beach ordains as follows: 11 i12 Section 1 . Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code is amended by V 13 adding Division XIII, Sections 21.25.1301 through 21.25.1317, to read as follows. IPm. ry 14� DIVISION XIII ` REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION � �yXG 151 F 3 c i= 161 21 .25.1301 Purpose. 17 It is the policy of the City, pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing 18 Amendments Act of 1988, to provide people with disabilities reasonable 19 accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be 20 necessary to ensure equal access to housing. The purpose of this 21 Division is to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make 22 requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the 231 various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or 241 procedures of the City. 251 21.25.1303 Definitions. 2 6 I A. Act. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. 27 B. Applicant. An individual making a request for reasonable 28 accommodation pursuant to this Division. 1 1 C. Clue. The Long Beach Municipal Coo_. 21 D. Department. The Department of Planning and Building of the - I 31 City of Long Beach. 4 I E. Disabled person. Any person who has a physical or mental 5 impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; 61 anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone who has 7 i a record of such impairment. People who are currently using illegal 8 j substances are not covered under the Act or this Division unless they 91 have a separate disability. 10 i F. Group home. Refers to any and all facilities which are regulated 111 by the provisions of the California Community Care Facilities Act (Health & 121 Safety Code Section 1500 et seq.), the California Residential Care dill 13I Facilities for the Elderly Act (Health & Safety Code Section 1569) or any M11� d w4 la - 141 alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility as defined by I AI 151 Health & Safety Code Section 11834.02 or any successor statutes. re. I- 16 I G. Increased occupancy. Refers to a request to increase the 17 number of individuals permitted or licensed by state or local law to occupy 18 � a group home. 19I 21.25.1305 Notice to the public of availability of accommodation 201 process. 211 The Department of Planning and Building shall prominently display 221 in both the Development Services Center and the Planning Bureau a 231 notice advising those with disabilities or their representatives that they 241 may request a reasonable accommodation hearing in accordance with the 251 procedures established in this Division. . 26 21.25.1307 Requesting reasonable accommodation. 27 A. In order to make specific housing available to an individual with 2 8 i a disability, a disabled person or representative may request reasonable 2 i A 11 accommodauon relating to the various land use, _Hing, or building laws, 2 I rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City. 3 ; B. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for 4 reasonable accommodation, or appealing a determination regarding 5 reasonable accommodation, the Department will endeavor to provide the 6 : assistance necessary to ensure that the process is accessible to the 7 applicant or representative. The applicant shall be entitled to be 8 t represented at all stages of the proceeding by a person designated by the j 9 ! applicant. 101 C. A request for reasonable accommodation in laws, rules, ii policies, practices and/or procedures may be filed on an application form 4 121 provided by the Department at any time that the accommodation may be Iii? 131 necessary to ensure equal access to housing. 1 ..5a26. 4y4i_ 2-N 14 : 21.25.1309 Jurisdiction. p xiv o i : 8; 15 A. Zoning Officer/Building Official. The Zoning Officer, or Building Il`,3tp, F 161 Official, as appropriate, shall have the authority to consider and act on 17 ` requests for reasonable accommodation. When a request for reasonable 18 accommodation is filed with the Department, it will be referred to the 19 Zoning Officer or Building Official for review and consideration. The 20 Zoning Officer or Building Official shall issue a written determination within 211 thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of a completed application and may 22 , (1) grant the accommodation request, (2) grant the accommodation 23 request subject to specified non-discriminatory conditions, or (3) deny the 24 request. All written determinations shall give notice of the right to appeal 25 1 and the right to request reasonable accommodation on the appeals 2 6 process, if necessary. The notice of determination shall be sent to the 2 7 1 applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. 2 8 1 B. If necessary to reach a determination on the request for i 1 I reasonable accommodation, the Zoning Officer o, building Official may 2 I request further information from the applicant consistent with this Division, 3 ; specifying in detail what information is required. In the event a request for 41 further information is made, the thirty (30) day period to issue a written 5 determination shall be stayed until the applicant responds to the request. 6 ' 2125.1311 Required findings. 7 . The following findings must be analyzed, made and adopted before 81 any action is taken to approve or deny a request for reasonable 91 accommodation and must be incorporated into the record of the 1 0 j proceeding relating to such approval or denial: 111 A. The housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable 121 accommodation, will be used by an individual protected under the Act. 11;1 131 B. The request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to .� o 141 make specific housing available to an individual protected under the Act. 10 tr 1st 15 C. The requested reasonable accommodation will not impose an 81:17.1- 16 j undue financial or administrative burden on the City. 171 D. The requested accommodation will not require a fundamental 181 alteration of the zoning or building laws, policies and/or procedures of the 191 City. 2 0 j 21.25.1313 Appeals. 211 A. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Zoning Officer or Building 221 Official issues a written determination, the applicant requesting the 231 accommodation may appeal an adverse determination or any conditions 241 or limitations imposed in the written determination. 2 5 I B. All appeals shall contain a statement of the grounds for the 26 appeal. 2� C. Appeals shall be to the Planning Commission who shall hear 28 i the matter and render a determination as soon as reasonably practicable, 4 1 ' but in no event later than sixty (60) days after an appeal has been filed. 2 j All determinations on appeal shall address and be based upon the same 3 findings required to be made in the original determination from which the 4 appeal is taken. 5 D. An applicant may request reasonable accommodation in the 6 procedure by which an appeal will be conducted. 7 21.25.1315 Reasonable accommodation relating to g 1 requests for increased occupancy of group 9 homes. 10 A. All requests for reasonable accommodation relating to 11 , increased occupancy of a group home shall be filed first with the City's 121 Zoning Officer. 1 131 B. The Zoning Officer may hold a hearing on a request for 172 -r; .; fi 1 2 14 ? reasonable accommodation relating to the increased occupancy of a ►. II 1 15 group home, or may instead, at his/her sole discretion, refer the szi37.E= 16 I application to the Planning Commission for hearing. If the Zoning Officer 17 acts on a request for reasonable accommodation pursuant to this Section, 18 i the Zoning Officer shall hear the matter and issue a written determination 19 I within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of a completed application. If 20 the Planning Commission acts on a request for reasonable 21 I accommodation pursuant to this Section, the Planning Commission shall 22hear the matter and render a determination as soon as reasonably 23 practicable, but in no event later than sixty (60) days of receipt of a 241 completed application. 2 5 I C. Notice of hearing pursuant to this Section shall be provided not 26 less than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing and shall be mailed or 271 delivered to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized 2 8 I assessment role within three hundred feet (300') of the real property that • 5 1 I is the subject of the hearing. In all cases under this section, the applicant 21 shall bear the cost of the radius mailing. 3 I D. The Zoning Officer or Planning Commission acting pursuant to 41 this Section, shall (1) grant the accommodation request, (2) grant the s i accommodation request subject to specified nondiscriminatory conditions, 61 induding, but not limited to, a condition requiring the applicant to show • 7 I proof of any required state license for the activity or occupancy 81 contemplated, or (3) deny the request. 9 1 E. The Zoning Officer or Planning Commission, as appropriate, 10 shall explain, in writing, the basis of the determination including the 11 Zoning Officer's or Planning Commissioner's findings on the criteria set 121 forth in Section 21.25.1311. All written determinations shall give notice of Iii! 131 the right to appeal and the right to request reasonable accommodation on 11:1 141 the appeals process, if necessary. The notice of the determination shall tV be sent to the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested. $r= 15 ! . ss3 161 F. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a written determination 171 on the hearing conducted pursuant to this Section, any aggrieved party 181 within the meaning of this Code, may file an appeal from the 191 determination of the Zoning Officer or Planning Commission. Appeals 201 from a determination of the Zoning Officer shall be to the Planning 211 Commission, appeals from a determination of the Planning Commission 221 shall be to the City Council. All appeals shall contain a statement of the 2 3 1 grounds for the appeal. 241 G. Appeals to the Planning Commission or City Council pursuant 251 to this Section shall be heard as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no 261 event later than sixty (60) days after an appeal has been filed. All 27 ' determinations on appeal shall address and be based upon the same 2 6 , findings required to be made in the original determination from which the 1 6 1 appeal is taken. 2 21.25.1317 Fee. 3 There shall be no fee imposed in connection with a request for 4 reasonable accommodation under the provisions of this Division, except 5 I that a fee equivalent to the fee imposed for an administrative use permit 6 shall be required if the application for reasonable accommodation relates 7 to an increase in the occupancy of a group home. 8 9 Sec. 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by the 10 City Council of the City of Long Beach and cause the same to be posted in three 11 conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach, and it shall take effect on the thirty-first 12 day after it is approved by the Mayor. leg 8 8 did 13 I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Q m Longmeeting August 10 1999, by the d: -5=5 14 Council of the City of Beach at its of n_t 15 following vote: <3 a� 16 Ayes: Councilmembers: propeza, Baker, Colonna, Roosevelt, Kell, Topsy-Elvord, Grabinski, Kellogg, Shultz. 17 _8 19 20 Noes: Councilmembers: None. 21 22 Absent:Councilmembers: NOT1e• 23 24 25 C Z-f� v_ C City Clerk 26 4/44.A. 27 I Approved: g - !3 '45 (Date) g ayo 2 8 MJM'.krn.7!22199,s66255; F WPPS\CtyLsw321WP00CsAD018\P001\00000035 WPO 7 riance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report June 14, 2000 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF MAY 17, 2000, WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS 00-3 PC Staff Report Supplemental,220 7th Street 13 • May 17, 2000 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant MEG LITTLEFIELD, MICHAEL AND DEBORAH HARDING Owner MEG LITTLEFIELD, MICHAEL AND DEBORAH HARDING, ET AL Location 220 SEVENTH STREET Classification of Property. RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD) Request. To ADD APPROXIMATELY' 237 SQUARE FEET TO A LEGAL NON- CONFORMING RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ADD TO A BUILDING ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS THREE UNITS AND TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES. A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE ADDITION TO FOLLOW AN EXISTING 3-FOOT, NON-CONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY' LINE. Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Code Sections: 28-801; 28-2407; 28-2500 - 28-2502 Recommendation: APPROVE VARIANCE 00-3, AS CONDITIONED, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 00-14 C Ikcumrnt,\'.aRI ANCE 00-3 PC Staff Report 220 7th Street do:LW05-09-00 . Ince 00-3, 220 Seventh.ctreei Planning Commission S:aff Repori .%fav 17. 2000 • FACTS • On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. • The applicant is seeking to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. A variance is requested from the following provisions of the Code: o Section 28-801 — to permit the proposed addition to be located within the required 10% side yard setback along the southerly property line. The proposed setback matches the existing residence setback of 3 feet, and the Code would require a 3'-9" setback. The requested variance of 9 inches is for a distance of 9 feet. o Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. • The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 199- 052-9 and is located within a Residential High Density Zone (RHD) of old town. • The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a lot area of 4,406.25 square feet (37.5 by 117.5 feet). • The subject property is non-conforming due to density, parking, and existing building setbacks. The property is large enough to provide two residential structures, three exist. A total of six parking spaces would be required currently for a total of three housing units on the property. The existing single-story residence would be required to have side yard setbacks of 3'-9", and 3' is provided along the southerly property line. • Due to the existing age of the structures, 1947 and 1949, the current development standards of the City are not complied with. • The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH-EAST City Hall in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone 00-3 PC Staff-Report.220 7th Street Page 2 1 ._ _ince 00-3. 220 Seventh.'1reet Planning('ommtsswon Me-Report .lfat 17. 2000 • As of May 10, 2000, staff has received no response, written or other, to its mailed notice regarding Variance 00-3. BACKGROUND The applicants have submitted a request to permit variances to allow for the following construction on the subject property: o Allow a 9-foot by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. o The proposed addition will expand the size of two existing bedrooms within the existing single family residence from approximately 100 and 157.5 square feet, to approximately 189 and 262.5 square feet, respectively. o An additional bathroom of approximately 48 square feet would be provided for the larger new bedroom. o The size of the existing single-story residence would be increased from approximately 870 square feet to approximately 1,106 square feet. o Permit the proposed addition to be located within the required 10% side yard setback along the southerly property line. The proposed setback matches the existing residence setback of 3 feet, and the Code would require a 3'-9" setback. The requested variance of 9 inches is for a distance of 9 feet. Applicants Statement on Application: The applicant indicates the variance is needed for the following reasons. "Littlefield and Dvonch's are daughters of parents (Harding's). Both daughters and their families have lived in Seal Beach for 35 years. Aging parents want and need to be near children and grandchildren for emotional and medical reasons. Parents need more room for access for walker in bathroom addition and larger bedroom to get around. Parents to occupy house on weekends only." Previous Building Permit Information: The City of Seal Beach Building Department records indicate the following information regarding the existing residential structures presently located on the subject property (based on information obtained in November 1976 from Norman Young of the Orange County Assessor's Office, regarding 220-220'/2 Seventh Street): o Permit No. 3144 — Two story building; one bedroom apartment downstairs; 2 bedroom apartment upstairs; and garages (1947). o Permit No. 3622 — One story dwelling(1949). In addition, the City has on record Plumbing Permit 1368 and Electrical Permit 1592 for a 26 x 33 foot, wood-frame, one story structure, from May and June, 1949. These permits relate to and verify the accuracy of Permit No. 3622 for a one story dwelling in 1949. 00.3 PC Staff Report.220 7th Street Page 3 I nce 00-3. 220 Seventh Street Planning ('omm,sston Staff Report May 17. 2000 • DISCUSSION The applicant is seeking to construct a 9-foot by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. A variance is requested from the following provisions of the Code: o Section 28-801 — to permit the proposed addition to be located within the required 10% side yard setback along the southerly property line. The proposed setback matches the existing residence setback of 3 feet, and the Code would require a 3'-9" setback. The requested variance of 9 inches is for a distance of 9 feet. o Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. Variances: Section 28-2502 sets forth guidelines for the Planning Commission to follow and the findings that must be made in order for a variance to be granted. They are: o The variance will not adversely affect the General Plan o Special circumstances applicable to the property somehow deprive the property owner from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the same vicinity and zone o The granting of such variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges In general, variances are granted in unique situations where a particular property can not conform to the code due to physical site-related constraints. A classic example would be a triangular piece of land that could not conform to the required setbacks by virtue of its unique physical characteristics. The subject property is similarly situated to the majority of(if not all) properties along Seventh within the Old Town area of the City. Therefore, there are no special property related circumstances that, through the strict application of Chapter 28-2502, deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. However, the applicant's request indicates there are physical constraint issues applicable, which in the mind of staff, require consideration of the provisions of the "Reasonable Modification and Accommodation" provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act. "Reasonable Modification and Accommodation"Provisions of the Fair Housing Act: In this particular application, the variances are requested, in the opinion of staff, to provide "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" to the proposed occupants of the 00.3 PC Staff Report 220 7th Street Page 4 I lance 00-3 220 Seventh .icer! Planning (.ontmr.%cion Staff Report Hai I" :000 existing single-story residential structure, one of which are physically handicapped The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA) has as one of its principal aims the prevention of "discrimination" against persons with "handicaps" in the use and enjoyment of a "dwelling -- The definition of each of these terms is provided below: o Handicap means"(I) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment, but such term does not include current, illegal use of or an addiction to a controlled substance." (42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)) o Dwelling means "Any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families. and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof." (42 U.S C § 3602(b)) o The "reasonable accommodation" requirement is discussed and set forth in 42 U S C § 3604(f)(3)(a) and 3604(f)(3)(b). o "(f)(3) For purposes of this subsection- discrimination includes (A) A refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications to existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modification may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except that. in the case of a rental, the landlord, where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear an tear excepted (Emphasis added) (B) "A refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies. practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling -- (Emphasis added) "Reasonable Accommodation" Federal District Court Decision: The reasonable accommodation requirements of the FHAA clearly can apply to zoning ordinances. Casa Marie, Inc v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988F.2d 252 "('ourt.\ interpreting the reasonable accommodation provision of the /FHAAJ have ruled that municipalities ... must change, waive, or make exceptions in their zoning rules to afford people with disabilities the same opportunity to housing as those who are without disabilities " Hovsons, Inc v Township of Brick, 89 F 3d 1096. Provided below is a summary regarding a "reasonable accommodation" request in conjunction with a variance request. In Trovato v City of Manchester, 992 F.Supp 493 the case involved two women suffering from muscular dystrophy who requested a zoning variance to permit them 00.3 PC Staff Report.220 7th Street Page 5 once 00-3. 220Seventh Street P!c„mmng Commission.Staff Report May 17. 200(1 to pave a parking space in the front yard of their single-family home. They preferred to use the front door because the stairs leading to the back door were much steeper and harder to for them to climb. At the variance hearing, no members of the public appeared to oppose the request The city's zoning board of appeal felt legally constrained to deny the request because the four-foot setback between driveway and home would not be met, and did not consider its duties under the FHAA. The plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. District Court, claiming failure to make reasonable accommodation. The court began by finding that parking is clearly a "service or facility in connection with housing” under 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2), and is therefore covered by FHAA's anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation requirements. It then concluded that: "The plaintiffs here made a reasonable request. They simply wanted permission to build a small parking .space near their front entrance. . . In contrast, the city has responded unreasonably, albeit without malice or had faith. It has not shown that the requested parking.space would have disrupted the character of plaintiffs' neighborhood (certainly no neighbors objected) or that the city would have suffered any .financial or other administrative burden if plaintiffs were accommodated Nor has the city suggested any reasonable alternative accommodation [since all of the city's suggestions would have involved a longer walk and or greater expense]." (992 F.Supp. at 498) In reviewing a paper on the "reasonable accommodation" requirement', the author indicates the following as issues for a local government to consider when faced with a possible or actual request for reasonable accommodation under the FHAA (Note listing abbreviated to be relative to the present issue) o Local governments should recognize that "equal opportunity" is often not satisfied by "equal treatment". Merely alleging that the same standards apply to non-handicapped facilities may not be enough, and the local government may be required to take affirmative steps if the plaintiffs can show that there is a shortage of the type of facility in question, or that their residents face burdens in using or occupying dwellings that are not faced by non- handicapped individuals.' o If the plaintiffs show that their request is necessary under the FHAA, local governments should evaluate whether the accommodation for the applicant's facility (a) will impose administrative or financial costs on the city or (b) will undermine the fundamental purpose of its land use controls. There appear to be few cases where judges have been persuaded that a variance or waiver for a single facility will have either of those two effects.' o An ordinance or procedure can itself be a reasonable accommodation. If the local government has created a process or set of development standards to address the intent of "The Fair Housing Act's Reasonable Accommodation'Requirement".Land Ilse Last and Zoning Digest.April 2000.pages ?-I 1 Op Cit..page 10. Op Cit.,page 11 00-3 PC Staff Report.220 7th Street Page 6 1 rice 00-3. 220 Seventh Street • Planning Commission Staff Report Afar 17. 2000 the reasonable accommodation clause, it may not be required to go further As a practical matter, the local government will still need to review requests on a case-by-case basis. but it may decide that it does not need to go farther than its reasonable accommodation ordinance has already gone ° Consideration of Request in Light of "Reasonable Modification" and "Reasonable Accommodation" provisions of Fair Housing Act: In considering this request in light of the above discussion relating to "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation", it is the opinion of staff the subject request is in conformance with those standards of the Fair Housing Act, and should be approved pursuant to the provisions of that Act. In the opinion of staff, the subject request meets the "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" standards of the Fair Housing Act, and in addition. o the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. ❑ the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city, and o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of it city's land use controls. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relative testimony presented during the public hearing on Variance 00-3, approve this request as a "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Staffs recommendation is based on the following • Additional living space is requested within the existing single-story structure for the accommodation of a family with a member that is physically handicapped • Approval of the request would not constitute a special privilege to the property owner, but would constitute "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. • There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which if approved, would not deprive the applicant of privileges that are available to other property owners in the same vicinity and zone. • The future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. ' Ihul 00.3 PC Staff Report.220 7th Street Page 7 I _ince 00-3. . 20 Seventh Street Planning l'ommts.cion Staff Report May 17. 2000 • The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city. • The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of the city's land use controls. Additional Recommendation re "Reasonable Accommodation" Ordinance or Policy Statement: in addition, staff is aware of several cities that have adopted "Reasonable Modification" or "Reasonable Accommodation" ordinances or policy statements to address issues relating to the Federal Fair Housing Act provisions. Staff would also recommend the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council authorizing additional staff research into the preparation of such an ordinance or policy statement. FOR May 17, 2000 Tee Whittenberg Director of Development Services Attachments (5). Attachment 1 . Resolution No 00-14, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Variance 00-3, Permitting the Addition of 237 Square Feet to an Existing Single-Family Residence Located on a Non-Conforming Residential Property at 220 Seventh Street, Seal Beach in Conformance with Provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act Attachment 2: Trovato v City of Manchester, 992 F.Supp.493 Attachment 3: Application Attachment 4: Plans Attachment 5 Site Photos 0.1 PC Staff'Report 220 7th Street Page 8 ,11111 1N1 -- �r (l 1i1 \IV. (1 l'1W111111. 1 ' 1um1..1,1u .\14111 1.,1..,'•, 1141i 1- .11t / ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ( ONl\IISSION OF THE ( 1T\ OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 00-3, PERIIITTING THE ADDITION OF 237 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FANIILI RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SEAL BEACH IN CONFORMANCE W ITH PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT yin.t I't \I.dl I:;p.n.:: 1h It;: Page 9 V 'once 00-3, 220 Seventh Street t. .ning Commission Staff Report May 17, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 00-3, PERMITTING THE ADDITION OF 237 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 220 SEVENTH STREET, SEAL BEACH IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicant is seeking to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15025(a) and § 11.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Variance No. 00-3 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May 17, 2000 to consider Variance 00-3. At the public hearing the Planning Commission received written and oral testimony. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 5, 2000, Meg Littlefield and Michael and Deborah Harding submitted an application for Variance 00-3. The applicant is seeking to construct a 9' by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. (b) The applicant is requesting variances from the following sections of the Code of the City of Seal Beach: 00-3 PC Sufi'Report,220 7th Street Page 10 ' ance 00-3 Seventh Street 1-.._4ning Corn ri;ssion Staff Report May 17, 2000 o Section 28-801 — to permit the proposed addition to be located within the required 10% o side yard setback along the southerly property line. The proposed setback matches the existing residence setback of 3 feet, and the Code would require a 3'-9" setback. The requested variance of 9 inches is for a distance of 9 feet. o Section 28-2407.2.h.2 — permitting an addition when a minimum of one parking space per unit is not provided. (c) The subject property is legally described as: Lots 18 (the north 12.5 feet thereof) and all of Lot 20 in Block 107 of Tract Bay City, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map recorded in Book 2, Page 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. (d) The subject property is 37.5 feet by 117.5 feet in area, comprising approximately 4,406.25 square feet of land area. (e) The subject property is non-conforming due to density, parking, and existing building setbacks. The property is large enough to provide two residential structures under current development standards of the city; three residential units currently exist. A total of six parking spaces would be required currently for a total of three housing units on the property. The existing single-story residence would be required to have side yard setbacks of 3'-9", and 3' is provided along the southerly property line. (f) Due to the existing age of the structures, 1947 and 1949, the current development standards of the City are not complied with. (g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST: Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone SOUTH-EAST: City Hall in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone (h) As of May 10, 2000, staff has received no response, written or other, to its mailed notice regarding Variance 00-3. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to §§ 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Variance 00-3 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which permits residential uses on the subject property. Although this property is legal non-conforming due to previously permitted development in 1947 and 1949, the 00-3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Stmt Page 11 V once 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Pt....ning Commission Staff Report May 17, 2000 proposed project will maintain the existing number of residences and parking upon the subject property. The requested variance will not result in an additional intensification of use above the present non-conforming situation of three residential units existing on a parcel adequate in size for two residential units, resulting in non-conformance with current development standards of the City. The requested additions are to provide reasonable accommodation in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing Act. (b) The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (c) There are special related circumstances, which, through the strict application of this Chapter, would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the variance request will provide "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" to the proposed occupant's of the existing single-story residential structure, one of which are physically handicapped. The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA) has as one of its principal aims the prevention of "discrimination" against persons with "handicaps" in the use and enjoyment of a "dwelling." (d) The granting of this variance would not be the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, the subject request meets the "reasonable modification" and "reasonable accommodation" standards of the Fair Housing Act, and in addition: o the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals; o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or financial costs on the city; and o the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the fundamental purpose of it city's land use controls. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 00-3, subject to the following conditions: 1. Variance 00-3 is approved for the construction of a 9-foot by 26'-4" addition (approximately 237 square feet) to the rear of an existing single family residence. o The proposed addition will expand the size of two existing bedrooms within the existing single family residence from approximately 100 and 157.5 square feet, to approximately 189 and 262.5 square feet, respectively. o An additional bathroom of approximately 48 square feet would be provided for the larger new bedroom. o The size of the existing single-story residence would be increased from approximately 870 square feet to approximately 1,106 square feet. 00-3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Street Page 12 ►' -lance 00-3, 2" "'nth Street i .ping Commissic.,. .\tafReport May 17, 2000 o The proposed addition to be located within the required 10% side yard setback along the southerly property line for a distance of 9 feet. 2. There shall be no openings permitted within three (3') feet of the side property lines. 3. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Variance 00-3. 4. This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman, Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission 00-3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Sired Page 13 lance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Staff Report Mat• 17, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 TROVATO V. CITY OF MANCHESTER, 992 F.SUPP.493 00-3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Street Page 14 7.2 J :�� 80:2: 000?-0t-AtU • d. 3 s a v B t g `i C o u `. 5 5' x ,1 - �•' ° ;� ^�-, l c s �► 5 2 N 3 o to 3 gl g r•▪ 'i " z CC ' P' seA s e72, 5 3 G• s ='s t iet _ o ' �i 4a t l � ESc1 , 4T a n .< v �. < a C 11 2 ;11 " kC SpL ,8 it TI itl a ' n T6 ,� ,- c Er ". 3 1 e ., t o., � E. IFI5 i .''—'4i. -- 5- • " 3 ; lg. 51• • to tr 7 . T• re3110. mc-Zkriqa. - 3- Et " R- ° ab. r7� . Sx1 ; g " Q '`� wg2i 5 �, . a s � ° VS s 37 n2 !r I g2 C`� ���ppQQ• Ga rt''..4 ' !Or ! - iii r ri 2 � cT R 4 �iE ° � v 2 w �.e' 3g. g cp -^ v3 .. 34 T- t � � g 3 1 3S r3 31 6ll • 5. °• a Q ,7 ; ` Zil t ; 17 . r wA ga ., s -t dlez . i s S 1 3 r 0. r t '• jg 5 4 E d L4 ii ji . ' e Q > X e . G B A 7 _v n a° A- P, E i 8 n p, . ... r. . . �. � , ii � g � 3. S r g Q ll o0 .,,,, ,... ti. re , t [ .. 41 ,.. . 1. ,4q --,, ,,, q - E ^ , g' a• r sTit I. =1 • E g x ,IA ` ate los ; k, S . 1C ' a3 s Q - -- T3- 3g -, 9 g1,5 02 �' a ' ' . d: s319. 2 aA afs g6a 4 .i : : o1 Q: ,, t1 --„ i >T _ ^' k. vEjE � r ° i Air qq E, as c g t : ig IV S • i' C8i -o. 1 oC Twg l FR e � oa L ' oi93 .. 0c °rg5 r O ' l,1. - `5. ss •7 3 ^ so '-- -6 sO. 1 ° e °o � . E. ;. - ate' 7. ^ 2 $ l g+ n T1 ' ' � fie as 5 i tInias . ° rigl 1 s i a g _ , � c qi KK ss - 4 ' c ," s x , G � ''''`a="r1,11IMIIRRININ < F !! C o oi n n o > i ^ Qwq , � ETO $ I °11 -1Vl ^ 2 � ^ C = 7vTnl GS .df ?po C . J 5 :i I qt1E - 1- ill irl -. > 1 wv• ti . I . - ° c4 li1E .-t )- w7_6 grg • m,- . R • • s C c O, 12- 1- cr , .i , C .Z " A 1 .0.- . .. . rEs. 6`, C L GO r57 6 < g + E T 5.�. 5, - 51W0' „,,,, � v �'� �� r s ',� R r itP :11� 5 o� t� o S� � e - SQ > ' a � L' � 3 � `r. c °� a ° e� T�' ^ , O err p ^ e ► <oi ` c • I a ti g i rtg ict „ s . . ; 5. 41 G ! $ _ sg. � sn N ; 11 °4 - 18i0 i 'ti r e [• f u ! hii t " i 2 F11 4 7 � .' Eitn5W lAg t It Ifrnirli . ixim cOW e � o � n om ° � 5ss Ii.- ' 9 _Ili 'a• it is. it „ 4 ,, ,yfi 6 7 z c _ RI .T. O. 5_ tri- i iii5 . . h4SciF- i -il g . n T Ell4ANL • il ' i J a 00 7 ,. .. ..).0u. F i tis " i T 7 C C. „D � ' -. 5 CCT6, $ e c: c " 8. S < 3 w 52/20'd 9S:tt 0002-2t-.k�w L�' X66 .. :z- 000E-2 i-..rjw ... o e r A a n. N ' A 0. 0 itTi s - °•• s5. g- ? v• i yy ;(;"-2 d iI L E S. 31115.- g 'e � 23 � S - � 5 a a o , 1 � � � t E 5 � ,, 3 s s« 3 ... o o ps ' s v gs k � a aoz°l. g ' „ I6-Re ." . 1 I5. } i1L jUi_ " Ce a 81 56.- ; 0 il I it SAii -.14: i..att gcatii44 . &1 ,1 -I; „swilE :-.1til F-4itErl $ � Avg; � a � SQ 3 F g .. a C e• a o. rZ _git Q 1 e at > 5rs i 3 4. '. 1 Fi r 6i 51 h 9 R ' Y 3 E o4 Ae r s +1 C w;- 6. 9., 7i O C : 1 a t eae � (`..i ep `°05 0 cr 0 . lli q. .1 " 6.C g g. ��+, > ^at, t° w + v x P C !, '' s r �1 v� .w o g e. 3. F., �. o i x • I R a C gg g 12 •l . ° c 3 i ° r it 1'c - bra v X ft" g a ... _'7 CPI F. .� X. s. rr � E` g 5' � • R G a' E m 5 sas x ' FR ' i � _ � ' ' _ s S = - v _ , = 1 - '- i» 5- _ 1 G S Jr G'r o C �' ' 0111- lir 0 �pC2. So ; 3 Nz2 •� i• Nei g tcpS � a ES • S ., S. � op . gi I-1 :: ciii � 2 s SgR ° � F g � � o v. 7 C. GT •' -.3 ° mv . iiiE .; "6 ), I ; L ?,71 _ C a 17 Itiall)i. w Q� R. �v G ° a G C G'� g04717 ; _ � � > c g5ga ' ss5 = F2 = � C � d t'— f 3 'Ili q s e V. " o lis 9 R W e ng 91 ° 12. e E } - l. n K2 n 3. 30. S ' r-`� gmg & s ' x = yQ- > S R e r, 6 Ota E '} * t7).41 7 _ c '•' Fr- i 1-755- `IId• ' s. C'7 `[ -7, dZ oR .�c r L5 Of G el Li 3. a Q qE5 a (� C 2 't7; ,r qtillit- g cL. t_ c ° S 5'� 5 ¢ 10 ; x4 fsSt i AO ). o Y RrF " x s 4 616=1 ;79 a �' � �i . _ � 4 r 2 a.� E r q i s ggtitml ? gl , 0 ( ; ;••• F g- it i ... " 1 Edi kt ! to p ,. s tzk t e R ' ii 2. Fs s.^ : iitt ` ' 3 Er � � m � 1 , r � E � 4 & z Ars 1 0' ' 3 17FtrG r2 $ V • atill t lit. F,. i°° If t 3 a64 ?� � � s � $ � '" d � " 7. 5.E c^ • P 1S . ; tz22RS 0, s . 9 t. 3. F � ' .o RSA � . ,- A0 z lm °• Its s1 g .� 2. 1 E� i 2 A` pp ,tRr ' k3 i ° o 4 —I. : > 1 s � X13 - �.' , 1 3S S Ri ^ - 4 6 Z . • Q 6 - 3 c. a P. C . :P10 € 11.115Zit tc ^ : gg ! 1 � tl s k X1 . 1. d33 CAT m n s 5 1 • 5 '+ ^ ' -1 o 1 r I T'? : •. i g N R p r ` R` S 5- , ?..too $ ,4 , m s _ a ,ra )C.IT AAA7_AT-U-IU 72'o %66 tT :Z: 000?-0T-A W Xa Se ° S 7 s ^ N �. c (� m .. . R �a O Q a � �� �i Sk � S ~ qw a A O� 0.4q2 • g- i a °,-. . - 8 7 V 5 t o Y C�. C G ` o !� a g i 3 i p' S g ' 1 . O 9 s & 5 mg eV ' t , K , 3 rat � 3 S a g n g^ a Q g t a 6 ° Q I - " • 8 g ^v v @i g y O Q 4 o o f �i r� • s ' o �r o �s �� o A R 3 •�: ' • 3 o q r r' - 2,. .? 1 5 •� 3 5• • . . _� ; � C •1. , 5 B $ � g , r. .- . 6; � ,trs� ` - - r G u ; " R s t l = i }, s i 2'1 ; i �, t o y A R ^ 7 W ! r' g " o ' ir' . a1s Rq _ �. kg � wm . • .R . , s6Nn t g 9' ' Q744 rav`. 0 6 0lf t7 - i 1. . . �7�° C' 1 3 7f � �' c �- � S > . i" 6R R " C 6 5c Sr e. 0° a is • 5' ' 3 a3. g � G ^ o^ Q ^ o.1 . �i g r g q wg' o f7 ^ i c 0 ^`. • 9 a j , N a o i C 2. • E �i .. 6 v y ; I 07 " - roc ^ > > 2i p t4, o' '� o. �', I 5 ^�, 8C` r $ �� � S .■• t ..ve � X4 • 11'. F S 7 ,3i 8 t� ' EV4zil [ En � Q. � ng .4V1 Pki i :T. � � z � s �`w o G -'. " 1' m o. s. • c ; eGE.g Id E l i ll = g@ tnm ' e Sir o f ig ° KG S.R. S — : 7. 0 K 6re';- 041 ; K 71 G 3 , ° `4` y " Ery Nj O E a A �" , i 3 J§. 3 y °� y 5. 053 - '' li& R. c4 1.t9 t- 55 pr.. ybs A s Eih. ' .. 0',. yN� �o riSi � � 55 .7 5Ur ,73i. 41I = Egfr [ 5i - 4Elitt141ka. s. 111 A 15 iii 0 g. s ., n.c 01:,: qp Crg. q. 3 . Sr_ Pridi ). g. gg S. " 3 �. 6 Sn' s 4 1. 98 - QEF@'• P ' 7 5re J2 $ k '_ fr rFL 1 ' pA °aFS ^ 3 a a • — g 1. 1. i- ' .0. a. R S51 : _ �p3.z 4 u 3 ii,, . a_' Ss o. ga o i S.o ? N 3 r •' f; : fOO'- 7 G� o 4 jt - .,, l a i R4 C75 5p C r ' M s Q s '�' 5.4 7 p O; } FS57: 0,. _ • R � C W 6 SY�� R - 5. ': lC nd o E� IS. N 2 i 5 ' r n pit; - g- s. g15, 9, -tr17.jk •,, 12 uti. g, - i : F.1 c N—rt: - --?_:".; , ^ j G S 9•p. .2. iii s s n ` ^' S .. w 71 qy r s a t v y7 ^ d c o o' �'• -; r 'y O i7 ;i' g rl ri' IKE S K' . 1 c ^ 7 B 6 i r G raila -cirts. E s. ig - - 4. 7.' cg yTkr"amt 123 g ='= 5rs ` s =3 0 ^ 3 em - ,1 sa ' 102 ;2.7 °0 0 , 31. 1 ^ -. M°.. rl a o v �. G S Q ,11 % %.. O Vc„q.; 01Ltttni.. 1 �' sfin.-•�• ';Y ..t 5 o : .� oj ^� a. - O o 5' gr `' fQ4 _ * g- r6 ' s O7 . - ^' I7 a1 ;'' 1• !� 5SL' Btu, oG. -1 , i %... 5 ;JC� 9rli 1' 4 °° !i . E^ hA P• .o.., O s' sB s i . Q ! E . , tS Mil= " . 5. � m. II c . l = q14 1 o a _ . — Ili il' ile•4111426161:1911iWie. 24V '` 151 � 5qi 1.10 • 1jE :47 ` 11 " 12 c i � g JC y �w ' ASRZ 0. a411 0 3S. I567a + . c __., ,b C16,4 e ; 0 § ,, E gee h i A s r 1 tagi - ., r,r1 rEer- ( ' , * ,.:, ' ".. ' i 4 t.1040101 ; 2J1 .9, 1g3eN qt'a . g Il° - Ya ; . � 6� c8 ' 6 . . E " Qni ^ tea E a a ( p 6T F' +f2 c , t. 57 c i 1 UL • acs 7 , “ Q .`i L . e 5 i ;Z ; N c2/.22'd 85:tt 0002-0T-tbW SO'd Z66 2T :2T 0002-0T-J.tt4 SO'd ld101 m 411. Mt0-q.;°311 -aliii 0; 9 4; o o • c E i alai- ` m c=.9'` v w ' • =< _.F3i4 1. 1 to lg ._ EC. al ai ^ ! ■its Fl 3 ! r �L 5 D t,01.;;pipt t at S 1111 : 1p 11 4 13 s 0 p. i tte.y::;:q ; ti s 'g51i4 10. 10tigile-oir i• gq - 11 11:10.3 "iik }Z ' fel ti l 'isd iii-- i , -- sL g .., t e• sig a - g o 3 r a - i ' �7f ��C r ' q s : aVrIrHt� k � 3l $ l -t• E4 ' ittikita - 364 F . i' qtg= WIIIETWAILE7. T-: 14tErii i c4 0! V r 1. a 3 V :ES X20 $ _ 1 5 KQ &I' � � s, „� � Z�S a � �' • 1..11 a ns1 J i ^ ..� q � i 6cY7 ,.05..1 ,, ,j-,, pE -] „, i "I ' -q,. .- ., : 1 - 112 . ,% / 6. g. filte g.a i"0-?le t 1:10.V7 A liq -E• P 51 ' 3 • -e ?. ,:, '; t7. 7.:1t F -- . .,,.. 1 5 -r-, pirm !.. z 5ipiril -: 8- t-ieg ps1111 - 2. 09, 13a. 0 Er. Tiu -sigl ia ,t3tr I rtp a • 3. ,:*t • tg °' Eptg. a li W 5.. r.. 1.--- ;= *3 i xVI F il . to gSill� � _• //- g rir Ev ¢ g ^ ozag� aol' err > s iii revS- S R C? k£S O V ' F 0. 1 n. 8 0 E E [�• Y 7 t i g i l ,' s ' M f '. S3 S e ,2 .c • gg .e �-� �, ^G c 4. r`71 .4 S'�cam` ,4 '� � S Z ° o. R ga C .s v > / aw41. 11kTfrUiliTFi, co41. 9A. ,. .-- F.- ^ r 300. 1051i E i l �. S i a _y e i A P 5 S 4 >A e g o 5 ^ • S C7 ; 6 f7 e g 8 C 9' �. �iCiig01 QsiSiIfkZ s BBc Rad C ; Y• ili2Co All it o I • C i '< 1 v • i coP ^ E '44 o L' S Z '- ' N i ' 6 Q �ip 'fit ' & ■ a- j f F s ? - 4 r Fir ss Er • .. R a . c i magSy ? " 5 tz E, . "3 t • 5.r � R 1 > 5 1 R l a k V:40, --:: - a Wilt111 * a vo• � rr - 0. -tra 4- 1 �•l cR -4iVI: ! - L 3 � i " e . ` `• ^ a "• ree ^' = iml" K2g g Sia •� p� • I . a. i ?jia . 1411 '• �. R 'j C. o 6 A w r iZ,5R fT 7 : . iEgr O ' . � CaA � ' ' 6s l,� �. � s � : � C � Cd .rT miflg hi r 5 R, w 1 n s !--,5:t r E a ,3 > p rg g7iiaf. ai 8 C i . �IL .1-44iE6 ; 6 � � A R1° E 9. A gTh- 4 c z ' on ls ! i. te . ; . z a �3 'g � gFit9. 3 ulQc , lerck : pip • Fl ...7, Fir ; p tiPIP ! 3: ° it / ' '` - 3 ij 5 5 Ft M . 3. ig ii _ 0 ::•", t- 1 .. ..5. tt 9. , t ti a 55- F � > ? oar C t • 00:2T 0002-0T-l.dW dance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 17, 2000 ATTACHMENT 3 APPLICATION 00-3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Street Page 15 • Application for (Casa oTM or more) Cordtirxnt ii..Perot ji.61:1/ urzr...a.d Lim.ormit CITY OF SEAL BEACH #4•911 VS'Mort PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION a. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: Date Filed: Planning Commission Date: Date Complete: 1. Property Address: 0 7 44' STree T- —SC L rah �t� -- _/ 2. Applicant's Name: rn�, G � � T rt /e-t� �� M K�Ye Address: g 1 Lie RI 6enc I-f Home Phone: (. ) 5-9K - 35Work Phone: ( ) t FAX: ( s"b2) `t3Q-`71,c" / 06.4334 3. Property Owner -s Name: _ r I - ' 1l • : ' D r s - s C00/104 Address: 4Og C 2 E} A oc_ Pl� ( e t4 c ` Home Phone: (-5i 5-9 - 3.5-- 4. 54. General Plan and Zoning Designation: 5. Present Use of Property: RASden A/tj, 6. Proposed Use of Property: / F. SI .4-A/pft i- 7. Request For. vI94), Air4 ra 9 ' 3 AOJr w� W '' r.O/YMAn1ivl,- f O 4Ti, /}Ohio'' rQ -44/D Ew47- llr0/gre PAV I kV/1 8. Describe the Proposed Use: 5/VE 'j-i i- 9. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: /i. - cc, a 4c, t c o/vc,cjf l wl St-,Ailey/Met- N-11,-fr CA teif& Pagel 10. Describe how and if the approval of this Unclassified Use Permit would be detrimental in any way to other property in the vicinity: 11. Proof of Ownership Stat is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by the a Signed and notarized Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to the application. 12. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): By. C/raic b -e By. (Signatu of Appl ) (Signature of Applicant) L for Name) (Pint Name) 3 (Date) (Date) for Office Us.Only This is to cart*that I ewe Inspected the foregoing appication and fared It to be thorough and compute t conforms to the rules of the City of Seat Beach governing the tiling of an application bran Unclasslfhd Use Perm,Appicrtion (Print Name) (S+gn.tur.) iPnnt Tete) pale) Page 8 Environmental Information and Checklist Form For Dike use only Appricebon No.: _ Date Flied: General information 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: FAX: 2. Address of Project: D 77t SlRr,L T Assessor's Parcel Number: / 9 ? —OSS — Oc/ 3. Name and address of Project Contact Person: Name: 11,1 L.-./774e- el--- Address: /77 eAddress: 4 25 , -' T City /� State: C_/t Zip: Telephone: f - FAX: 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal ageneses : Qv/`D/rv- P'-gm SIS /PR CD/y57,4 4_I/o.,' 5. Existing zoning: Existing General Plan: 6. Proposed use of site: Ali/Orivzid-L Page 11 Project Description 7. Site size (square footage): Li-Y-06 0 8. Square footage of proposed Project: 3 ct.0 9. Number of floors of construction: / 10. Amount of off-street parking provided: 11. Plans (attach) 12. Proposed scheduling: 13. Associated projects: 14. Anticipated incremental development: 15. For residential protects, indicate the: A Number of units: .3 B. Unit sizes: j DOC pt, ZJ rg IQs — 90D E F(`x)r oa C. Range of sale prices or rents: F AJT z hh.Ahnxsc.'Ati3Sc)-r o -is —am a rS D. Household size(s) expected: ey P To act ( �2- Se 0 iJ W a.+<P O N 1 (prer rfs�014,'r1,,r) 16. For commercial projects, indicate the: A Type of project: B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented: C. Square footage of sales areas: D. Size of loading facilities: 17. For industrial projects, indicate the: A Type of project: B. Estimated employment per shin C. Size of loading facilities: 18. For institutional projects, indicate the: A Major function: Page 12 8. Estimated employment per shift: C. Estimated occupancy. D. Size of loading facilities: E. Community benefits derived from the project 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit/unconditional use permit, height variation or rezoning = •• icati. , state this and indicate clean why the appy tion is requ Bi - • n . ► 1 • or' e e F A- L77 4r. te- s _ 'or't - Q4 'ars 94eu 0n,//eS /ow_ //(it /W -S61#-L h •R /G /4)6 l're/7 S Z,)a IT 74- . . ♦ . ' . 6e i . HI A ay.' 4100 '3i /CI9L AtCleAczut . Pers /7 /11a0eEM ti Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discus below aff items l9,r oI. checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). ¢Laryeg Bei To GE7 A-FoctL YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, takes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours? _ 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of Project _ 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in ocean, bay, take, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 28. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Page 13 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal service (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 30. Substantially increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting 32. Ona separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Mach photographs of the site. 33. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Environmental impacts (Please explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers on separate sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 34. earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase In wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Page 14 YES MAYBE NO f. Changes in deposition or torsion of beach sands, or charges in siltation, deposition or erosion wli may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? /17 g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X , 35. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air Quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement,moisture or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 36. Water. Will the proposal result In: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alteration to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change In amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Page 15 YES MAYBE NO g. Change In the Quantity of ground waters, (Other through dined additions or withdrawals, or through Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 1. Exposure of people or property to �l water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? • J. Significant changes in the temperature, flow or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 37. plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? x b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? r 36. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals k*duding reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects and microfauna)? /1( Page 16 YES MAYBE NO b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species or animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 39. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to server noise levels? X 40. Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new Tight or glare? 41. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. 42. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 43. Risk of Uoset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (tnduding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the even j/ of an accident or upset conditions? /1 b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Page 17 YES MAYBE NO 44. population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 45. rousing. WIII the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 48. TransoortatioMCirculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? `[ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? —� d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? a. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase In traffic hazards to motor —L vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 47. public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, Including roads? f. Other governmental services? Page 18 YES MAYBE NO 48. Enemy. Will the proposal resutt In: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Y b. Substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 49. Qtilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water damage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 50. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure or people to potential r\ health hazards? 51. ^esthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? v 52. guttural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Page 19 YES MAYBE NO b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 54. ItSandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant and animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) Page 20 YES MAYBE NO c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulativety considerable? (A protect may affect two are more se pa rate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 21 This page left intentionally blank 4' Ci P.ge 22 PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALFORNIA ) CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) (tymeo Pawns/ swear that(1-aFey(ws an)the ovrrw of Pie properly at o �J7ei- 8,���°ti 96374ze2 ( ) ate) t and that (I`awiy(we are) aro tamitiar with the rules d the City of Seal Basch for preparing and filing a Plan Review appiicatiori. The k*rrnetion oorrtainsd in the attached Pion Review application is correct b Ms best d ( our? kr>Iowlecige nd4 approve d this application b do the following work ° ( 'x- MC�PE� �'.,DiN4 3 029/,2oz)o- (Print Nan.) (oIP,.U.) (a•) 3 1 � 1 /4/ /1f -C/VD)/ � �� � 9272' ( zCJd2(mss-P1 .wsr+q (Cty,aa,a Z ) (TMsht) SUSS - =ED AND SWOT TO BEFORE ME MOS �CTL�D�sH IS : • DAY OF ►'Y� Commission* 1165527 Noy Pubic-Cartomia r q,L..) �t j Riverside County - ti My Comm�6 es Dec 1 a 2C01 • Page 20 • • 1 • fiance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 17, 2000 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANS 00.3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Street Page 16 • • • a ••� c 2 to ■ 5 . • IL ▪ l o i'! ✓ 14 • • c 0•r o ;4S • off : J o 2 •▪ 4 3' •r ■ ,ro2 ,i.-► '411I CzawasTomoKeir(sow prokap:iii ......... r ...._. , __ ,i _---o=. - . , �v.•; e.�w, k a.. ______ ,�. _�� s.4r�rcm,�Wra...If .1. ....F,, AO* A , .4ifrocesof ' ' 154... ..........7... ....../r.p.c.a. -4 _ . 1 rig)Lil irj"4 I 7t r:- ---'1.----- � • c ga/ _Al APVige zir- A- -I m I I I 11. 11 i , l rN1 awl 1 $ ...-% -t— - . QI : 7\s. -7: r /-7- - ,. , • / A.1 == �.... � - . ------ 4- ill l'4 q I i. t 0 \‘\ ,.'• . L\_ 1 ( 3 4 �1 , I I t7 �•¢Wr TT"" Jl n.«w.or •rYmIM...rr /rlf1Y' • 1 ii1111 F S/r'` __ SIMI "ROWDIER i FRIEND" �„1tkil,1 46050.0640,is„ .�41 1� v.,A.1Y,t4,4 /43..rMM„mud/ IO a.r5roio: •opo •.1 . 7,ly 11A•7 17�W1 IONS n�er,cuworri r�r LNW0414414V ///A' .17,44 j Iat 44 PHONE NO.MIS)•••••• I. • P 1 III I Oi•••••11(M)MO . .,o *1 ! ke, cv I 1 .c/ /af.za1 .777 j i Iiik ............. .... , • 1 I _ •: 1 !iif.3 is •„:::::•,..; 1.211,;i Iti, I ] 1 . ' 0.111 !!iii I, ,I, - , t I 1 1:;•i!'i' '1;1(11 k•ii 1 1 ri— ,\. H.1, N.( ,rtiti 4 t --4( -..\ ,. II "C's \,.. k t 4k1 i , 1 'Al ikt iZ tk i \ tp... il kIZI Z 4 4 4 • 1 {' 1 •1 ‘ rti J. ilri i - 6. • .t 1 , 4 .di -A. ' II 1 4i e.e.'11 T .0.,, .;..,:, Ei. _. I .. iti,•, . .. .,:;„11 , rani ...,, k ; : in 1 , , qtk i vi 1,..1!.. . , • 41 Nt. I ....% i • - r•----IMIINI ► ♦ ► • • • � � O ir Z teoe 2 1.42 46 i Iiia Q ao• ►• ■ - - p 344 31 •p°: 0 1pJ:- a ;"7. r i o ✓ r°_ Y i'z o x it I�°• ' - - - 1 j --le!1" r,��. J� i1 1 rill Ir-_4 : Z7 i . 14 . ,� IIS, I h - \ Pc LN/Ny,IH, L�� p NW, V i _ ! I ISI • 4 .r" 4 ,►=s" }ffef r o 650 ,f7 A• 3 . • MIMEO WI awsmirAmai(! Q'wtfa 0 s AVOW 0 4,4r K AP APIPir.+onf as P 4 14 • • -'O e•)• • * MAW-Mir . 0 .,+M• to 4 wooce dq• /A • ' • O &Off ()JACO 8 •• _1. Ilir t• • / "I /MMIC e g•III• tl•f *IOW S4 0 i w 0 S.1• - ; o0 Q tai, Aima- 0 •••0 fir! A+,fwsz, • < i Y a 1:.1- z E. I L . *r"� • Q( 4,i i; t 1 © r,-, ki 110A -- i ---1 kfr--=.1:14:1fi" aPeY tka .11 rfPr. #-- 01, 0403115.,la J_it°_ *MOW A"'r'�r 'E--s�q�4/AZ0.ww q o --� ,t _ �_- - -- , .7 ie o� � • nn ;•, Tim' -Al&b . •1` �, Fiv -4 01 Aims*''til :444" • 0,1 0 e of /tel/: daro'f,«rnOSP. 4k 4 _4 -s # t n 1 ,, 1-.----i .,1"------.=� Azz �� _ ,wr-.4v 4444 4024,4441f Ar.�c!A✓.VAry/MAr�t 4eows sa', ja �Ge' jaw .« -.fu h ',,,A4f,QUG•/4,4,s:440/4*.i/4,4 As Alr'A:War446i.p.iv ri.vsv 44,4,1 • Lance 00-3, 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 17, 2000 ATTACHMENT 5 SITE PHOTOS I 00-3 PC Staff Report,220 7th Street Page 17 . ,.. .. ...... .•' • ..•::::••••::.:ii:$11110111NMINW. .. .. iiii ..:Z,*::.:•-:,.. , .... i... ••••::.•...::•••••••.:fs.::::::4......:::::::i:....'...::•••....,."....i0.2::it.4.•,..•*.:t:ef..:••••• ,.. . • i.:;?6:=17‘ '.''..... ...aiiii.di°,io:,..4,:o.:.4,...:::: ::••• ,..%. ii.,,,I11.-k-0:?eti•'.. .,....... •:•:•••:.--;,,,,,e ?.=;i'• .... ::::•:.' •.••••••%.:4,,..i.........• ';:%.•••••••:',...§... ..:• .•-•: :••••••,iik's:Pk...4: 4',.. ,,,,,,•::;.:-..- ' .,,•..'" . ...;.. ki, .:::IiiiiiR:. 4..,...;.:R..,.....,jf..iiNt.&;:.:'•:':::•:-...0i#1..iv; 7#.1S.Y ..•.LI!''e"'..<'••'.' •':....,,,.....ftrib: ti;:t,...;•.•:.- ••:-•;:•:,•.::•PA, ....i>.,.;• .--,•::.i•I5:•:;?;:-....: :Atr,.4.0.ii Vt.::. . •.• • ($3:::... ---. .'• • 3.:..;:::-A•Z•.,:e1*::%:' ."...:•..a. ,,.,;:. vc::, ..1-- .41„,minp,.....- 1--...........:.::.. s r.i: ?:f....t1.4".: ...,..:>:,;n •••••'. .i. '..., 4;41,,,,newmiezz...:t. 0&:ii.....:.0.. iis\'"..' r6.%:"...,74";!"..'*, . . -::'::::.. ::,%. •:.::::::?.::::::.::::;;,•::::::,:te :-...t•,,,,,- --4 s ''s. iv ..:-.::'''. M:i1,:irW4'. . ii:::: :1;i.:Xii1,i',It*:•:`:•:."..1-.•:;.::.,:: 5 ;'dø ,'"....:.:..*:.:.':k..'..:.......... :,...., ...• ''...:: ,::::•; 4-;...=.77—.7. -....44MC,... :tiii...REggnagi''....::::!:::•:i::.k 1::?:: :..- -:. Sf'......t.,..:--- ."-- ' . ..,'. ...;......•-- . •:',.. Aga';:ti .-.•,:i.i.6:4Si'aiiiiiagi::::::'::.::':.:::•:.....1...r..i...;::.*:.. •.t.:...':'...,:......... .: !....:::, •,0 0 =;:..1,.":..?....'•SIF. .!•::;::. (1) . .--..- . - . . -:. ,.. "alleim '''..1se:4;-.' :::niitt ...!-..iliMiggigeT.:-...]::::=4:4-`.....i ''''..''s,", rs .. •.:'...:•i::':.::'.....:...:-i.• . 411111.111Int7:.Pf. (/) :.....i..:ii:.:..i::::::•:::::iay::.::::,-:::::::„.:.i..::::::•:•:•::::::::::•:1:.....,..,...,:„......?...i... , ...,,,....::::„.., •••••,•••,,,..,,,„:.:::::.::.:::,..::::::::::.:,::::•:::.:::•:.,33.z, zz.:;,..::•.z.::t ,.::.::::::K::4„,, . ...:::::::::„...*:„..i:i*-:::!:i*.,:i:i:::::.:im:::::E:ft::, .--...,::::' :•*•.::::::X:i:::::::*: k. '‘'' '. . '-::-.. ...%)...'4......::i: • ...::::1?::M.W.;=::::MBE•ng.G1k!':......;;;;;.' ::::iNi:iiiini:.:i:4x.:::?.:•••• .=•,,•'' ' • ,;.,4s...,..:. .- •-. ••••••.•..•••..-•...•..•••••..... ......• ..... .................,. .... ... .... .......... :".:.••••...-... .. ..' ' ° • .4%, ... .. ......... .......... .......... ......„.. .. .. • ................,............... ....... ......... .......... ...... . .. .. ..... wismommx. z iimm4 ... .. gt Ciii CD :.:::::.::::::::::::::.:::.,:::-. ...,,,:f.!::...,:,.:::$:,:m....z.,.:...:n.4:. --.. •• :•:.:*]::::,::i*:::::...z::::.....:,..:::::,,,,:*..,.:,:.:::;;;;:*:;;;;.:::::::,.:...„..„...:,... .:.. ::g'... pa",".:::,:**i:::::i:iES:.....*.i:-. t .. .,::: .•'..:::.. , . .:Mlef*,M?:::g5]:: ]:::::,:::,.4,(4.,...• : .4i...'.i,i: ...i.-.K - —.::: •.. . ...........111111.1181.::.... 1**$.K ......:::i.: - .z^..;;11110Six ----•:::;:i:.--,i*.*':f:-. X:':-?i.::igi...f4.4.. '.:::2.4...:%•.. '.:::,.. *it''''':';''XIft:iig.,:::*..f4K.,.tfaAZW ' ':-.. .¢, . • „,, .. 7::: ,: . -. . ,...• ;5"..ti''''''' ' • i ,::*!:i:K:E:iiiiiiii:?K:i:.?..A:1-4:::4:§§::::i:.•n,:"..,.,'tINki:. . • :::::::::, '..::::::.:•:::::.:T.:*:::::.•,:.....i...::..... ....•. ..„.............,... :.:•,...:,::::;: ,...i.,"'.; •.:- •. 4 ..) Cmisomm •••••••••••••,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::•::::•:.:::::••••<,;.x•oft.:A.% • . ....• •••••••::::•.:i:•::•:•i•.'•.•• ••• •......:*:: *......••••-•• ......MitigiNgNtgift *Ii:::... .. ' -•::::,:i: .. . ...., '*".."1P....':.!,,R......t.;••: :••••:. 1 %%%%% C) .:.::::::$,:nk:0;:w,••:,.,:;•••.,:•;:;:w.ii.-;:ftw,,.,....,...,z•.,•••:;;t:V. - • ••. '.... .. •..:^..; • ii....',': iii....:iii.ii•:. •••••••.:4M•4.%iiii.c.ffi.;f . ::rUvi::;'••••;m::•••• •,• ... ... ......::••:.n. :i..•••-.• ., -••••-••••" IC.. . •Iil:W.- :ii.i:::•••:::.••••..... ::::::'.,•,ki.,..4„,1;:::•ifillitati...:,11110.411.: .441:?.:•••:$ :.:'''' . • . ...=::: .....,:i::::......::::•;:ti.,:.;:. :•i::.:Ii..:i.:Y:: -•:amii,-Iiiimigii•M:::•:: ...swi:K:K.,,ss..,,,,...I ••'.::;,:,........,.,.„,..::::::::::..!... . -. , .,,,,,,,....,,,.,...:::::::::::.:1::::::1:::.•••:ir,,,,,.. M..i.....:..,:....:::::. (:: :::) `41144,mmi -•..,:,•••••.......••••••••••;;.4,0:::::::::•::::-..40::*teni,'....••••0,0;•: :.:;.,,,,,........*:,....„.,4,i:. •. .• A:::.:::iii;:i:::...*0. ,•••;:m...., •••••••...,,,,,,,,,,,,,•::::::.;,x;••:•:•,<,,,,,,,,,,,.,..,::.:;;;;;;;:-i •:•.,...41,t,_.,.... . ,...5:.. ,:..:,...:.,,,,,,,,,..4,,:..,....,.,..z,,,.::.„.„,<....,v, .., .. ..<..... . is.• ..:::—.. iiikatif: ...i...'.1• :.::::::::.: ;:::::; ... :g:.: ,f,.;',""teM:i;.:::.•*.....,,,,9*:AV..;*;:::: •:.:iii •:. ..§.:::. .. ......ka...',i•.:. - ..•• . "....4..:.:..::i.... ....,,. ........:.. ... ....,.....,_....,".0,... .z.•,.„.m ...:i.i. ...... .,.....A.. .,.....s.::::::„... • .•:::::::i.::•.ili: ..:i: ..,• •:•:::.:: .-glag,;4004. ?,24,:me.,,z, ••••.,es:,k .1., ... .....,...,...,,,,,,..,.... . . 4,0., .........:::: :,:,.:,. ..... ....,::. ..::::,,,,".. .,.........,,,,...-:: .',?::'4';. ft".•• ••.' , :::i:' ...."...:%••:.• ....-.f1::. . . 4aw -::::..*:•:::::.:::i ....ii:::: . - ................................................. 4. .. ....':;:gi0":ft:•::.••• lir ' '- -::ii::i•::•::::..: z-,.. '':!.> ---......'. N 0 .....x,fil,A •••••••:•:.:,•••••••,-,•".....'.....st,:••`:::.•':::ti'.:: .:.:.:4 : s...::*;-.:..i....::::..c.:::x....... ,,.. ... .....:*::,. ...„.z.,,.i --•:*i*:::,:k"....:;:-....................................................... • ......,... -... . Asfse• . ,...1.;. . --,:,:ez:;z:-..::a:?;MM•0•44:Q4*.‘i,--:.,3... i•Y. ., .... .......,....i.. . ,:.mMi::: ::.;:ii:;..,:.04-, •••.. .,.....; .......::::: ......tzt:...o.a...t..:...;: „. ,tsi.7.7 .:::::::•:„.t.. ...;,...........,..„...?...:.I k}. ...: ; s. ..t•F.:M41k4.Zit:•::. '':: ' .."• . s .• :. ••••:.%,... .. . 4.4 .................,..,:,::: ...%, :41g:14kt ' ...:.-4 •....------. - :::::'• •..,.,..,....4.„..,:.......,„...S,,s. ,„.:...,i •••::::::::::::::::::::::';5'f.::::.:s'is.T.•....-:: ''... ..„ -• .,:•...„.11,,,:::.1.•:... ........I ....1,1:::: •••.......:.......4,::::.,..,:.:.::,:*.AK. : .;•.;:::::,......;,,,, - :: *, '• ..... •,, . ,? odgt4 '''''>.•:. : ... ' .„.14#1.,. .s.:!•,.,1 : . , ..:.• ... . .01604 .. s,;...i. •• 1:::i:if::: .'' . '..••'.. ..••• . : ...:.: ..t.s..."7.: ••• , :::]*.:••• .:•''''',..'"` .:, •:'• .::::. Thi;i::.?:•.• :'-•3•••`'. . :: ''."..4$ .... 1.1*,..:•::•, 2:.•.' .i:::':i''.. ':We ::•1:,:iii:::::....::: . ••. • :::',..ft.::i. l•‘''.`,s''''',..i:ni.::.' , 77- . :* ..:p ""'": .. ... • -• ...::.4...;: i.'.M.::*0. .:: . ''' ' ..-.::::i:::.. ?•:`: '.-., •...>- ' . .- .,,,,,,::. --.......... Isi,.::::,...,.:::::., • .... ' - --......,:, . ... .. ..:; r • - - • •• .• - ' ' -•" :.:.'..:...: .:::i::::i:.:.:.:,.::.*::::::::::,...:.:,.. •:::: ..i:AkIg; N•ia0:Ng.ial •-:.:•.: '•:.- . . ---'#.6.-:::''V'i•All'iftimeiv:.-..:::.:..::ii;,;:. ..:.i..••:.iii.::411..e\::::.i.iiiiti1,:z . "..':**.r...•;;:.:::•.... ...........:.i.:....::::::i:11.1::::.4.::.:::,.i.::i.:.]:.::.::...:..s.:.:::,?:iiimiiii,isiiissiiiiti..:.ii:iz.:::..,,li::1..:.:. .4:i::k,.,.:::t::,•::::::•:.:,. :,n':', •\v":':‘ ':•.:''''•::.f::.::ii:fff':....:...i:::::iii:.:.i:.i.i::: ii:i:iiii:ii:iii:ii.:::::::Kri,i:::.i:iii:::,."..:...:;:i,.i.. •:•.: .:::*:.::::•"::: Ts„ g' 4 :VM.VZ,R ..:;:i::;.....::::KM::;:f.::**,;:;';',i,:: :::::i:,...",•'::::i:-:,::.:ff,:n.,:::::5;i:,4,..::..,,.... . ••••':".::*::::::::.:i•::W'''',:t.;•:;:•,:::a:;''''.:0.•‘•Kiii".it . •.,.:.::,,..j 1:ii.iif.s,i.:i:::.:;:::::::,;i:.'i:•'..:: ... ...., . - a:•:••,,,,,, •.• •,,w: •:tt• •••:::'ZN:41 :.!.:.:4",::y: :4;i:,,K.:0:,.:m::::::iii•::-.1.-.,. ••••::..„••• ::iii:::WW•k•An.g*.4•6;::.,:ft:icK,0:?,..1 -. .:.::.,;= ..:.,.::::•,;....,•,.:.•,•:..,.i.,::•........ -•..:..::...., .......:.... : ''''''s•'''4' 't.• :::::::F:i::•;tii:?,',..**04....4:]..:'4. -.ii:Anal40:44%iwoe•.: ::•-f.-...!: . „...%..., t;'::::.:•::•:.:::•:::••..•:..:.•. .:..... : ligkt• .. • - -'.',...';',,,:4:s -..f.':.:::::::::-,..-•ti•-•••••••:.•-. IN) .Akly i•:.>.. X:*::?.`7,„,,,ir; •:••',.: .:••inkoi:.::::M: Cl) ,:•::::::cm.:.....:.:,,,,,,.. ,:::::•••:.:4..,,,,,,,,.... • :f4§.#:.::;;:i.:i.:E;.:;:;:. ...:..::. ,.....w. ::.::::e.404x11.A....:.. ,. • . „..... .:.. MA:::':::iiiii:ii.%i:]§if ,<•:...::;:. .. ... ,....%,.....it,.,,..::N::::::::: :..•,.•"...'"' •....);,•- CA : .1:4:...::*::!::,;iliK..tak••.. .,4' ..;: . ,...y .......... . . . ,i, 0 .:• •;:n::::: ::K: '% `. 1:: _.,....-;,• .....:,.,•„:„. 3.,::.• -; - •-,.. . • %.f...: ;;•-,:::;,.iNii§0.•: . . Zi;i]igai$g‘, • ' ...:::::nig4:•••-•,t... ....ANA:.•;:mi:4‘.NI • •::agaNk.:s&,.::‹tt•;:1:;e:Mig:0,i „? .:,.R.1,tig".;:' - •-..•-•• 1 rill .:1:11111Pif:'4:;.•,..14: :::::1‘ :‘,\, *: ••••:,2;E:::::::7,:r.r.,••••• 7::3:':••'::-:.::... .:. •:::::.:K:s.:::§::a•-;.ft\s,v • • \ \ X'...:....-.=-,-/;Tiftb:::t...,..,....:..: "41111) (4_1( : ::•. :•.m]_.,.::,,E.:::,...„„.„. .s.-..:„ i:„. \\ ,...,.,A. ,..,,,s.„....,....,::••:•:,?•.4/„..".- ......,,,,,,„.:: .. t%%%%%% ..:-•:.::::.:.:Bimgii...:;••:*:ii:i:i..ir....:... ..:•;;;-\\ ,,,,,\,,,i.c-,..;,....:15...i -....,..i.::::::.:::„::::„:•••• • :;....z:.: ...„:.„, .:4::,•,:iiim.t:war.i.::::::i:.•,,,.„. \ , .\•:4„,,,\.7...,:••<‘. ::-••-•:.••••.. •.........,..,....... .. .. ....,. • 0 IF.F4,6'••!;::igiiii]i:giiii!ir\ .\\,' \ \\,4.-7.767,:•••`•••••• k,V.z.•:::..-...':• '.. .:„ ::-:-•eir... ....:.......,.....-::::.:.:::.. k \' ,.%,`k\. .%„....P.• ..*w' . ..,,„‘„„ ,'":::....: .. ''.::1:,:i. • ,..;%?...:,.. *. ;'.•.4 ..,:.:.:.:.:....;..::.,e ,t...4:: t.'2f=4-i;•;:i .•-... :W• .....•..lr''','• .., -.• ....i::::ii:N.-i.'::•:::g,Utt„;•.......w......'k-\\Nk...... ,,x ...sk.\,%,,,n,.A.',.‹..,4•,.,,,t,•,,,,,:4-„..ft.:„ ::....-',.... ... .4: , .-, .. ':,•-<•....,1.•.,k-:<&,,:-.. s--v.--.kmk)zk'-ka.,••S'40:• .& \ , '.:.,.F.A..i:,:•:->::,..--,.,..:..:•:.•:,,.„•:...?... ..::...x,..• .• ,,.,. •::M %::• 11/4•Ws\\N"N,'' Xs441.1,\1144, AL''',"..s..w,...? ".M::; .. :':::'.: ,- k;:.:i.•::*:- C\11 . ..;•,"505.:-..:gks . „NUi,„.,':•:: :•:::.':,: 4,0MK. --4:4/..:2,:.:.A. `\'\ \'‘'''''...... ••• ."''''''''1: ''W:::?.:: .... 'i..M.si:,.... , '.4.,•:::..4 f:':is: CI C71 Sair \\\,\%\..11.71,141#1111:44,!:.:431.' I & >. :.k ....4 (11111) :1.:,:.:+9,:,:.....%, \ %,\\''s•-•-...'",.''''V • ••s". . "")'"• -— ••• " ' .‘ \ " \ \ :i Xj.}:§i: • :,A.,k: •• ft,•-;:..-::.:::::]:i.: . ,.:?,..z,Nz.., ...,•,:,414: ..::::::::::•*i;:x.::: .:x ...\.. ' .....:.::..'W • '', ..,•?,,,i:A:...:'•Mr .iin:::i:..,t A.......Ik:4-':`:::`,`.... .•• '''''''''''''"*:k i,..*::::::::::.:::•:::-:i.i.:A.i.,' p4aSigat.MaittAM‘\ . `K\.•.:.1411:1: ;CSI....'......i-.:::',,,.. :.i:.::; .:::•,:!.;..:Ngs ;:.::. ...,,...„.. :mismt.Emttogni:ogf.\. :]:., 4 ',8p.v.. .. .o;:.:..:1 f ..'...1:§‘I.m. ,,',„ -:-.:.•-• .:iilaBiliP,Iingt:ft‘\'•\VISINVMElittii V.....i.'-.:: - .0•M:'.• .„,:.,.....„:„......:., .„,.,,,. ., ..„\,...„.:„..,„,:::.• ,. . 44'.1. .. `'.%\T40. .-::;e::3N;.*&s::':;::: ::::.... .:.:. '' . \V• :%... .,..:ii,:••txt.kx ,.:1;c:r.w,s4t: . . A\ "4".1.P:s -::: :L:g.,..W:::\'X'.0M.:]*.\ \\ ,..\ ,:' ',.;.UAAr'ess.zi„,... .k.:.:',;, - ..-, :4*. • -•,,, .,,,... . '...i:::i*M;;;T:::;..3.:Ngi'';.;.•:•‘i..i.,•\., s . :2':::.:::'''s.sz,...Z.MIRta4s..- '-.i.' .if::. \s;.;.• ...:.•..-,.: 3Ellk:-'k 40 S,,i...,..';:Li...Dul:.k.'.'.),..,..`'s. .411144114\.\‘‘\ \,• weltsikaystsiL,:, i ... k.:•••••. ................ .•.......................... .., .....„„ ...,....,„., ,..,.................... .... ., . .. . i 'FK• .. •rT!i h S: . i a 4 tfr r \ JE Y. • w �., [r/w, :^ ..mow 4k..F.•;:‘,11(..... «;�y • :::.::..... . • ........... t• %c�;:k ,MMt::44 ::1::14 • li.i.i':i:1::1:.1::iii:::..:i.E::i:;:ii]::W;;M•.'":iiik :. ' ' .....• K°"` .. k. f c ff tt fi'GR^:•:it tt't�Ek . • t t. i .f Fv••:Y ..+t-� ...4fi. riSS••S`•} �. 'tv 4. p:..;:i:i*:::.::.:. f • {� F.�.b ::t-..:..:::� .i1xT? .#i.{;26• .:/•f}ri.,. h'•:!;r•,ice:}}, '•t f:•.wa: 7�r:}k:i'iii$}}}:.iYYi'kiv.,YY:-i . ••.,'$.....n}:iY"'+ KYi$:L:}�,+•;'v:(( ::•.,+.,v,X{;.'4�:�+•iis•:y rrr$. tiiil�.:t::i{:}rY.nV(tiit{u ui::t{{.:•ie• +•K' f�n{.:.f iY'va�}}Y x:.i i::k:::y:y:*Rii:+i:i 4f i}:i:�+}}.'t r?::,'•:f.+ {f$E•.r O ii'iiiiir.{ti.j �.iltiv((k:...; £.......: f��i'f•,}:r•• .f. 1,1 ..++ji•,• :A"•Y:. .:E:::.`; :::::: `}}?i CS•,titik :;:.;.;}+:k } ?. ,;;y'-.X,+\y+b "•':f•ik^iii:;: ............... -:::::::::.�.:,,.`{?y ;�:,et• .fad+f '•• � .y.#�� N i-c) .11111111-3:4:..,,.. .,,, ,.-- .: iiitigg •.vy'J.:Y}Y.-:.:y .. r t 5 t � fig<; C is • r^ ro w Z i t»`:tT{S.t -:::,...•..,1,... �+� w.ems. ?:*.....:•:'''';-•:e•? t }., K } '°"�r� P.. `T.�BX 4c'�S, O �ew • '.'..W...:::**,�{1'4.'� :v-4'$•.�i�'•X•Y:.t.:.tt{:. '.::*.:::::;;'1,.. f V•4:,t,4-;" . qr 1, .. ff-1:70:4 Y wti r.: • f .-f>.;:"...".1(4: 1":;•....71' ltv I' a * ,fit•` '�' r •-,-....:-,-,r M� •a`� "5•47•:.,4' H a � }{f n3 y aC fC ' i% :' A S A h { P i' '4,k_,.,:47,.. ."- xi ` *..,44,..-_,;.. c .:::::ii!::::? ....:,::::::::...i.:• ......1...„..,...„-,...,,,„.,,.« 3► ;.44,4` � .,,, �M. . :- •K — w•• 4 ` �'... 0.71' A:..,.r..- "'— ' +Cr��.a` `�, ....:..:::,,,1:.?.. . .. :a1B.ca:. y-i::i::::::.:nR:}i`*:.*,:i.:„..„:„;:::.„.:::-:.K }'r}ii}i:�.. i:.- f/F :... k•a q W >p Z i n: �Ow W 3 � G.WY�•:i:.<:- �\�\. +t:f aiki<S.Y`' �k •y)s't�} r.•. �. ♦ J♦ �♦ ♦� \\� \' ♦ \\� ♦} ♦♦ t\\'h bei x; sy: w# 5; ♦ <}'moi',„.,...}i- j<� ##i'i##t'., .- �\VJ)\ •�. xi<} ; J ♦ •\\��\ \< :.}.. ..:mss '.�'r'.C:v`,::::+rte�J::{{,C'.};.� 6{�f 1�`.}}Y+xv� ry}p . C 0 iM::iiiii::':ir..': ..?.:\• •::'.$.Nii: -.'iff 4' 1 `...',,-* 1, "x— .... { _ c ?wR qt A v . ,4 ue wf • y � % ..e#..t ` ►*f h }, \ v ,fix :, qJ R .�C� fl .44.1F;.:. .7'..M...:.*:',.'-f-'' -.,.- TT ;[ ?:;:4 .y: is 'til".. ', ; J i • 3x • S •� P .f :4':.',*.i.' t • C. Public Hearing re:Appeal of Denial of Variance 00-3 220 Seventh Street Planning Commission Resolution 00-14 City Council Staff Report August 14,2000 ATTACHMENT H PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2000 26 VAR 00-3-CC Appeal Staff Report `4e& .-.g Minutes of May 17, 20X 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 - 3 5. Variance 00-3 4 220 — 7tn Street 5 6 Applicant/Owner: Meg Littlefield, Michael and Deborah Harding 7 Request: To add approximately 237 square feet to a legal, non- 8 conforming residence. The applicant is requesting to add 9 to a building on a property that has three units and two off- 10 street parking spaces. A Variance is also requested to 11 allow the addition to follow an existing 3-foot, non- 12 conforming side yard setback on the south property line. 13 14 Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions, and adoption 15 of Resolution No. 00-14. 16 17 Staff Report 18 19 Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in 20 the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item 21 , and stated that the house was non-conforming due to side yard setbacks and the 22 1 property itself was non-conforming because there are three units on the property. 23 .1 which is zoned for only one unit. He stated that due to the age of the current 24development, the construction standards are not in compliance with City Code He 25 / noted that because this application does not conform to the criteria for a Minor Plan 26 Review, application for a Variance was submitted. He explained that the applicant is 27 requesting that the new construction be located within the existing non-conforming 28 side yard setback along the southerly side of the structure. He described the 29 locations of the three units on the property and noted that there were only two 30 parking spaced provided with no space available to add a third parking space. He 31 explained that Section 28-502 of the City Code states that in order for a variance to 32 �f be granted the following must apply: 33 34 ❑ The variance will not adversely affect the General Plan 35 36 ❑ Special circumstances applicable to the property somehow deprive the 37 property owner from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property 38 owners within the same vicinity and zone 39 40 ❑ The granting of such variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges 41 42 Mr. Whittenberg explained that there would be physically challenged individuals 43 residing in the home and under the Fair Housing Act there are accommodations that 44 will be required under federal law. He stated that Staff was seeking approval based 45 upon these requirements. He stated that the aim in approving this Variance was to 46 prevent discrimination against physically challenged individuals, and he referred the 47 •mmissioners to the section of the Staff Report containing descriptions of federal 12 City .eat Bead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 1 court decisions regarding "reasonable accommodation." He stated that the request 2 is in conformance with the Fair Housing Act and also noted the following: 3 4 0 the future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling 5 that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. 6 Q the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative or 7 financial costs on the City, and 8 0 the accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the 9 fundamental purpose of the City's land use controls. 10 11 He presented photographs of the property and described the proposed construction. 12 He stated that Staff recommends approval of Variance 00-3 based on the following. 13 14 • Additional living space is requested within the existing single-story structure 15 for the accommodation of a family with a member that is physically 16 handicapped. 17 • Approval of the request would not constitute a special privilege to the property 18 owner, but would constitute "reasonable modification" and "reasonable 19 accommodation" in accordance with the applicable requirements of the 20 Federal Fair Housing Act. 21 • There are special circumstances applicable to the property, in compliance 22 with the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which if approved, would 23 not deprive the applicant of privileges that are available to other property '4 owners in the same vicinity and zone. 25 • The future residents face burdens in using or occupying the subject dwelling 26 that are not faced by non-handicapped individuals. 27 • The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not impose administrative 28 or financial costs on the City. 29 • The accommodation for the applicant's facility will not undermine the 30 fundamental purpose of the City's land use controls. 31 32 He also noted the following: 33 34 1. The request for this Variance is consistent with the General Plan. 35 2. There are special or unique characteristics to this property that are not seen 36 elsewhere in the city. 37 3. There would be no special privilege. 38 39 Commissioner Questions 40 41 Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on building into the side yard setback. 42 Mr. Whittenberg responded that the variance was approximately 9 inches along the 43 9-foot length of the bedroom. Commissioner Brown asked if a handicapped 44 accessible bathroom was to be added. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a 45 handicapped accessible bathroom was to be added that would comply and even '6 exceed state requirements. Commissioner Brown asked if approval or denial of this 13 Crt 'Seal Beach r -;ng Commission ' Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 1 Variance would affect the construction of the bathroom. Mr. Whittenberg responded 2 that it would not. Commissioner Brown stated that in seven years serving on the 3 Planning Commission he had never seen Staff take this position. He asked what the 4 benefit would be in the living situation for a handicapped person as opposed to 5 someone who is not handicapped. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was 6 recommending approval based on the court case Trovafo v. City of Manchester cited 7 in the Staff Report. Commissioner Brown stated that the court case Staff referred to 8 clearly showed that the situation would benefit the applicant. He stated that he still 9 had not heard anything that addresses how these changes would benefit the 10 applicant. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the larger bedroom would allow the 11 family member to move about more easily. Commissioner Brown noted that the 12 physically challenged family member would only occupy the house on weekends. 13 He asked what the Fair Housing Act had to say about occupants being permanent or 14 temporary. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the family member would be moving in 15 permanently after approximately a 2 or 3-year period. 16 17 Mr. Boga interjected that the law does require that cities make reasonable 18 accommodation. He said that in this case the Variance would still apply if the 19 property were sold. He noted that many cities make reasonable accommodation on 20 a case by case basis, but it would be more appropriate to establish standards for 21 granting reasonable accommodation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff believes the 22 application meets the criteria for reasonable accommodation and that the 23 Commission should respond in as positive a manner as possible. He stated that 24 after the Planning Commission takes action on this request, the matter could then be 25 ' forwarded to City Council for proposal of standards of what will or will not be 26\\ accepted in the future. 27 28 \ Commissioner Cutuli asked if it was necessary to be legally disabled, and if so, is 29 the applicant, in this case, legally disabled. Mr. Whittenberg reported that it is not 30 necessary to make this declaration in order to apply for a handicapped placard, but 31 there are other physical disabilities that are covered under the Fair Housing Act. He 32 noted that there is a difference between being physically handicapped and physically 33 disabled. Commissioner Brown stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed 34 at least 20 similar applications, and all of them had been denied. He asked if what 35 was being proposed was that due to the handicap access, the applicants do not 36 want to comply with any setback requirements. Mr. Whittenberg responded that 37 Staff was suggesting that the City Council define what the policy for "reasonable 38 access " for future applications would be. Commissioner Brown stated that this is 39 not a question of whether it is "reasonable," but he wants to know what the positive 40 benefit to the handicapped person would be. 41 42 Public Hearing 43 44 Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. 45 �-- I 14 City.. mea/Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2000 1 rMs. Meg Littlefield. daughter of the handicapped family member, stated that her 2 mother currently uses a walker as she suffers from severe arthritis and has recently 3 been diagnosed with cancer. She reported that she and her family have been 4 residents of Seal Beach for 35 years. She stated that one of the bedrooms currently 5 measures 5 x 5 feet and both the bedroom and the bathroom are too small for her 6 mother to be able to easily maneuver around with her walker and later a wheelchair. 7 She stated that the new construction would not encroach onto anyone's property nor 8 would it obstruct anyone's view. 9 10 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he opposes Variance 00-3. He said that he is a 11 champion of rights of the handicapped, but a walker does not require an additional 12 237 square feet encroaching into side yard setbacks. He stated that this was simply 13 an excuse to add more square footage to the house. He noted that he has a fully 14 equipped handicapped bathroom in his home and no additional footage was 15 required to modify the bathroom to make it handicapped accessible, Mr. Clewley 16 I stated that there were no more side yard setbacks in this city. He said that approval 17 of Variance 00-3 will adversely affect the General Plan and constitutes special 18 privilege. He also stated that the variance had not been property noticed. He 19 recommends denial of Variance 00-3. 20 21 Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. 22 23 Commissioner Comments 4 c5 Commissioner Brown stated that by allowing the Variance within the setback, he 26 does not see how this will improve handicapped access in that part of the house 27' Mr. Whittenberg responded that if the Planning Commission is not comfortable with 28 the plans, it may approve the addition without approving the variance on the side 29 yard setback. Commissioner Brown asked if in order to meet the requirements for 30 reasonable accommodation, does the Planning Commission need to approve the 31 Variance. Mr. Whittenberg referred the Commission to Page 7 of the Staff Report to 32 review the suggested findings related to reasonable accommodation. He noted that 33 this application was different from a standard Variance as the requirements of the 34 Fair Housing Act do impinge upon the standard requirements for a Variance. 35 Commissioner Brown asked if the City had ever granted a variance based on this 36 type of situation. Mr. Whittenberg responded that during his time with the City he 37 could not recall where a request of this type had been granted. He stated that this 38 could have the potential for a discrimination case if this type of variance is denied. 39 Commissioner Brown stated that he had no problem in denying a side yard setback 40 variance, and that the overall expansion is not a problem. He said he is simply 41 concerned about opening the City up to future problems. Mr. Whittenberg stated 42 that this was why Staff was suggesting that a recommendation be made to City 43 Council to come up with standard criteria to help address this issue as it arises. He 44 also noted for the record that the Variance had been properly noticed and referred to 45 the Proof of Service document found in the case file. .6 15 Ce, Sear Bei _Jte< o`May 17 2:,J' • 1 Commissioner Brown stated that he would not vote for a Variance on the side yard 2 setback He also noted that these issues should not be dealt with on a case-by-case 3 basis. but should be looked at on a citywide basis He recommended that this item 4 be continued for further study. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the item could be 5 continued to a future meeting but that Staff does feel that the accommodation 6 request is a reasonable one 7 8 Chairperson Hood stated that he would reopen the public hearing as he noted that a 9 member of the public was wishing to speak. 10 11 Public Hearing 12 13 Ms. Deborah Harding. mother of Meg Littlefield. stated that all she and her husband 14 want to do is to live in this town again, near their children and grandchildren. She 15 stated that they and their children had spent a lot of money on the property and she 16 and her husband cannot live in a two-story house. She stated that they just want the 17 cottage in the back to be made a little larger to accommodate their needs Ms 18 Harding noted that they are not asking the City to spend any money and that the 19 neighbors are aware of this proposal and have no objections to the project 20 21 Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing 22 23 Co—r- ss.oner Comments 24 25 Commissioner Cutuli stated that the City should be concerned with people who are 2- handicapped. but part of the project plan does not address the handicapped issue 2 He stated that this issue needs to be discussed further. and standards must be 28 created to dea! with future applications of this kind. He said that he would like to 29 continue this item and have Staff gather more information regarding how to address 30 variances for the handicapped. and provide related data from the American 31 Disabilities Act to see how it applies to this situation Mr. Whittenberg reported that 32 Staff does have some examples of reasonable accommodation ordinances from 33 other cities but not many cities have established ordinances on this issue He 34 stated that Staff could return with more information on what is being done in other 35 cities. 36 37 Chairperson Hood stated that people are afraid that if this variance were passed it 38 would open the door to other applications perhaps with not good reasons claiming 39 the same extenuating circumstances. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in looking at the 40 materials from the City of Long Beach. it appears that there are a number of certain 41 types of accommodations that can be done administratively without having to come 42 before the Planning Commission. He noted that for other types of requests they 43 might have to be presented before their Zoning Board of Adjustment He stated that 44 the City might attempt to do something similar to the Minor Plan Review process 45 without the need for a public hearing He confirmed that this item could be 46 continued and he suggested that the Commission adjourn to a meeting on June 14. 16 ti City r`Seal Bea. ' ng Commss,or. Aeeting M . of May 17. 2000 1 2000 to review more information. Commissioner Brown requested that the City Attorney draft a position paper on "reasonable accommodation" to be provided to the 3 Commission to help in making their determination. Chairperson Hood stated that the 4 Planning Commission had no objection to making reasonable accommodation 5 available for individuals with physical limitations, but the Commission would like to 6 make sure that the City is consistent with how this policy is applied. He said that in 7 the long run this would make for a better policy. 8 9 Mr. Whittenberg reported that the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting 10 was on June 7, 2000. He stated that he would be out of town the week of June 7 11 and he would like to be present to address some of the issues to be discussed. He 12 recommended that the Planning Commission adjourn to a meeting for June 14, 13 2000. He stated that no additional public notice of this hearing would be provided. 14 15 MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue Variance 00-3 to the adjourned 16 meeting of June 14, 2000. 17 18 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 19 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Lyon 20 NOES: None 21 ` ABSENT: None 22 23 44 6. Conditional Use Permit 00-2 770 Pacific Coast Highway 26 27 Applicant/Owner: Tom Lao, TI Planning 28 Request: To permit a drive-through coffeehouse where a drive-in 29 restaurant currently resides. 30 31 Recommendation: Recommend approval, subject to conditions and as further 32 revised by the Planning Commission after considering 33 public testimony. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-18. 34 35 Staff Report 36 37 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 38 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 39 stated that the drive-through coffeehouse was being proposed for the current 40 location of the Burger King fast food restaurant at the corner of 8th Street and Pacific 41 Coast Highway. He presented photographs of the proposed location and provided a 42 description of the property. He stated that the property measures over 12,000 43 square feet and the proposed hours of operation were from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., 44 which are the current operating hours for Burger King. He described the 45 surrounding land uses as follows: 46 SOUTH: Residential housing in Residential High Density (RHD) Zone 17